YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Анна Виленская: музыковед или инфлюенсер с чисто развлекательным контентом? Разбор дебатов.

Анна Виленская: музыковед или инфлюенсер с чисто развлекательным контентом? Разбор дебатов. — Transcript

by Психология на интересном с Ольгой Райнхолдт · 11,104 words · 1,791 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00My name is Olga Reinhold. I'm a
0:01psychologist. And today we're going to
0:04talk about the scandal surrounding Anna
0:05Velenskaya.
0:07So, I didn't just come here to share my
0:09position, because I've already
0:11expressed it in many places and
0:12appeared on other broadcasts, but
0:14rather to find out what all this is for
0:16. What's the purpose, what's going on,
0:19what does the professional community
0:21want from me? Excuse me,
0:23why is all this necessary? Let's just
0:26say I expressed my opinion about Anna
0:29Velenskaya, as they say, before it
0:33became mainstream. A long time ago on
0:36Facebook—you can see a QR code here
0:39somewhere and a link to this post in
0:41the comments—I wrote about something
0:43I'm constantly asked to watch, advised,
0:46and recommended. Ah, but I watched it,
0:50and I got the impression that, firstly,
0:55we're looking at a completely
0:57artificially created influencer whose
0:59job it is to entertain, gather an
1:01audience, and become an authority—not
1:04necessarily in their own musical field,
1:06but an authority in general, some kind
1:09of moral and ethical tuning fork—so
1:11that they can then, from that position,
1:14broadcast completely non-musical ideas
1:17and deliver them to the public. And I
1:20think that Kanya Velenskaya's love for
1:23all sorts of political channels, in
1:25particular, confirms this. And secondly
1:28, it's completely personal. I'm not
1:32really into that aesthetic. Good night,
1:35kids. If I compare even all that
1:39nonsense that always bothered experts
1:41about how there's early music and the
1:43soundtrack from the anime Death Note,
1:46which is also based on early music, I'm
1:48not saying this without reason; that's
1:50just it, Dad. That's the connection.
1:53Can you imagine, guys, were you
1:54impressed?
1:55Of course you were. Of course you were.
1:57Of course, yes. I specifically stated
2:01my position and my attitude here right
2:03away, so that, having said them, I
2:06could put them aside, because this
2:08video is not about my attitude toward
2:11Anna Velenskaya. It was quite
2:15short-lived. I don't know her as a
2:19person, and frankly, I'm not interested
2:21in her as a person. I'm not interested
2:25in any unnecessary negativity in my
2:28life, let's put it that way. That's it.
2:32But since I wrote about this, someone
2:34suggested I take a closer look at the
2:36current scandal surrounding her course.
2:40And when I looked more closely, I found
2:43this very interesting debate with the
2:45pianist Evgeny Alexeyev. And it seemed
2:48to me that the topic that emerged
2:51behind this whole scandal is truly
2:53worthy of attention, worthy of
2:55discussion. And this topic is precisely
2:58one that is professionally close to me.
3:00And it is one of my, um, well, let's
3:03say, one of the parts of my
3:05professional life. I want to say right
3:09away that I have nothing to do with
3:11music. Well, okay, I have some, but
3:18it's not at all music-related or
3:20academic. And I won't comment directly
3:23on musical matters here. Musical
3:25matters are well commented on by people
3:28who actually understand them. And I'm a
3:31psychologist with a PhD. I respect the
3:37humanities. I study the humanities.
3:42When I work with clients, I don't rely
3:45solely on my experience or what I, uh,
3:48have been taught. I rely on scientific
3:52knowledge, scientific research, the
3:54scientific method, and scientific
3:56thinking, in particular. Moreover, well
3:59, I guess in a sense I'm also engaged
4:02in some kind of popularization activity
4:04. At least some of my videos are
4:08genuinely intentional popularization of
4:11science and, uh, well, drawing
4:13attention to specific scientific works
4:16and psychologists that the general
4:18public may not know about. And that's a
4:22shame. That is, this scientific issue
4:25is very pressing, because there's a lot
4:28of content about it right now. Moreover
4:33, a great deal of this popular science
4:36content is used for marketing,
4:38propaganda, and political strategy.
4:42It's used to influence the minds of
4:44people who are accustomed to the idea
4:46that a scientist can't lie. If a
4:48scientist says something, they should
4:50be believed. This halo effect of the
4:53scientist, which is created in
4:55no-science pop, lends credibility to
4:57the speaker. And I think that because
5:01of all this, it's truly time to take a
5:03closer look at what truly constitutes
5:06the popularization of science and what
5:09is valuable and important in this sense
5:11. And modern technology really does
5:15make it possible to do this and listen
5:17to it. But what grows out of this soil?
5:21What weeds have grown in this soil,
5:23those who call themselves popularizers
5:25of science, but in fact are absolutely
5:27not? And I'm not saying here that Anna
5:31Velenskaya is a complete weed. No, I
5:35think this whole scandal is a good
5:39opportunity to draw attention to this
5:43issue. And that's why this video is
5:48being made today. And it seems to me
5:52that it was precisely during these
5:54debates that Evgeny Alekseev understood
5:57this issue well, and Anna Velenskaya
5:59said, "We have enough to discuss
6:01without delving into matters, again,
6:03musical ones, which I won't touch on.
6:07Today, we'll be discussing scientific
6:09issues. We'll talk about what's called
6:12bullying and what's not." Because
6:15Anna's main defense is, well, sort of,
6:18creating a position of moral and
6:20ethical superiority as the victim of
6:22bullying against me. Accordingly, well,
6:26and, consequently, we can simply write
6:29off all the justified criticism
6:31directed at me. We'll also pay
6:33attention to this dichotomy being
6:35created. Should it be right or should
6:38it be interesting? Because in the
6:40debates surrounding Anna Velenskaya,
6:43this dichotomy has directly arisen.
6:45Either right or interesting. We'll talk
6:47about this. And we'll also talk, in
6:50fact, about the popularization of
6:52science and what distinguishes it from
6:54profanation and simple populism.
6:57If you don't feed me bread, let me
6:59explain something.
7:00And we'll be discussing this without
7:02any preferences on my part. Although,
7:05of course, I'll be offering my comments
7:07as well. We'll be discussing this based
7:12on the Rotlledge Handbook of Public
7:16Communication of Science and Technology
7:19. Editors and compilers: Masimeliana
7:24Buchi and Brian Trench. I thought this
7:26handbook was very relevant to our topic
7:29, so we'll be drawing on it. We'll also
7:32be using some scientific literature in
7:35our discussions of bullying and the
7:37scientist's perspective.
7:39We've already conducted this experiment
7:41twice, and it's failed both times. Do
7:42you know why? Do you think it's because
7:44we're clumsy? No, it's just a crap
7:46experiment.
7:47Well, let's first let both sides
7:50express and formulate their positions
7:54on this very issue. Let me say right
7:58away that I'm not a musicologist by any
7:59stretch of the imagination, neither
8:00good nor bad; I'm a professional
8:01pianist. But today I'd like to speak,
8:04perhaps not even from the perspective
8:06of a musician, but rather from the
8:08perspective of Anna's potential
8:09listener—that is, someone who is
8:11generally interested in popular
8:13scientific information. It doesn't
8:15matter in what field, more likely in a
8:17field I don't understand, perhaps in
8:18some natural sciences and so on. And
8:21what I think is most important is that
8:22a large number of people, hundreds of
8:24thousands of people across the country
8:26and abroad, have learned about this.
8:28The main discovery is that musicology
8:30is, after all, a science, right? It's
8:33not just some kind of pastime, so to
8:36speak, and not just, uh, a way of
8:38communicating with sources, with
8:40materials, and so on. No, it's a
8:43full-fledged science—a humanities
8:46science. If, of course, we perceive the
8:47humanities as sciences, because there's
8:49an opinion that any humanities aren't
8:50sciences, right? But if it is a science
8:53, then it's a science just like
8:54philology, political science, and so on
8:56. And science has its own specific
8:58rules.
8:59I deliberately provided such a long,
9:02complete excerpt because Alexey has a
9:05complete thought here, and I'll
9:07summarize it. Musicology is a science.
9:14To call yourself a musicologist means
9:17assuming not only your own area of
9:20interest, the topic of your
9:22presentations, but also a certain
9:25position within the discipline. Why is
9:29this important? Because look, when a
9:33person claims to be an endocrinologist
9:36and talks about the effects of hormones
9:39, and when a person says, "I'm just
9:41curious, I had some problems of my own,
9:44I dug up something, studied something.
9:48And now I'm telling you about the
9:50effects of hormones," which of these
9:52people are you more likely to listen to
9:54? Probably the one who said he's an
9:57endocrinologist. Naturally, some people
10:00will listen to both of them and won't
10:03fall for this cognitive distortion
10:05called adhominem, and will still listen
10:07to what both the endocrinologist and
10:09the person who isn't one say, yes, and
10:12can evaluate the quality of the
10:14information. But to do this, you need
10:17to have direct information, you need to
10:20have some basic concepts, you need to
10:22be able to distinguish between quality
10:25information, the scientific thinking
10:27behind this information, how we arrived
10:30at this information, the truth of this
10:32information. A person must be able to
10:34determine the truth. And this is the
10:36main task. science, to determine truth.
10:40And Evgeny very well emphasized here
10:42that the humanities are far from always
10:44perceived as sciences at all, because
10:47there are also natural sciences, and
10:49some people consider only natural
10:51sciences to be science. And this is the
10:54main criticism of those who consider
10:56psychological psychology not a science.
10:58People simply do not understand that
11:00there are natural sciences. And
11:02psychology, by the way, now stands at
11:04the intersection of the natural and
11:06human sciences. Interdisciplinary
11:09activity, and we also take from the
11:12natural sciences. But psychology, at
11:15its core, is not a natural science. It
11:17is a humanities science. Just like
11:21musicology, just like history. History,
11:29just like anthropology, just like
11:32jurisprudence. These are all humanities
11:37. And if we measure so much by the
11:39qualities of the natural sciences, then
11:41, yes, one could say that the
11:42humanities do not correspond to many
11:44things. But science is a way of knowing
11:48and determining truth. And yes, truth,
11:53its criterion, its obviousness, its
11:55unambiguity in The humanities are very
11:58different from the natural sciences. In
12:01the natural sciences, there is truth,
12:04and it must be found and proven. In the
12:07humanities, things are more complicated
12:10, but this doesn't change the fact that
12:12in the humanities, too, there is a
12:14search for truth, criteria for
12:16determining truth, and methods for
12:18finding truth. And all of this is
12:20included in the concept of science.
12:23No, goodbye. Declaring yourself a
12:27musicologist is the same as claiming to
12:29be an endocrinologist, a psychologist,
12:31or an anthropologist. By doing so, we
12:36assume our involvement in science and
12:39that we use scientific methods to
12:42establish truth. That's the most
12:46important thing. And this is what gives
12:49a person credibility. But this
12:52credibility shouldn't be abused,
12:54because involvement in science doesn't
12:57automatically make you right, doesn't
13:00automatically make you an authority,
13:02and doesn't make everything you say
13:05automatically correct. And involvement
13:09in science, first and foremost, places
13:12on you the responsibility for adhering
13:15to the criteria of thinking, cognition,
13:18discovery, proof, and truth that are
13:21inherent in the scientific field, the
13:23scientific environment. And this is
13:27what Evgeny. Evgeny says that
13:30musicology is a science. Accordingly,
13:33as a science, it has its own criteria
13:36of truth. And this mutual control
13:39between those more experienced and less
13:42experienced, yes, what's called peer
13:44review, in general, a mutual
13:46verification by scholars of the
13:48truthfulness of each other's statements
13:50. This is all part of, well, actually,
13:55doing science. A degree is really not
13:59required, but still, when you've been
14:02engaged in scientific activity long
14:05enough to get that very degree, when
14:08you meet all the requirements of this
14:11environment, then, well, it's not so
14:14easy for you to just up and devalue it.
14:19Firstly, secondly, well, you've really
14:20learned it, you've really learned to
14:22distinguish truth from untruth. Ideally
14:25, of course, there are different things
14:27. Therefore, it's not the possession of
14:28a degree that is important. Although
14:30having a degree can, of course,
14:31contribute. There are certain factors,
14:35but the important thing is to what
14:37extent you truly fulfill the
14:39responsibility that the status of a
14:41scholar imposes on you. Or are you
14:45simply arrogating this to yourself?
14:47status, and the word "musicologist"
14:49still signifies the status of a
14:52scientist. And you use it to build your
14:57own authority and, well, for some kind
15:00of credibility in your words.
15:03By calling herself a musicologist, Anna
15:05clearly understands whether she
15:07considers herself a scientist or not.
15:09Yes, she says, "I don't conduct any
15:12deep scientific research. I agree, you
15:15don't have to do it, but nevertheless,
15:16it is the duty of a scientist, a
15:18musicologist, to simply have a
15:19scientific foundation. Any scientist in
15:22any science should be aware of their
15:24limitations. That is, what they have
15:26the right to say, what they are obliged
15:28to prove. And so it seems to me that in
15:30this area, Anna's work can be called
15:32not just erroneous in some isolated
15:34errors, but simply unscientific or even
15:36anti-scientific. And the fact that she
15:39can give lectures, none of the
15:40musicians have made such claims. But,
15:42in fact,
15:43those who watch my videos have noticed
15:46that I analyze a lot of behavior,
15:49non-verbal language. Yes, and what a
15:51person does. I'll try not to get
15:54distracted by that here, because, well,
15:56that's not what today is about. Today
15:59is not an analysis of the debaters '
16:01behavior, but I still want to emphasize
16:04how Annina knows how to interrupt with
16:06her facial expressions. Here, uh, here
16:09are her such telling facial expressions
16:11, when it seems like she hasn't said a
16:13word, but interrupted. Amazing. And
16:17this is evident throughout the entire
16:18lecture. Absolutely wonderful. And it's
16:21interesting that she's surprised here.
16:24She shows this surprise about the fact
16:27that you position yourself as a
16:29musicologist, and I won't portray what
16:31she portrayed. Well, that is, as if she
16:34is me and I and the mare is not mine.
16:37Well, after all, she is constantly
16:39introduced as a musicologist, she is
16:41known as a musicologist. Without the
16:45person's consent, they probably won't
16:48introduce them as someone else. Well, I
16:52have a master's degree in psychology,
16:55I'm not a PhD. And if someone
16:58introduced me as a PhD in psychology,
17:00and I'm like She kept silent, so what?
17:03It wasn't me who said it, right? That
17:05would have been weird. Well, why didn't
17:07you say it, but you were supposed to
17:10correct it? By the way, any
17:13professional code stipulates that if
17:16you are presented as someone you are
17:18not, if you are attributed with some
17:21regalia you don't have, then it is your
17:23responsibility to correct it. And it is
17:27your responsibility to ensure that the
17:30public sees you in the regalia that you
17:32truly have and deserve. That's why,
17:34well, it seems to me, it is very
17:36insincere to be surprised that she is
17:39announced to the public as a linguist.
17:41But it is unlikely that they don't know
17:43this, even if she is a musicologist.
17:45She said" linguist, "as a musicologist.
17:48And it is unlikely that they don't know
17:50this.
17:50The public comes to your lectures
17:52because you position yourself as a
17:54scholarly musicologist. They want to
17:56learn from you the knowledge that you
17:58possess, which they cannot get from the
18:01internet. That's all. It is unlikely
18:03that they don't know. Maybe she didn't
18:05say that herself. I'm a musicologist.
18:07That is, but what's important here is
18:10her facial expression. It also seems to
18:13suggest and hint that she doesn't see
18:14herself as one, she doesn't declare
18:16herself as one. She doesn't consider
18:19herself a musicologist; she doesn't
18:23consider herself one. And, of course,
18:26reading such a statement simply from
18:27her face is a big stretch, but one can
18:29surmise something. So here I'll change
18:33my, uh, my assumptions before this
18:36video. And so I decided to draw
18:38attention to her facial expression.
18:40That is, returning to the topic of
18:42scientific popularization, it is
18:44assumed that a person still strives to
18:46convey knowledge, true knowledge, which
18:48exists in this science, which they
18:50themselves continue to acquire, relying
18:52on existing knowledge and the
18:54scientific method. And, as he said,
18:58Evgeny is acting here as a consumer of
19:01this information, and not, like, a
19:03music connoisseur, although he may not
19:06have a music education, but he has a
19:09very solid one. Music education. And at
19:13the very least, the salfege that Anna
19:15Velenskaya teaches, and she essentially
19:18teaches the basics of salfege. I
19:22continue to have nothing to do with
19:24music. What did I say there? I can't
19:32discuss it with a serious face.
19:35Basically, Evgeny insists that this is
19:38the popularization of musicology, if
19:40there is musicology there. And if there
19:43isn't, then it should be called
19:45something else, because the name
19:47matters. If you claim that you are a
19:50musicologist and you are giving a music
19:52lecture and that people will leave you
19:55with this relevant knowledge, then you
19:57still need to live up to this claim.
20:00Another important aspect about the
20:01popularization of science is that in
20:03addition to the word" science ", there
20:05is also the word" popularization ".
20:08These are two components of one
20:10activity, one, well, let's say,
20:12phenomenon. And they both should be
20:14there. And so Evgeny addresses this. In
20:18this whole dispute, in this whole
20:20scandal, such a false A dichotomy that
20:23both Anna herself and her defenders
20:25emphasize, and there are, yes, those
20:28who criticize her information. And then
20:31there are those who simply use this to
20:33cast a negative light on someone. There
20:35are plenty of such people, too.
20:37I'm interested in human attitudes, I'm
20:39interested in attitudes toward science
20:40as such, not just toward musicologists,
20:41but toward science in general. Why do
20:43we have such a dichotomy? It should be
20:47some kind of bright show, popular,
20:49understandable, engaging, and it should
20:51be at odds with the truth. Why can't
20:54the truth be told to a wide popular
20:57audience? Because popularity without
20:59truth, without truth, without
21:01responsibility is called populism.
21:03Evgeny emphasized this very important
21:05point here, yes, which, well, I also
21:08spoke about. But I spoke based on the
21:11fact that I had already watched these
21:13debates, and his position seemed very
21:15close to me, precisely as a person from
21:17science, and a person engaged in
21:19science, and a person To a person who,
21:22in a sense, popularizes science,
21:23although I, well, that's definitely not
21:26the main part of my work. And to a
21:29consumer, yes, a consumer of popular
21:31science, of course, too. And as a
21:34consumer of popular science, I also
21:37want, of course, for what I consume to
21:39be scientific, and not just some
21:41artificial halo under which, well,
21:43complete nonsense is presented to me.
21:47Not expanding my knowledge of the world
21:49, not bringing me closer to
21:51understanding some truth about some
21:53subjects, but simply, well, you know,
21:56temporarily distracting me from some of
21:58my daily routine. It's entertainment.
22:00That's it. Ah, Evgeny called this
22:03populism. A rather negative connotation
22:07, although quite correctly, simply
22:09negative. But you can call it
22:13entertainment, you can call it a show,
22:15uh, you can simply call it, well, how
22:17can you call it entertainment content
22:19again, yes, and there's nothing wrong
22:22with that, to call a spade a spade.
22:25We have an honest program, the
22:26experience is crap, it's not working.
22:27So what now? Well, Anna They position
22:29it, and her lectures position it. And
22:32they're even called lectures, not
22:33performances. Stand-up is lectures. Yes
22:36, we'll jokingly call it stand-up, but
22:38they're lectures. They're called
22:40lectures, they're sold as lectures. And
22:42that's what they're selling—lectures
22:44by a musicologist. Maybe right there on
22:46the page where they're selling it. It's
22:48not written that way. But there's such
22:50a concept as priming. If a consumer has
22:53been told many times from different
22:55podcasts that this is a musicologist,
22:57and then the consumer sees this same
22:59person whose lectures are for sale,
23:01naturally, they'll immediately
23:02associate it with a musicologist, and a
23:05certain priming has already been
23:06carried out on him. And even if this
23:09wasn't stated directly in the offer
23:11upon purchase. And yes, the dichotomy
23:14is either boring and correct, or
23:16interesting, but it's hit or miss. But
23:19in fact, it's a very strange dichotomy.
23:22And it seems to me that this dichotomy,
23:25and it may seem Convincing only for
23:28those who have never attended a
23:30university lecture, an academic lecture
23:33, uh, a talented professor, a talented
23:35lecturer. And to get a higher education
23:39to some scientific degree and not
23:41listen to at least one talented
23:43lecturer, well, that should be very
23:46unlucky for a person in life. That's it
23:49. But in general, when you have
23:52experience of an academic education,
23:54and when you have experience of a
23:56scientific education, then, of course,
23:59you also have the experience that truly
24:02authoritative scientists, who, uh, bear
24:04the responsibility of conveying the
24:06truth, can also do it in an interesting
24:09way. And there is no need to choose
24:12here. It's not a question of such a
24:14dichotomy. This dichotomy was created
24:17falsely, appealing to some kind of
24:19unsuccessful experience, it seems to me
24:21, of school education. As if this is
24:25for those people for whom high school
24:27was the pinnacle of education. Maybe
24:29they formally received some kind of
24:31education somewhere, but they didn't
24:33really delve into it. By the way, Anna
24:36herself, as far as I know, never
24:37completed higher education. And in
24:39secondary education, indeed, There is
24:42such a thing. I find all this somehow
24:44just to a certain extent, because
24:45it’s not very interesting. Few
24:46teachers can engage you in this. And
24:49studying is boring. It’s rare that a
24:52child truly understands that it’s
24:54interesting. But when you go on to
24:57higher education, when you get a
24:59scientific degree, when you, as an
25:01adult, are interested in science,
25:02that’s when you discover that science
25:04is interesting. Then this connection
25:07breaks down and another connection is
25:09created. That yes, there are very
25:12boring lecturers, of course, but a true
25:14scientist, passionate about his topic
25:17and eager to initiate others into it,
25:19and not choosing between correct,
25:21precise, correct and interesting, is
25:23capable of doing both, and that’s
25:25what interests me. The experience that
25:29science can be conveyed in an
25:31interesting way is more possible in a
25:33more advanced setting, when we go on to
25:39higher education, to scientific degrees
25:41, when we work with scientists,
25:42that’s when we begin to understand
25:44that science is interesting. Again, if
25:47all our education, consciously And if
25:50what's involved boils down to school
25:52experience, then it's understandable
25:54why we might think that academy is
25:56uninteresting. I don't know, maybe this
25:58dichotomy is designed for people like
26:01that. Or maybe this is Anna's direct
26:02experience? I don't know. As far as we
26:05know, she hasn't had the experience of
26:07a full-fledged higher education. And
26:09maybe she's sharing her experience here
26:12. Studying is boring. Well, because
26:15perhaps she hasn't yet started studying
26:18in an interesting place. My guess.
26:22Evgeny has said a lot more on this
26:25topic, but I think we can move on to
26:28what Anna herself said in this debate
26:30about her position as a musicologist. I
26:34wanted to clarify the following. The
26:37scandal really only really got going
26:39after I said that the errors in the
26:41course would be corrected. They weren't
26:43discussed anymore.
26:45I apologize. I just now noticed that
26:49Anna's signature says" musicologist "
26:52right here. She looked surprised, such
26:59surprise. She was so furious that
27:01Evgeny called her a musicologist. Even
27:04though she has her musicologist's
27:05certificate signed right here. I just
27:06noticed it now. The thing is, it really
27:09split people into two camps, which even
27:10ended up falling out with each other,
27:12because those who didn't like our
27:13materials, didn't like me, didn't like
27:15their values somewhere, they wrote that
27:17it was all terrible, that such
27:18profanation shouldn't happen. And there
27:21were others who said, well, that
27:22happens, the mistakes are corrected,
27:24the skill will remain. And they even
27:26enthusiastically supported my idea of a
27:28notice that my lectures may contain
27:29errors. And this posed a question
27:31point-blank. What in my materials is
27:33useful to people? Maybe because I'm
27:35making funny faces there. They find it
27:37amusing. Such people definitely exist.
27:39But most people wrote that they simply
27:41find the skill of musical analysis,
27:43which they retain without knowing the
27:45notes, useful. As for the factual
27:46accuracy, well, it will come, it will
27:47improve.
27:48Well, firstly, she doesn't deny that
27:51her content is entertaining for some
27:54people, purely entertaining. They don't
27:58see any scientific or educational value
28:00in it, and they don't pursue it or care
28:03. They just want to be entertained. So,
28:07she creates entertaining content in
28:10places. But the non-entertaining part,
28:14the educational part, is about people
28:18being able to adopt a model of thinking
28:21. At the same time, the facts
28:25themselves can be corrected. And that's
28:28a big question. And again, this issue
28:31needs to be discussed specifically by
28:33musicologists. Here, I want to look
28:36specifically at the perception of
28:38scientific, entertaining, and popular
28:40science content. Firstly, inaccuracies
28:43can be different. That is, an
28:45inaccuracy in certain details is one
28:47thing. In some places, the year is
28:50mixed up, in others, one name is mixed
28:52up with another's, somewhere there are
28:54some idioms. So, these kinds of
28:56inaccuracies, yes, of course, they do
28:59occur. You know, when you're solving a
29:02physics problem in physics class, you
29:04seem to have chosen and substituted all
29:06the formulas and reproduced them
29:08correctly, but somewhere in your
29:10calculations, you made, I don't know,
29:12some kind of purely arithmetic error.
29:15And different teachers approach this
29:17differently. Some might give you an A
29:19and say," Now, now this is for math. "
29:22Yeah, don't make mistakes like that in
29:24math class. But others might
29:26significantly lower your grade or even,
29:28yes, down to zero, because, well, you
29:30didn't give the right answer. So. So
29:33here's the real question of separating
29:36formal data from the process of
29:38scientific thinking. And Anna says that
29:42she conveys a thinking model to those
29:45who listen to her. And here's the
29:50question: does she convey a musical
29:53thinking model to her listeners? Can
29:58listeners, after studying Anna's
30:01lectures, adopt at least some basis,
30:05some foundation, for musical analysis
30:09of a piece? Does it provide this? I
30:13won't answer that question. This needs
30:15to be analyzed specifically. And that's
30:17what these musicologists actually do.
30:20Some incorrect information may not
30:23really affect whether a person has
30:26learned to analyze or not. But some
30:31incorrect information directly affects
30:33how accurately a person analyzes music.
30:37Or psychology, or history, or political
30:41science, or, well, a physics problem.
30:45If we go back to the example of a
30:47physics problem, it's one thing to make
30:50an arithmetic error, and quite another,
30:52for example, to confuse units of
30:54measurement. This isn't just some kind
30:58of careless mistake. It can all be
31:01corrected, no big deal. No, no, no.
31:03This is a fundamental error. This is an
31:06error that directly changes how you
31:08actually conduct this analysis. And
31:12this kind of error is something that a
31:16person who claims to be a musicologist
31:20can't tolerate. Because if you teach
31:25people to think about the subject of
31:28your expertise, And if you give them an
31:31incorrect foundation for this thinking,
31:34then you make it worse. They hadn't
31:38thought about it at all before. And now
31:41they think about it incorrectly. That
31:43is, you lead them further from the
31:45truth than they were before they
31:47listened to you. You distort the
31:51process of achieving this truth and
31:54analyzing a subject. And in this regard
31:58, the scientist, the scientific
32:01popularizer, bears a huge
32:02responsibility. Because if how a person
32:07will think about your subject depends
32:09on you, well, accordingly, you bear
32:12ultimate responsibility for it. And
32:15speaking of responsibility. Anna raised
32:18a very interesting question here: those
32:21who initially didn't like me, well,
32:23they simply have a personal dislike.
32:27I feel such personal dislike for the
32:30victim that I can't eat. And those
32:34people who, for some reason, felt some
32:36completely unfounded personal dislike
32:39towards her, like they somehow treated
32:41her badly, well, that's it. They were
32:44the ones who started criticizing her.
32:46So, with this statement, she's saying
32:49that, well, there's no justified reason
32:52for the criticism, meaning she's
32:54devaluing it. Devaluing criticism means
32:58being unable to perceive it and correct
33:01it. It seems to me that Anna's problem
33:05is that she greatly underestimates the
33:08scope of her mistakes. She tells
33:13herself and others a story that the
33:15reason I'm being criticized is simply
33:18because people don't like me, and
33:20they're picking on some little detail.
33:24And the fact that criticism can be
33:27justified, that it can be a fundamental
33:31issue in how she teaches people to
33:35think about music. She's absolutely
33:39certain that it's impossible to
33:41criticize this at all. Well, at least
33:43based on this discussion. And again,
33:45well, it's unlikely to be corrected. I
33:50mean, some specific nuances and
33:52mistakes might be corrected, but she
33:54doesn't see what she's actually being
33:57criticized for. And, accordingly, it's
34:00unlikely she'll fix it. She doesn't see
34:03it. So, again, that's not a scientist's
34:05position. A scientist's position is to
34:08evaluate criticism, at least from their
34:11colleagues, for what it is and to
34:14perceive it as such. If it's simply
34:17hostility, then, well, yes, you have to
34:20see it as nothing more than hostility.
34:22But if there's principial criticism of
34:25something fundamental, but the person
34:28simply interprets it as hostility and
34:30dismisses it, then that's no longer a
34:33scientist's position; it's the position
34:36of someone who simply wants, well, I
34:38don't know, to think well of themselves
34:41and have others think well of them. In
34:44other words, this person's scientific
34:45veracity is no longer particularly
34:47interested.
34:48The scandal began because the discourse
34:50expanded from the question of my
34:51mistakes to the question of the depth
34:53of my musical analysis. How radical or
34:56how unscientific my musicological ideas
34:59are, and how I even work with musical
35:01material. And finally, it's like the
35:03icing on the cake. People raised the
35:06question:" Can I even talk about the
35:08music of Alla Pugacheva or Bach without
35:10a music degree? To me. "I said:" I have
35:13a high school diploma. "People said:"
35:16No, you need something higher. "Well,
35:19generally speaking, yes. So, anyone can
35:21talk about music. I can sit and talk
35:24about music. Anyone can talk about
35:27anything, but to call yourself a
35:30musicologist and talk about music as
35:34one and gain credibility from that, you
35:38really need at least a college degree,
35:42because musicology is a higher
35:46education. A high school education
35:49doesn't give you the grounds to call
35:51yourself a musicologist, although it
35:53doesn't prevent you from creating, and
35:55I'm not asking for opinions; I'm
35:57speaking in general terms. So, maybe
36:00someone with a high school education,
36:02who's so well versed in the subject,
36:04who explains it so engagingly, who's so
36:06smart and talented, but who didn't have
36:09a college degree, creates excellent
36:11content. Well, it's excellent content,
36:14and they have every right to be. It's
36:18just not popular science content, and
36:22this person isn't a scientist, and this
36:26person doesn't have the status that a
36:29college degree would give them. If they
36:34, without this status, claim to be one,
36:37call themselves one, and sit here under
36:39the signature of a musicologist, that's
36:42truly misleading people. And it would
36:45be better to also publish a couple of
36:46scientific articles and have my
36:48approach and method verified by experts
36:49, so that its effectiveness can be
36:51confirmed. And at that point, I just
36:53grab my head and say," What's wrong? "
36:57Well, it's clear why Anna is grabbing
36:59her head, because, you see, it's very
37:01easy to devalue something you didn't
37:03achieve yourself. It's very easy to
37:07devalue something you didn't work for
37:09yourself. It's very easy to devalue an
37:12academic degree when you haven't worked
37:14for it and don't have one. It's very
37:17easy to devalue, for example, the title
37:20of musicologist when you haven't earned
37:22it. It's equally easy to devalue the
37:26creation of interesting, entertaining
37:28content when you haven't created it,
37:31when you haven't gone through the pain
37:33of getting in front of the camera,
37:35finding an interesting topic, and so on
37:38. On the other hand, this is also very
37:42easy to devalue, but in this case, Anna
37:44is essentially devaluing it. She
37:46believes that anyone can call
37:48themselves a musicologist if they want.
37:51I know something, I say something
37:52interesting, people like it, and I can
37:54call myself a musicologist. And she
37:57sincerely doesn't understand that there
38:00is a certain nomenclature of
38:02professions, a nomenclature of academic
38:05degrees, a nomenclature of expert
38:07status, and what allows or prevents you
38:10from calling yourself one. For example,
38:14I talk a lot about psychiatry, but I've
38:17never once said I'm a psychiatrist. I'm
38:21not a psychiatrist; I speak about
38:22psychiatry as a psychologist. I have
38:25the right to do so. And yes, I
38:27understand. And I get a lot of flak.
38:29You're a psychologist; you can't talk
38:30about psychiatry. I can. And Anna can
38:33talk about music without being a
38:35musicologist. And Evgeny Alekseev can
38:38talk about musicology as a science
38:40without being a musicologist. It's just
38:44that none of us can claim any kind of
38:47expert status in these subjects. Anna
38:51sincerely doesn't understand this,
38:53which is precisely what she's talking
38:55about. I
38:55don't write scientific articles, I
38:57don't trample on scientific knowledge,
38:59I don't do anything like that. And
39:01whatever I want, I'll do later. I'm
39:04currently honing my public lecture
39:06skills, like leading a public lecture
39:08and teaching various pedagogical
39:09stories. As for the content of my
39:12lectures, if I see that rock' n 'roll
39:15and fast blues are identical except for
39:17the tempo and framing, I mention it. If
39:21I see that Viktor Tsoi's signature
39:23harmony is a natural minor, I mention
39:25it too. And if in 10 years I learn
39:28something new and my research changes,
39:31I'll just say so, because research
39:34never stops. I reread my lectures
39:36because my perspective on them changes.
39:39I plan to continue doing this, but that
39:41doesn't mean I shouldn't post them or
39:43that it makes me any less of a
39:45musicologist, because how else will I
39:47know I need to learn something other
39:49than by receiving feedback? I find it
39:52interesting; I enjoy it that way.
39:53Well, first of all, it won't work if
39:55the feedback that is actually given
39:57boils down to," Yeah, yeah, you just
39:59don't like me and you're getting to the
40:01point of being a mouse, "then there
40:03won't be any real development. Secondly
40:06, well, actually, no. And Anna is
40:10telling us here that she has some sort
40:13of personal process. Evgeny gave a good
40:16definition here, he calls it leisure.
40:18Indeed, it's more of a form of leisure.
40:21I know a little about it. Well, how
40:24normal, I guess? I don't know what they
40:27teach at music schools. From my
40:29experience communicating with people
40:31from music schools. It's such a wide
40:34range from someone who knows music
40:36purely formally and hates it, to, uh,
40:38people who would give conservatory
40:40graduates a run for their money simply
40:42because they have a passion for it.
40:44Well, they didn't manage to complete
40:46their studies there, or they went down
40:48a different path. That's it. That is,
40:50uh, here, well, free will really does
40:53provide, uh, a very wide spectrum.
40:56That's why you can't say that a
40:58secondary music education, well, a
41:00person is capable of something or not.
41:02That's not the question at all. The
41:05question is that a secondary music
41:07education doesn't make you a
41:09musicologist, but rather someone
41:11interested; it gives you some knowledge
41:13to think about the subject. And
41:16essentially, Anna is telling us here
41:18that she's not involved in science.
41:20She's telling us, she didn't write
41:22articles and so on, that this isn't
41:24really that important. Whether you've
41:26formalized your scientific knowledge
41:28into articles or not. It's not really
41:29important. Although, when you formalize
41:32it into articles in a scientific paper,
41:34then, well, you really do hone it. You
41:37really do receive feedback that you
41:39can't ignore and write off as you
41:41simply not liking me. Naturally, this
41:43is the process through which a
41:45scientist is formed. And, of course,
41:47that's it. But the problem isn't that
41:51she doesn't have any scientific work,
41:53it's that she's not a scientist, not
41:56formally, not in her thinking. That is,
42:00if she at least offered scientific
42:03thinking, a scientific way of
42:05understanding truth, demonstrated a
42:08scientific approach to music, then we
42:11could talk about, well, some kind of
42:14popular science content, yes, although
42:17there are some limitations. But she
42:20doesn't have that. And she says she's
42:23simply interested in it. She's simply
42:28interested in applying the knowledge
42:30she acquired during her education. For
42:34example, analyzing the music of Alla
42:36Pugacheva, analyzing Meladzy, cinema,
42:38analyzing classical music, analyzing
42:40medieval music. Yes, she's interested,
42:44she's realized something, she imagined
42:47something, she's sensed something,
42:49she's applied her Salfejuya knowledge
42:51to it, and she's come to some
42:53interesting conclusion, one that sounds
42:56very original. She says she does this,
43:01but, excuse me, it's not scientific
43:04knowledge, it's not how scientists
43:06approach these same questions. It's
43:10just a hobby. And she creates content
43:14based on her hobby, and she has every
43:17right to do so. She just doesn't have
43:21the same credibility as a musicologist.
43:25Some say I'm a good musicologist
43:27because, say, I don't repeat what's
43:29already been learned and I say
43:31something new.
43:31She thinks she's a good musicologist.
43:36Well, because she studies, she applies
43:38her own feelings to her knowledge of
43:40Salfege and conveys original
43:42interpretations to people, most of whom
43:44are incapable of verifying them, and
43:46they are simply entertained by the
43:48presentation itself, the originality of
43:50the thought, and the opportunity to
43:52look at familiar works in a new way.
43:56She considers herself a good
43:57musicologist. No, this doesn't make
44:00someone a musicologist, let alone a
44:03good one. Some say I'm a bad
44:05musicologist because there are plenty
44:07of music lovers who know much more
44:09about the music of their favorite band
44:11than I do. Well, that's normal. I don't
44:14feel sad about this, nor am I happy at
44:16all, because,
44:17well, if I weren't sad, happy, or
44:19anything, then there probably wouldn't
44:21be such a huge, such an emotional
44:23response, yes, to all this criticism
44:25from Zhanna herself. Well, that's okay,
44:28that's also a side note, again, uh,
44:30some people may know more about the
44:32music of a certain band than I do. That
44:35doesn't make me a bad musicologist. A
44:38musicologist doesn't make a person,
44:40just like any other scientist. It
44:42doesn't make a person at all, how much
44:44specific information you have at your
44:45fingertips. What makes you a
44:48musicologist is your musicological
44:50approach, which is based on the
44:52humanities and the principles of
44:54scientific knowledge and scientific
44:56cognition.
44:57Try to find a common language. If so, I
44:59have some ideas on this matter.
45:03Anna, 3 minutes.
45:07Evgeny, your question contains a
45:10statement that is not true. You tell me
45:13," Your foundation is completely broken
45:16. "And you need to find a common
45:17language with specialists. You wouldn't
45:19want that at all. Let's clear this
45:21story of this manipulation and return
45:24to the basics. I have an excellent
45:26foundation, Evgeny. I studied in the
45:28theoretical composition department,
45:30well, not at Rimsky-Korsky's school. If
45:33you saw the comments of people who also
45:34graduated from there, they wrote that
45:36they graduated. Yes.
45:37Well, great. They wrote," This is
45:39purgatory, not a school. You're
45:41spending the night with a kalavir. "I
45:42graduated with honors. Even though it's
45:45at a level of complexity that's
45:47absolutely unimaginable. I can't even
45:49repeat the tricks I was able to pull
45:51off in my final year at the school. We
45:53were prepared, as they say, I don't
45:54know what you're preparing for, but
45:56you're clearly ready. I don't say a
45:58single word in my lecture, not even a
45:59single scientific one. They're based on
46:02elementary music theory. That's where
46:05it gets
46:05interesting. Just recently, literally a
46:10few minutes ago, Anna was talking about
46:12how she described her work, talking
46:15about her own interpretation, and how
46:17she doesn't conduct any scientific work
46:20, in principle, and doesn't engage in
46:22scientific knowledge, and doesn't teach
46:25others scientific analysis either.
46:28She's simply showing them how Anna
46:31Velenskaya sees music. And now she's
46:34saying that she has a good foundation,
46:37she has a secondary education. Just
46:41because your secondary education was
46:44difficult for you, because the
46:46requirements for secondary education
46:49are high, and so on, doesn't change the
46:51fact that higher education is necessary
46:54for a certain status. No matter how
46:59difficult secondary education was, it
47:01doesn't replace the requirements for
47:02higher education if you're aiming for
47:04the status of a person with a
47:06background in science. Again, there's a
47:10certain substitution here, and this
47:13doesn't mean, yes, a person can indeed
47:15receive a secondary education that
47:18shows they're very well versed in the
47:20subject, but it still doesn't give them
47:23the right to claim a status they don't
47:26have simply due to a lack of the
47:28relevant education. There's still a
47:31substitution here, and I don't know why
47:33Anna doesn't see it. Or maybe she does,
47:36but it's just not in her interests to
47:37acknowledge it. As for the foundation,
47:41the scientific foundation isn't about
47:44that, and scientificity doesn't lie in
47:47the correctness of musical theory.
47:51That's precisely why musical theory is
47:53taught both in school and in secondary
47:56education, in music schools and
47:57colleges. But that doesn't make someone
48:01a scientist. Just as a physicist isn't
48:05made a scientist by the formulas they
48:08learned in school. Just as a
48:12mathematician isn't made a scientist by
48:14, well, the formulas, theories,
48:16theorems, and rules of mathematical
48:18operations they learned in school. It's
48:22a foundation for using it as a tool to
48:27understand scientific research, the
48:29scientific principles of truth, and to
48:32try to understand truth using this
48:35scientific method. That's when you're a
48:38scientist. And a musicologist is still
48:40a scientist. So she says she has the
48:44tools that scientists need to further
48:47their scientific work. But beyond these
48:51tools, she doesn't apply them to
48:53scientific work. She's never applied
48:55them to scientific work. And she says
48:59this directly, yet she claims to be
49:02writing popular science content and
49:05positions herself as a scientist. If I
49:11compare even all that nonsense that's
49:13always bothered experts about there
49:16being early music and the Death Note
49:18anime soundtrack, which is also based
49:20on early music, I'm not saying this
49:23without reason; that's just it, Dad.
49:26That's the connection. Imagine, guys,
49:28they were impressed and moved on. It's
49:30impossible. Otherwise, people would
49:31never listen to me. I show them the
49:33details. Look, here it is, and here it
49:36is. I'm close to, as Alexey Povovarov
49:39says," On this channel, you draw all
49:41your own conclusions. "But no, I still
49:43pedagogically explain these conclusions
49:45. But people can go and check them out
49:47and repeat them. If you think you can
49:50come and spout, I don't know what, for
49:5210 years, and still have people listen,
49:54do you think people are crazy? Of
49:57course not. Of course, they will only
49:59listen to you if you are useful to them
50:00. Therefore, I completely reject this
50:02thesis of yours. It's quite strange.
50:04Does it make a person stupid and sick
50:06if someone is spouting nonsense? I
50:08don't think so. Because in order to
50:12listen to nonsense and still be stupid
50:14and sick, you need to recognize that
50:15it's self-important. And for that, a
50:18person must have at least some
50:20knowledge. And, for example, if you're
50:22spouting off, well, I don't know, about
50:25some basic mathematics, yes, for
50:27example, that people studied
50:28practically everything in school, that
50:31most people have a chance of knowing
50:33and appreciating it, and they still
50:35continue to listen to you, even though
50:37you say 2 + 2 is n, and then, well,
50:40yeah, maybe there's something wrong
50:42with their intellectual position. But
50:45as for subjects that people simply
50:48don't know in principle, that thesis
50:50doesn't work at all. In order for a
50:54person to appreciate the truth, they
50:56need to know at least the basics. As
50:59far as I can tell, Velenskaya's
51:01audience doesn't generally have access
51:03to this database. Otherwise, I don't
51:06know why she would have chosen it
51:08specifically, because she's so
51:10oversimplified what she explains.
51:13Basically, she even simplifies what
51:16people learn in music school. And she
51:18assumes that people have absolutely no
51:21understanding of music theory.
51:23Absolutely none, in fact. You can't
51:26even expect these people to understand
51:28the concepts of scale, scale, or note,
51:30right? So, her content is essentially
51:33designed for those who can't judge for
51:36themselves, but rather respond to
51:38emotion, right? They respond to the
51:42fact that they've been offered a new
51:43perspective on a familiar piece,
51:45nothing more.
51:46Relationships with the professional
51:48community and the bullying, which you
51:50still haven't addressed. Well, you
51:52cited Mikhail Kozyrev as an example.
51:54Listen, go ahead and read his post,
51:56where he compiled everything, just like
51:58me. No, not everything. He collected
52:01only a portion of the things I've been
52:03called online over the past two weeks,
52:04castrating me, basting me, and writing
52:06comments that say a good professional
52:08should shoot himself. Listen, I don't
52:12know, this kind of gaslighting, when
52:14you say it's not bullying, just
52:15criticism—well, no thanks. Yes, I saw
52:20comments under other posts, under yours
52:22, including some kind of nightmare. Of
52:27course, not with the professionals who
52:28wrote nightmares about me. It's beneath
52:30me to talk to someone who wrote obscene
52:32insults about me, resorted to personal
52:34attacks, wrote about my husband, about
52:36my appearance. Of course not. As for
52:38those people who didn't do that, I'm
52:41always open to dialogue and continue to
52:43be open to it.
52:45Well, in principle, we could smoothly
52:47transition from bullying to bullying.
52:49So, we've generally seen our positions
52:51on many things. Evgeny says that
52:54musicology is a science, and if it's
52:56popular science content, then it should
52:59be presented as such. And to be called
53:02a musicologist, you have to earn that
53:04status, because it requires going
53:07through certain stages of development.
53:11Anna says she's a good musicologist
53:13because she's interested and has a
53:15scientific theory, as a basis, although
53:17I don't think that a scientific theory
53:20—or music theory—is a scientific
53:22basis. Music theory is more of a tool,
53:25as I said, for gaining scientific
53:28knowledge. And this applies to other
53:30sciences as well. That is, knowing some
53:32terminology in psychology doesn't make
53:34someone a scientist. Knowing some
53:37formulas in physics doesn't make
53:38someone a scientist. Knowing some
53:41medical diagnoses doesn't make someone
53:43a scientist. What makes someone a
53:45scientist is the ability, the skill, to
53:48use a scientific method of inquiry.
53:51What makes a scientist a popularizer is
53:54the ability to convey this way of
53:57knowing, this way of thinking, while,
54:00of course, providing some other
54:02information on their area of expertise.
54:07This is what popularizing science is.
54:11Popularizing science is, first and
54:12foremost, popularizing the scientific
54:14way of thinking, the scientific way of
54:16knowing truth, and also the hierarchy
54:17of values. Value in science is truth.
54:23Not my ego, not my emotions, not my
54:25popularity, not even my income, but
54:28truth. And the main priority for a
54:31scientist is truth. And a popularizing
54:34scientist also popularizes this value.
54:37No matter how much you like a person,
54:39dislike them, whether you're on the
54:41same political side or not. If you
54:44think like a scientist, if you accept
54:47science as something important, yes, in
54:50this world, then truth should be your
54:53priority. And science has its own
54:56methods for obtaining truth; there are
54:58methods of scientific thinking and
55:00scientific knowledge. This is the main
55:02goal of popularizing science content.
55:06So, we've looked at the positions. Now
55:09we've smoothly moved on to, well, that
55:12very same bullying. Well, of course, no
55:15one likes receiving such offensive
55:18messages about themselves. And this
55:20kind of insult, well, it speaks
55:22precisely to the lack of culture of
55:24these people, their lack of respect,
55:27first and foremost, for themselves. No
55:30matter how much you agree or disagree
55:32with someone, insulting them, making
55:35personal attacks, and so on, well, you
55:37shouldn't do that. For example, I
55:40delete such comments. Many people think
55:43I delete their comments because I have
55:46nothing to respond to. I delete them
55:48because I have no need to respond.
55:51Because if I see that someone is
55:53turning the discussion into a bazaar
55:55with insults, hysteria, hysterical
55:57phrases, and so on, I simply don't need
55:59to interact with them, and I don't need
56:01to have them in my discussion space.
56:04It's as if everything here has fallen
56:06into one. And Anna linked these two
56:08things from the very beginning. Those
56:11who disagree with me are those who
56:13don't like me personally and those who
56:15insult me. They're all in the same
56:17ballpark. No, she's saying that there
56:19are probably musicologists who treat me
56:22with respect, yes, but who nevertheless
56:24criticize me, and I'm open to dialogue
56:26with them. That's great. I'd love to
56:28see that dialogue. For some reason,
56:31Anna didn't choose a musicologist for
56:32this particular dialogue. Well, I don't
56:35know why. But let's talk about bullying
56:38and mobbing, because anything can be
56:40called bullying. You criticize me, you
56:43argue with me, you disagree with me.
56:46Enough, I mean, maybe I've said enough
56:49nonsense that's just like—you open a
56:51textbook, you open a research paper,
56:53and everything there is completely
56:56opposite to the nonsense I'm feeding
56:58people here. And because I'm popular
57:01enough and enough people (I'm not
57:03talking about myself, yes, I'm talking
57:05about an abstract person again), enough
57:07people have seen this and said so. I
57:11feel bad, I'm stressed. And since I
57:14feel bad, I'm stressed, that means I'm
57:16a victim of bullying, right? So there's
57:18some kind of mechanism going on here.
57:20Moreover, accusing others of bullying
57:22is, as I said, assuming a certain moral
57:24and ethical superiority as a victim,
57:26right? Because a victim is always
57:29morally superior to their persecutor.
57:31And that's precisely what makes being a
57:34victim so appealing. And I feel like
57:36Anna is taking full advantage of this.
57:39I'm a victim of bullying. So, let's
57:41look at what bullying is. I chose works
57:43about mobbing and psychological terror
57:45specifically in the workplace. Why? It
57:49would seem like there's a really
57:51interesting point here, but for someone
57:53who works on social media, on YouTube,
57:55well, obviously, they host in-person
57:57events, but they're a public figure.
58:00Yes, for a public figure, these online
58:03spaces are their workplace. And yet,
58:06all sorts of people come to this
58:08workplace. People come to vent their
58:10frustrations. People who are simply
58:12bored come, they're entertaining
58:13themselves as best they can, while many
58:15people entertain themselves through
58:16aggression and hysteria. People come,
58:18well, just out of curiosity. Yes,
58:21people come, uh, who genuinely want to
58:23chat about what they're good at, uh,
58:26and, well, somehow, maybe assert
58:28themselves. So, completely different
58:31people come, and no one has signed any,
58:34um, ethical codes of conduct. Well, yes
58:38, here, but for you, as a public figure
58:41, this is still your workplace.
58:44Therefore, I believe that, as a public
58:47figure, working in a public space, you
58:49need to perceive this public space as
58:51your workplace, even if other people
58:53who come there perceive it differently.
58:57But you need to view it as your
59:00workplace. And if someone in this space
59:04communicates with you in a way that you
59:06might not accept, yes, communication in
59:08the workplace, well, accordingly, you
59:10need to clear your workspace or your
59:12zone of perception. You simply
59:15understand that here the person with me
59:17is not in some kind of professional or
59:19civilized discourse. That's why I took
59:22works about mobbing in the workplace.
59:25These are Laymon's works from 1990.
59:27Mobbing and psychological terror in the
59:30workplace. Well, mind you, this was
59:32long before all this internet stuff.
59:35Here, Lemen describes mobbing as
59:37systematic, hostile communication
59:39directed at a person in a vulnerable
59:42position. You can say that bullying and
59:46mobbing are organized against you if
59:48you're in a vulnerable position and the
59:50aggressors take advantage of this. And
59:54it's truly morally reprehensible, yes,
59:56to display such organized aggression
59:58against a person in a vulnerable
1:00:00position. The question is whether the
1:00:04public figure whose work is being
1:00:06criticized is a public figure, and
1:00:07perhaps this crosses some boundaries of
1:00:10acceptable, civilized communication in
1:00:12a vulnerable position, but I think this
1:00:14is purely here. Objectively, no.
1:00:19Objectively, you can isolate yourself
1:00:21from these people. You can choose not
1:00:24to engage with these comments, you can
1:00:26take a stand in my absence, they can
1:00:28even beat me up, and so on. So,
1:00:31objectively, the public figure being
1:00:34criticized is in no way in a vulnerable
1:00:37position. Unless there's an imperative
1:00:39in their minds that everyone should
1:00:41perceive me exclusively positively. I
1:00:44can only say good things. This slightly
1:00:47narcissistic imperative really puts you
1:00:49in a helpless position, because you
1:00:52can't change how people treat you. If
1:00:55they treat you negatively, you can't
1:00:58change that. You can change whether it
1:01:01affects you. And in that sense, you're
1:01:03not helpless. So, here's an interesting
1:01:06question. See Einerson's 2000 paper,"
1:01:11Harassment and Bullying at Work: A
1:01:12Review of the Scandinavian Approach. "
1:01:14This idea, well, is largely repeated.
1:01:17Bullying is when a person repeatedly
1:01:19and over a long period of time—I
1:01:21don't know if these 2-3 weeks or
1:01:23however long this discussion lasts can
1:01:25be considered lengthy, but if we start
1:01:27with my post, then perhaps we can. It's
1:01:30a negative action. Moreover, it's
1:01:31difficult for them to defend themselves
1:01:33. Again, the person is in a state of
1:01:36some helplessness. So, the bullying
1:01:39factor is confirmed again. A conflict
1:01:42between parties of approximately
1:01:44different intensity is not considered
1:01:46bullying. I'd say that any single
1:01:50musicologist who doesn't have Anna's
1:01:52popularity, who doesn't have a
1:01:54entourage to defend them, who may have
1:01:57come out into the public eye for the
1:02:00first time specifically as a scientist
1:02:03to state certain scientific facts, to
1:02:06defend the very truth that real
1:02:08scientists truly uphold. That's the
1:02:12primary purpose of their work, not to
1:02:15entertain or attract attention. I'd say
1:02:19that the scientist who expressed their
1:02:22scientific opinion and received buckets
1:02:25of [ __ ] from Anna Velenskaya's fans is
1:02:31likely in a weaker position than Anna.
1:02:34And then you could say the persecution
1:02:37is aimed at them. But overall, despite
1:02:42their popularity, yes, any musicologist
1:02:45who criticizes Anna and Anna herself
1:02:48are in roughly the same position.
1:02:51Neither of them is, well, in a position
1:02:53of strength. Neither of them is that
1:02:55much stronger than the other. Here, you
1:02:58could say Anna is somewhat stronger
1:03:00than Evgeny because she feels at home
1:03:02on a live tack. She actually feels at
1:03:05home on these kinds of political
1:03:07channels. Evgeny himself said that this
1:03:09is his first public appearance of this
1:03:11kind; he's not a debater, and so on. So
1:03:13, it would seem that he's in a somewhat
1:03:16weaker position here, too. That is to
1:03:19say, Anna is in no way in a weaker
1:03:21position. And bullying is a phenomenon
1:03:26that applies to someone in a weaker
1:03:29position and to aggression that abuses
1:03:32their weak position. Well, excuse me,
1:03:35it doesn't quite qualify as bullying.
1:03:37It's unpleasant, yes, it's ugly, yes.
1:03:39It's reprehensible, yes. Such comments
1:03:42should be deleted if they're under your
1:03:44content. I think so. Don't make a big
1:03:48deal out of your public space. But
1:03:51that's not bullying. And you can only
1:03:54call it bullying if you really want to.
1:03:57Again, morally and ethically elevate
1:03:59yourself as a victim and morally and
1:04:01ethically humiliate those who are
1:04:03against you, whom you accuse of this
1:04:05very persecution. Well, that's
1:04:07manipulation, in my opinion. Well,
1:04:09let's address this question again.
1:04:11Scientific or popular? Is everything
1:04:15that is correct, academic, true, and
1:04:18prioritizes truth necessarily boring?
1:04:22I'll put it this way. But scientific
1:04:25thinking, given a choice between
1:04:27popularity, interest, entertainment,
1:04:30and truth, will always choose truth.
1:04:34Scientific thinking is distinguished by
1:04:36the fact that the primary criterion for
1:04:38the success of the work, the primary
1:04:40priority, the primary value, is given
1:04:43to truth. And everything else is used
1:04:46to reinforce this search for truth. And
1:04:49if this is popular science work, then
1:04:51it reinforces the transmission of this
1:04:52truth and teaching others this way of
1:04:54understanding truth. In this case, you
1:04:58can imagine the following matrix: the
1:05:00criterion is engaging, unengaging, and
1:05:02the criteria are scientifically valid
1:05:05and scientifically unsound. If it's
1:05:09engaging and scientifically sound, then
1:05:11we're getting high-quality popular
1:05:12science content. We've already
1:05:15discussed what" scientifically sound "
1:05:17means. If it's engaging but
1:05:19scientifically unsound, then it's
1:05:22convincing, entertaining
1:05:24pseudo-education. And I think Anna's
1:05:27main criticism is, in fact, that she's
1:05:30engaging in this. The main goal of this
1:05:34video of mine is to learn to recognize
1:05:36those who also engage in popular
1:05:39science pseudo-education and lead you
1:05:41further away from scientific truth
1:05:44rather than closer to it, while
1:05:46creating the illusion that you're
1:05:49learning something. Well, what Anna and
1:05:53her followers are talking about isn't
1:05:55engaging or scientifically sound; it's
1:05:57correct, but weak communication. The
1:05:59problem here is weak communication, and
1:06:01consequently, people are unlikely to
1:06:03accept it. In other words, the goal of
1:06:05scientific education won't be achieved
1:06:07here. Well, if it's both unengaging and
1:06:10scientifically unsound, then it's
1:06:12simply bad content. And let's finally
1:06:15reiterate: what is quality scientific
1:06:18content? I just caught myself saying,
1:06:22like Anna, staring. Since we're talking
1:06:26about being able to distinguish quality
1:06:29popular science content from this kind
1:06:32of profanity, we need to understand
1:06:35what makes knowledge scientific, what
1:06:37makes content qualitatively scientific.
1:06:41What makes it qualitatively scientific
1:06:43is an understanding of how we arrived
1:06:45at this conclusion, how we arrived at
1:06:47this truth. Developing a scientific
1:06:51claim has certain mechanisms and
1:06:53certain mandatory factors. First, a
1:06:56scientific claim must be connected to
1:06:59an existing body of knowledge. That is,
1:07:02it simply seemed that way to me, I
1:07:04sensed this explanation of how certain
1:07:07combinations, certain combinations of
1:07:10notes, certain harmonies evoke this
1:07:12feeling. It's all very interesting, yes
1:07:16, but it's more a reflection of some
1:07:19personal perception. Music theory, yes,
1:07:22is an existing body of knowledge, but
1:07:24it's more of a toolkit. Of course, the
1:07:27author can propose a new version.
1:07:29That's what Anna is talking about. You
1:07:31can see processes in a new way, you can
1:07:34see a new side of the truth, you can
1:07:37even discover that what we considered
1:07:40true isn't. All of this is certainly
1:07:42possible in science. And what's more,
1:07:44that's what makes it a science. As
1:07:45Evgeny said, science is a dynamic
1:07:47process. This is all perfectly normal.
1:07:50But when putting forward this new
1:07:52version, the author must still show how
1:07:55it relates to the existing body of
1:07:57knowledge, which the author himself
1:07:59also has. If we take physics, the
1:08:03toolkit is knowledge of formulas, and
1:08:05the body of knowledge is, perhaps, the
1:08:07theorems that were proven using these
1:08:10formulas—for example, the scientific
1:08:12discoveries that were made, in
1:08:14particular, using these formulas, and
1:08:16so on. The assertion must be verifiable
1:08:20. The path that led a person to the
1:08:23assertion must be reproducible. Another
1:08:26competent person with the same tools
1:08:29and the same body of knowledge should
1:08:31be able to follow the same path, apply
1:08:34the same tools, and reproduce the
1:08:36result. Or clearly identify the point
1:08:41of disagreement and where this path was
1:08:43taken inaccurately, where perhaps some
1:08:46interpretations were made differently,
1:08:49where there might be a question of
1:08:51terminology, and so on. That's it. But
1:08:54one way or another, scientific
1:08:56knowledge presupposes reproducibility.
1:09:00And if musicologists who have earned
1:09:02the title of musicologist both by
1:09:04following the relevant academic path
1:09:07and by being verified by other
1:09:09musicologists in their field—that is,
1:09:12they work in an academic environment—
1:09:14they experience this pressure from the
1:09:17academic environment, which
1:09:19double-checks them and ensures their
1:09:21accuracy. And if these musicologists,
1:09:25using the same line of thought, the
1:09:27same tools, perhaps the same
1:09:29assumptions, the same methods of
1:09:31verification and experimentation that
1:09:34Anna employs, can't reproduce her
1:09:36result, then the question arises as to
1:09:39how scientific this knowledge is and
1:09:41how scientific the process we're
1:09:43assuming is. Or are we simply dealing,
1:09:48again, with subjective perception and
1:09:51some fantasies about what, again, is
1:09:53good content, just unscientific.
1:09:57Another important concept is the
1:09:59epistemic status of the content. That
1:10:01is, the validity of the assertion. What
1:10:04is the basis for this assertion? And
1:10:07all the details of this basis can be
1:10:10verified. And, accordingly, epic status
1:10:13can be some kind of hypothesis, it can
1:10:15be an axiom, it can be an established
1:10:17scientific fact, it can be the author's
1:10:19interpretation, it can be an assumption
1:10:21, it can be an error or a fabrication.
1:10:24I think this is very much the subject
1:10:26of the debate. What is the epistemic
1:10:28status of Anna's assertion? Is this a
1:10:30hypothesis, is it a scientifically
1:10:33proven fact, is it an axiom, or is it a
1:10:35personal interpretation? If statements,
1:10:39for example, have the epistemic status
1:10:41of a hypothesis—that is, a person
1:10:43puts forward a hypothesis, it's based
1:10:45on some observations, on some
1:10:46experiments, but it still needs to be
1:10:48proven—yes, it's still just a
1:10:50hypothesis. This hypothesis can be
1:10:53expressed in a complex way, with
1:10:55complex terminology, in a difficult
1:10:57language, dryly, boringly, at length,
1:10:58and so on, but it will still be a
1:11:00hypothesis. The same hypothesis can be
1:11:04expressed interestingly, with bulging
1:11:07eyes and gesticulation, but it will
1:11:10still have the status, the epistemic
1:11:12status, of a hypothesis. The same
1:11:15applies to a false statement. If it's a
1:11:18false statement, it doesn't matter
1:11:21whether it's expressed interestingly or
1:11:23in a boring, tedious manner, using
1:11:25jargon and terminology. A false
1:11:29statement can be clothed in terminology
1:11:31, in musical theory, in all that, and
1:11:34this won't change its epistemic status
1:11:37as a false statement. And so it seems
1:11:40to me that this very structure is
1:11:42somehow not taken into account in this
1:11:44whole dichotomy. Either it's
1:11:45interesting, or it's correct. Yes,
1:11:47popularization makes scientific
1:11:49knowledge, scientific thinking, and
1:11:51scientific values accessible.
1:11:54Profanation makes knowledge simpler,
1:11:55but it doesn't provide knowledge. It
1:11:58gives the illusion of knowledge and is
1:12:00attractive precisely because of the
1:12:02simplicity of acquiring this, in quotes
1:12:05," knowledge. "And this is, well, its
1:12:08strength, on the one hand, why
1:12:10profanation spreads so easily. Well,
1:12:13and, accordingly, the problem, because
1:12:14again, it leads away from the truth.
1:12:16Well, let's summarize. In that Facebook
1:12:20post I was talking about, I said I felt
1:12:23like Anna Velenskaya's public persona
1:12:26was repeating the same pattern used to
1:12:28create these very same public figures
1:12:31—people who present themselves with a
1:12:34certain aura of expertise, an aura that
1:12:37imbues them with credibility, which
1:12:40predisposes people to them, because,
1:12:43well, that's how we're taught, right:
1:12:46scientists can be trusted. Yet, whether
1:12:50this person has even earned this status
1:12:52is highly questionable, and the content
1:12:55of her, so to speak, popular science
1:12:57content, content that passes itself off
1:12:59as popular science, bears no
1:13:01resemblance to science at all. Rather,
1:13:04it appeals to the desire of a certain
1:13:06group of people to temporarily feel
1:13:08like intellectuals, without having to
1:13:10put any particular cognitive effort
1:13:12into it, and certainly not to make
1:13:14truth their primary value in life. Well
1:13:16, let's say, to spend quality time, to
1:13:19take a break from the hustle and bustle
1:13:21of life, to temporarily feel like, well
1:13:23, I'm just distracted, I'm consuming
1:13:28some content, but I think well of
1:13:30myself because this content is
1:13:31presented to me as educational. And
1:13:35this formula is used to create, well,
1:13:38people who are simply influencers,
1:13:41people who influence public opinion and
1:13:44who, in fact, do just that. They
1:13:49introduce ideological messages into
1:13:51their content, pseudo-moral messages,
1:13:54that is, things in which their
1:13:57expertise, well, is not noticed at all.
1:14:02Well, because they have already created
1:14:04, they are already influencers, they
1:14:06are simply influencing public opinion.
1:14:10And so I have a feeling that there is a
1:14:12certain template by which real
1:14:14factories of such influencers are
1:14:16created. And all this...Can Anna
1:14:20Velenskaya talk about music? She can.
1:14:25Anyone can talk about what they want to
1:14:28talk about. Is there any reason, when
1:14:32listening to Anna Velenskaya, to listen
1:14:34to her as a musicologist and give her
1:14:36some credibility? No, there is no such
1:14:40reason. Does Anna herself set for
1:14:43herself the same goals that any scholar
1:14:45, including musicologists, sets for
1:14:47themselves? Apparently not. And she
1:14:49says so herself. She doesn't set such
1:14:52goals for herself. She simply wants to
1:14:56convey some of her ideas about the
1:14:58subject of her passion in an engaging
1:15:00way that people will enjoy, that people
1:15:02will come to see. It's wonderful, a
1:15:06wonderful pastime. It's just not
1:15:08scientific popularization. What's the
1:15:11important difference here for us? Well,
1:15:13not just in what one is called. The
1:15:16important difference here for us is
1:15:18that if we strive to master scientific
1:15:21thinking and get closer to the truth,
1:15:23then, well, we need to learn from those
1:15:26who nurture this scientific thinking in
1:15:28us and bring us closer to the truth.
1:15:31But if we delude ourselves into
1:15:33thinking we're getting closer to the
1:15:34truth and consume content that, well,
1:15:36simply entertains us, then we're
1:15:38depriving ourselves of the opportunity
1:15:40to get closer to the truth. And again,
1:15:43not everyone needs this, but for those
1:15:45who do, I think it's still important to
1:15:47understand the difference. I hope you
1:15:50found this topic interesting. I'm going
1:15:52to go air out the room, because it's
1:15:54gotten very stuffy. And this was Olga
1:15:57Reinhalt, not a musicologist, but a
1:15:59psychologist. And if you found this
1:16:01interesting, check out the other videos
1:16:03on my channel. There's a lot of
1:16:06different, interesting stuff there,
1:16:08including some popular science. That's
1:16:10all for now. Get to know me better,
1:16:13join my Telegram chat, and learn about
1:16:15working with me. You can do all of this
1:16:17by following the links in the
1:16:18description of this video. That's all I
1:16:20have for today. See you in the next
1:16:22videos. Ah.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Анна Виленская: музыковед или инфлюенсер с чисто развлекательным контентом? Разбор дебатов. by Психология на интересном с Ольгой Райнхолдт, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 11,104 words across 1,791 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.