Pages

Jump to bottom

56 comments

1 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 2:25:33pm

Hmm, my score high-to-low is Judaism-Christianity-Islam-Hinduism. However, I doubt such tests show anything. Also, "Krishna is a Hindu God, preserver of the universe" - isn't it correct for Krishnaism, but not necessarily for all of Hinduism?

2 jvic  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 2:48:55pm

Like Sergey, I am skeptical about such tests. Unlike Sergey, I did not take this one. However, the topic of the post has been on my mind.

I stopped being a Christian believer a long time ago. If I were to consider resuming the practice of an established religion (not an immediate priority), I would investigate Judaism first. That's been my attitude for a number of years. One reason that currently comes to mind is that Judaism does not proselytize; that's an appealing feature at a time when crazy people are screaming crazy insistent screams pro and con just about anything.

3 Achilles Tang  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 3:09:35pm

I'm not sure what this tells me. My rankings, in the middle of the overall scale, from top to bottom were Jewish, Christian and Islam/Hindu at the same level.

I suspect this test has more meaning when taken by someone who is not a lifelong atheist. I rank all deity beliefs pretty much the same and will only vary criticism based on specific dogmas.

4 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 3:13:19pm

According to a friend of mine who does social psychology, the IATs are one of the more accurate instruments out there.

5 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 3:15:30pm

Oh boy. Harvard. This should be accurate and insightful. That's what we've come to expect from Harvard. (Apologies and mazel tovs to everyone with kids at Harvard.) Let's see what happens.

6 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 3:21:19pm

Screw that. I'm not going to look at someone and say whether they're good or bad. Did I press the right buttons?

7 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 3:51:22pm

re: #6 Bob Levin

Screw that. I'm not going to look at someone and say whether they're good or bad. Did I press the right buttons?

Sounds like you have an implicit bias against Harvard.

8 Lidane  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 3:55:10pm

So my biases were in the middle of the scale. I was more positive in favor of Buddhism, with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on equal footing right below it.

I can see that. I've always been more partial to Buddhism. It makes more sense to me than anything else, at least if I was inclined to pick a faith.

9 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 4:04:53pm

re: #7 Conservative Moonbat

They've earned it. ;-)

10 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 4:07:39pm

I got cheated. I ended up with some test about physical attractiveness.

Your data suggest a moderate automatic association of Women with Attractive and Men with Unattractive.

Well, no shit.

11 The Ghost of a Flea  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 4:26:08pm

re: #1 Sergey Romanov

Hmm, my score high-to-low is Judaism-Christianity-Islam-Hinduism. However, I doubt such tests show anything. Also, "Krishna is a Hindu God, preserver of the universe" - isn't it correct for Krishnaism, but not necessarily for all of Hinduism?

... well, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, who's given the role of "Preserver" in the Trimurti, first encoded in theKurma Purana text. So unless the statement was built with some nuanced interpretation implicit they're actually incorrect.

12 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 5:35:50pm

Hmmm. I appear to have a moderate bias against Islam.

I also appear to have a moderate bias in favor of African Americans.

I'm not sure either of these is true. The second seems less culturally explicable than the first.

13 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 5:44:26pm

I also appear to have no preference between Arab Muslims and Everyone Else.

14 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:02:57pm

Thank god for crystal balls questionnaires that can see so deeply into our consciousness.

The 8 Ball tells me I have a bias against qualitative methods. I'm really surprised by this. I had no clue.

15 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:08:07pm

re: #14 Bob Levin

The implicit association test makes no grand claims and is an interesting test that bears thinking about.

16 CuriousLurker  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:14:24pm

Hmm, well that was a weird test. I didn't really get how it was supposed to work. What do they look for? Are they testing for knee-jerk keystroke responses or something?

Anyway, I landed smack dab in the middle on all four: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were on the same level, with Hinduism one step below.

17 SpaceJesus  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:15:07pm

who is this "jesus" fellow minus the space?

18 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:15:18pm

re: #16 CuriousLurker

They're measuring the amount of time it takes you to overcome an implicit association.

19 CuriousLurker  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:21:17pm

re: #18 Obdicut

They're measuring the amount of time it takes you to overcome an implicit association.

Okay, so automatically hitting "I/Good" for something related to Islam when being asked about one of the other religions would indicate a bias in favor of Islam, and "E/Bad" in the opposite situation would imply a negative bias?

I wasn't crazy about hitting the negative key for Islamic things when asking to respond for other religions, but since that's how I understood the instructions, that's what I did. Did I do it right?

20 The Ghost of a Flea  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:22:23pm

I scored high-positive toward Islam, medium-positive toward Hinduism and Judaism, and somewhat-negative towards Christianity.

My observation about methodology is that they're assuming a pause/time lapse represents a struggle to overcome implicit associations, but a pause could also represent confusion. For me, every time "Abraham" was mentioned I had to stop and think about the fact I was supposed to associate him only with Judaism, and not with Christianity or Islam. There was also the times that the color associations yellow/grey created a false or twitch response that had to be "corrected."

21 CuriousLurker  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:24:20pm

re: #19 CuriousLurker

IOW, I understood that when being asked about a particular religion, every word associate with it's practice and all positive words should get an "I" response, and all negative words & words associated with other religions should get an "E" response. Is that correct?

22 CuriousLurker  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:25:59pm

re: #20 The Ghost of a Flea

I had the same reaction regarding Abraham (a.s.)

23 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:28:39pm

re: #19 CuriousLurker

Okay, so automatically hitting "I/Good" for something related to Islam when being asked about one of the other religions would indicate a bias in favor of Islam, and "E/Bad" in the opposite situation would imply a negative bias?

I wasn't crazy about hitting the negative key for Islamic things when asking to respond for other religions, but since that's how I understood the instructions, that's what I did. Did I do it right?

Yep. It's testing how hard it is to overcome that instant bias, that 'cheer' or 'boo' reflex.

24 CuriousLurker  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:29:22pm

re: #23 Obdicut

Thanks!

25 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:43:05pm

re: #14 Bob Levin

Ooops. I have a bias against Quantitative Methods. My bad. Once you pass the Q, u, and a, the moment is ripe for typos.

26 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:46:39pm

re: #15 Obdicut

Quiet contemplation, sleep, reading, conversation...all good for thinking. Objective personality tests, astrology, not so much.

27 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:49:40pm

re: #18 Obdicut

Isn't that a subjective assumption, that I'm making an implicit association? They're trying to avoid that kind of subjectivity, right?

28 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:54:13pm

re: #23 Obdicut

There is no 'cheer' or 'boo' reflex. If it were a reflex, then it would be a universal response. Is there any kind of proof of the existence of such a thing?

29 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:54:13pm

re: #26 Bob Levin

That's nice.

30 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:55:02pm

re: #28 Bob Levin

Bob, I suggest you read the information they have on the website and, if you have more questions, contact the researchers.

Here's a start:

[Link: implicit.harvard.edu...]

31 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 6:57:24pm

re: #30 Obdicut

I appreciate that. I'll get right on it.

32 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 7:16:28pm

re: #19 CuriousLurker

Okay, so automatically hitting "I/Good" for something related to Islam when being asked about one of the other religions would indicate a bias in favor of Islam, and "E/Bad" in the opposite situation would imply a negative bias?

I wasn't crazy about hitting the negative key for Islamic things when asking to respond for other religions, but since that's how I understood the instructions, that's what I did. Did I do it right?

Yes. It won't let you do it wrong, if you get it wrong they make you do it again and show an X.

33 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 7:17:01pm

re: #20 The Ghost of a Flea

I scored high-positive toward Islam, medium-positive toward Hinduism and Judaism, and somewhat-negative towards Christianity.

My observation about methodology is that they're assuming a pause/time lapse represents a struggle to overcome implicit associations, but a pause could also represent confusion. For me, every time "Abraham" was mentioned I had to stop and think about the fact I was supposed to associate him only with Judaism, and not with Christianity or Islam. There was also the times that the color associations yellow/grey created a false or twitch response that had to be "corrected."

That was a problem for me too. "Abraham"? OK, he goes with Islam. No? Uh, correct, correct...

34 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 7:21:11pm

re: #33 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah, the inherently linked nature of these religions makes this a toughie. WHat if a Muslim is taking the test on Laylat Al-Isra wa Al-Miraj?

35 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 7:35:25pm

OK, I took the thing again.

Taken an hour apart, it now appears I like Islam and Judaism the best, followed by Christianity, with Buddhism at the bottom.

So now I'm completely skeptical.

36 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 7:40:04pm

re: #35 SanFranciscoZionist

This is, I think, a subject that doesn't lend itself to the test at all well.

37 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 7:43:44pm

I also apparently have a slight preference for dark skin over light skin.

I was not aware of this. Nor am I totally sold.

(What does it say that I bet I would be more accepting of the results if they told me I unconciously favored white/light/Anglo? Mortified, but more accepting of the science behind it.)

38 philosophus invidius  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 7:53:18pm

re: #35 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, I took the thing again.

Taken an hour apart, it now appears I like Islam and Judaism the best, followed by Christianity, with Buddhism at the bottom.

So now I'm completely skeptical.

I think the test measures something, but I'm not sure what. I also imagine that if you take many of these tests, it might be possible to avoid "bias" by just getting better at the game. So, in my case, I was wondering if I wasn't trying harder not to be biased when the Islam words came up.

But what I mostly wonder is: how could it be proven true or false that these kinds of associations correspond to something that may be usefully called implicit bias?

39 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 9:46:22pm

re: #35 SanFranciscoZionist

You have to shake your computer very hard, or sometimes the results come up between two conclusions.

40 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 9:51:37pm

re: #38 philosophus invidius

I also imagine that if you take many of these tests, it might be possible to avoid "bias" by just getting better at the game.

Theoretically, it increases bias, in the same way that taking a good SAT or GRE prep can add 100 to 200 points to your score (in the old 1600 days). IQ tests are supposed to be taken 'cold', so that you don't learn the tricks of the questions.

41 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 9:55:03pm

re: #36 Obdicut

The assumption is that you can take something as complex as human thought and reduce it to one mechanized, almost Pavlovian lever. And as has been pointed out, this false assumption leads to results that are not consistent, to be generous.

42 Bob Levin  Wed, Oct 26, 2011 10:28:05pm

re: #37 SanFranciscoZionist

(What does it say that I bet I would be more accepting of the results if they told me I unconsciously favored white/light/Anglo? Mortified, but more accepting of the science behind it.)

Would you be surprised if you found out there is no science behind this, only something that is made to look like science?

I posted something this morning, about a study done by an Italian Jewish group that showed 44% of Italians have antisemitic feelings. Now, do I believe that if I went to 10 Italian cities in 10 days, each day asking 100 people various questions about Jews, 44 would show antisemitic feelings each day. Or that if I average it out over the 10 days, it will average to 44. Or, statistically, since there are 3 ways to compute average, all valid, yet usually yielding 3 different numbers, I'll get 44 percent?

No, that's not how I would interpret this study.

I would say that there is a very high level of antisemitism in Europe, because that has been a thread that has always run through European history. It is buttressed by the constant bombardment of BDS stories across the globe, and a media that has shown itself more than willing to manufacture such stories. Also, a knowledge of Jewish history tells me that no matter how much antisemitism I think there is, there is always more. No matter how deep I think the feelings run, they run deeper. And whenever I think there is a line that humans will not cross, they cross it.

Do I think that the cause of all of this is a Pavlovian notion of Implicit Association? That's a laughable hypothesis. It might, to some, be a measurable hypothesis, but it certainly doesn't offer a proper description of the phenomenon. However, I don't make any claims to being objective. The most I can do is offer an explanation that fits most of the facts--I can create a hypothesis that I believe will be useful when trying to explain what you see.

If there are anomalies, and there are always anomalies, then further discussion will yield more insight and wisdom, as opposed to further measurements, which at most, can only describe it again, inadequately.

And that's my case for (I'm going to get it right this time) qualitative methods.

If you want to know how you really feel about something, learn to really explore your feelings. Learn how to really accept feedback. Learn how to really ask yourself hard questions. People have been doing this very well since animals were first domesticated.

43 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 2:08:11am

re: #41 Bob Levin

The assumption is that you can take something as complex as human thought and reduce it to one mechanized, almost Pavlovian lever. And as has been pointed out, this false assumption leads to results that are not consistent, to be generous.

That's not the claim that's being made, and I have no idea why you insist on treating it as though it is.

Also, you're using "Pavlovian" wrong.

44 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 2:09:19am

re: #42 Bob Levin

This has zero to do with Pavlov.

45 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 2:12:45am

re: #8 Lidane

So my biases were in the middle of the scale. I was more positive in favor of Buddhism, with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on equal footing right below it.

I can see that. I've always been more partial to Buddhism. It makes more sense to me than anything else, at least if I was inclined to pick a faith.

Buddhism?

46 Bob Levin  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 4:21:56am

re: #43 Obdicut

The study was based on assumptions about the nature of consciousness that are little more than speculation. That they even carried these conjectures to measure a large population implied that a large population possesses these phantom mechanisms, and that these mechanisms are triggered at an unconscious level when exposed to certain stimuli. This is Pavlovian.

The dog doesn't know why it salivates, it just does. A participant in the study doesn't know why they feel good or bad about something, they just do.

Instead of calling it a Pavlovian response, they call it Implicit Associations. The cute trick is that if people believe that the test has somehow read their deepest feelings, it gives credence to an unprovable assumption about consciousness. Sleight of hand. Not science.

So I guess you're right. At least Pavlov was scientific.

47 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 4:27:20am

re: #46 Bob Levin

The study was based on assumptions about the nature of consciousness that are little more than speculation.

No, they weren't. Did you bother to read the information? Did you try to contact the researchers?

That they even carried these conjectures to measure a large population implied that a large population possesses these phantom mechanisms, and that these mechanisms are triggered at an unconscious level when exposed to certain stimuli. This is Pavlovian.

No, it's not. It's clear you don't actually know what Pavlovian means.

Instead of calling it a Pavlovian response, they call it Implicit Associations.

That's because a Pavliovian response is tying a neutral stimulus with a significant stimulus, provoking the significant reaction from the neutral stimulus even in the absence of the significant stimulus.

You are doing the common thing of just using "Pavlovian" to refer to any sort of innate response. It's a complete misuse of the term.

You could have looked this up.

Instead of calling it a Pavlovian response, they call it Implicit Associations. The cute trick is that if people believe that the test has somehow read their deepest feelings, it gives credence to an unprovable assumption about consciousness. Sleight of hand. Not science.

This seems to really have struck a nerve with you. I'm not sure why. You repeatedly say they're making claims that they're not making. You accuse them of being unscientific when the methods they use and the transparency of the process is clearly scientific. You're using terms like "Pavlovian" with great inaccuracy.

I suggest you perhaps contact the researchers, or at least figure out why you're having such an innate bias towards this.

48 Bob Levin  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 5:17:58am

re: #47 Obdicut

For this study to work, there would need to be a clear notion of the workings of consciousness and the mind. This doesn't exist. If it does exist, and it's accurate, then you are correct. To my knowledge there is no universal agreement on the nature of the mind. Physicists study it, so do neurologists--both of whom juggle several theories in the air. Neither do a great deal of communicating with Psychologists--it's built into the nature of disciplines.

No, it's not. It's clear you don't actually know what Pavlovian means.

I did pretty well in my psych classes. I tend to take a definition and go with the poetry of it. I'm a layman now, I get to do that.

That's because a Pavliovian response is tying a neutral stimulus with a significant stimulus, provoking the significant reaction from the neutral stimulus even in the absence of the significant stimulus.

You are doing the common thing of just using "Pavlovian" to refer to any sort of innate response. It's a complete misuse of the term.

Technically you are right. However, there is a need for the colloquial use of the term. Poets fill that need. I'm happy to be a part of the distortion.

This seems to really have struck a nerve with you. I'm not sure why.

Here's why. My favorite bookshelf, of many, consists of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Herbert Marcuse, Theodore Adorno and his debate with Karl Popper, books on New Physics, Asian Philosophy, Ivan Illich, Michel Foucault, and James Burke. And other assorted items from the Frankfurt School. I was associated with a magazine that published articles along these lines. These are the arguments for which we would take up the gauntlet.

And rightly so. Skim through the trusted science sources on the internet. I do. There is precious little headway on the topic of mind and consciousness. That is a bit of a problem, because without that knowledge, it's awfully difficult to be self-aware. It brings the 'other' into existence. This is a problem right up there with food and clean water.

So, that's the reason.

49 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 5:19:29am

re: #48 Bob Levin

I did pretty well in my psych classes. I tend to take a definition and go with the poetry of it. I'm a layman now, I get to do that.

Alright. I'm not going to bother talking to you on subjects like this, then. You're not actually engaging with the science. Unfortunately, you are pretending that you are.

I generally have a lot of respect for your opinions. This has made me lose some of that.

50 Bob Levin  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 5:41:28am

re: #49 Obdicut

Either the questionnaire leads to great personal insight or it doesn't. I suspect that sometimes it doesn't come close. Certainly the results are not repeatable. Folks have said that much.

It's not scientific, and I'll stand by that.

51 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 5:52:15am

re: #50 Bob Levin

It's not scientific, and I'll stand by that.

Yeah, the guy using the 'poetic' version of Pavlovian is definitely someone to listen to about what is and isn't scientific. Gimme a break, dude. You can either continue to use Pavlovian wrong even after being called out on it, or you can try making a case about whether this is scientific. Not both.

Sheesh. This is a bizarre level of arrogance from you.

52 Bob Levin  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 12:21:29pm

re: #51 Obdicut

Well, I'm not going to insult you, but I will say that a word is needed to describe a reductive, simplistic, mechanistic notion of consciousness that is simply assumed to be there with no possibility of being proven or disproven--

So I won't say Pavlovian.

53 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 1:17:01pm

re: #52 Bob Levin

They don't do that, though. They don't actually use a reductive, mechanistic nature of consciousness. They assume nothing about consciousness other than the existince of a difference between implicit and explicit attitudes, which is something that can be demonstrated.

Your whole Pavlovian thing is actually making me lose even more respect for you, since i notice you said "Instead of calling it a Pavlovian response, they call it Implicit Associations." as if they were trying to hide something by doing it. No. They don't call it a Pavlovian response because it's not a fucking Pavlovian response.

They are extremely explicit about what their assumptions are, what the limitations are. They caution anyone against using the results of this test to come to any actual conclusions-- what they encourage is just reflection, ironically what you claim you want to inspire in people.

And yet you're content to smear and mock then, dishonoring the names of Popper and other great thinkers to pretend that you're carrying on their tradition.

Should have quit while you were behind.

54 Bob Levin  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 1:44:45pm

re: #53 Obdicut

Is this how you want to discuss this, going to a downding war?

Your whole Pavlovian thing is actually making me lose even more respect for you, since i notice you said "Instead of calling it a Pavlovian response, they call it Implicit Associations." as if they were trying to hide something by doing it. No. They don't call it a Pavlovian response because it's not a fucking Pavlovian response.

Did you read #52? I won't say 'Pavlovian' when I actually mean--a reductive, simplistic, mechanistic notion of consciousness that is simply assumed to be there with no possibility of being proven or disproven--

They are extremely explicit about what their assumptions are, what the limitations are. They caution anyone against using the results of this test to come to any actual conclusions

Then I think we agree, we're all agreeing. They say that this isn't science, I say it's not science. There isn't even any hypothesis offered to help interpret reality. It's a horoscope.

And yet you're content to smear and mock then, dishonoring the names of Popper and other great thinkers to pretend that you're carrying on their tradition.

Well, here's some more stuff you haven't read. The names I listed are not in agreement with Popper. That is what whole debate was about between Popper and Adorno.

This is not something that I've just come up with. This has been a debate going on for decades. Do you think all great thinkers are in agreement? They're not.

what they encourage is just reflection, ironically what you claim you want to inspire in people.

Debate is a better way to encourage reflection. Other cultures simply ask people to set aside time for reflection. This 'study' is a long run for a short jump. It's not science.

55 Obdicut  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 1:47:21pm

re: #54 Bob Levin

Then I think we agree, we're all agreeing. They say that this isn't science, I say it's not science. There isn't even any hypothesis offered to help interpret reality. It's a horoscope.

I give up. I should have stuck with the plan of not talking to you. No, they don't say this isn't science. They say that this is not settled science that one should draw conclusions from, nor do they promote its use that way.

Poetic fucking meaning of Pavlovian. What a goddamn joke. You're not even embarrassed by that bit of sophomoric bullshit.

56 Bob Levin  Thu, Oct 27, 2011 2:55:24pm

re: #55 Obdicut

That's good plan.

And I'm not embarrassed at all by using literary skills to interpret apparently non-literary things--which, historically is called learning to differentiate between essence and literal appearance. But no matter.

They say that this is not settled science that one should draw conclusions from, nor do they promote its use that way.

What is 'this'? The workings of human consciousness? Yeah, it's not settled. But this isn't an essay about consciousness, it's an exercise that might, if the wind is blowing in the right direction, tell you how you really think and feel using an arbitrary mathematical model measuring variables that may or may not be there.

Ah wait, there's a disclaimer. It might not even do that much.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Train Songs Five
A hollow voice says Vaccinate the world!
6 days ago
Views: 453 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 6
Tweets: 0 •
Train Songs Four
A hollow voice says Vaccinate the world!
6 days ago
Views: 485 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 •
Train Songs Three
A hollow voice says Vaccinate the world!
6 days, 1 hour ago
Views: 444 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 •
Snarky Puppy - Trinity (Extended Version) Snarky Puppy never lets you down, they always come out bright and enthusiastically high on the sounds. Snarky Puppy - Trinity (Extended Version)From Snarky Puppy's new album, Empire Central (September 2022, GroundUP Music)Stream/Buy: orcd.co Written by Mark LettieriArranged by ...
Thanos
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 734 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 2 •