Black metal, like its parent genre Romanticism, was a revolution against the Enlightenment that used the values of the Enlightenment against the common conception of what the Enlightenment meant. In particular, Romanticism targeted rationalism and individualism.
Its mockery of rationalism was to point out, scientifically, how our arrogant scientists pick one thread out of ten thousand, measure its before and after states, and conclude it was the cause
of the result of the whole complex process. This is what Michael Crichton called "thin intelligence" or "partial intelligence": the ability of a brain to be very good at a specific process, but useless as to the big picture.
Its mockery of individualism was to point out how individualism is useless in a social context, and is only a means to the end of experiencing life, so those who use socialized individualism as a goal are, of course, delusional idiots.
Here we can see bad science on the march with "statistical superstition" as described above:
Social status in childhood appears to influence one's health in adulthood, according to a 30-year study published today.
The study tracked more than 14,000 children born in Sweden in 1953. They were followed through 2003. When the children were in sixth grade, they were assessed for their degree of popularity, power and social status. The information was matched to data on subsequent hospital admissions recorded from 1973 to 2003.
The analysis showed the least-popular people in childhood had the highest overall risk of serious health problems as adults. They were four times as likely to be hospitalized for hormonal, nutritional or metabolic diseases compared with their popular classmates. They were more than twice as likely to develop mental health and behavioral problems and more than five times as likely to be admitted for unintentional poisoning. Finally, they were more prone to develop drug and alcohol abuse problems and heart disease.
Apocalyptic City Times
There are of course here statistical exceptions, who were the kids who were not popular but also had something going for them, like being dissident science jocks or absurdist literature aces. They're talking not about the class geeks, but the people on the lower half of the middle: not popular not because they're freaks, but because they had nothing to offer
So out of ten thousand reasons why these people might have health problems, we zero in on one: their degree of popularity, itself a highly subjective and non-linear scaling.
We ignore the fact that if they were not popular, there was a proximate cause
, mainly that they were probably ill, useless, stupid, disfigured, incontinent, projective vomiters already.
We could get the same figure by measuring those who could spell "vomit" and seeing how they did in later life. The clueless did not prosper; the clued in, and those with clued in parents, did.
No wonder "science" is so bad -- it's done backward. Instead of seeking truth by experimenting, we seek a popular answer and then make narrow cherrypicked-factor studies to justify it.