I feel like I'm in a roomful of priests discussing sex. With adult women, that is. There seems to be little connection between many of the comments and the reality of sensory testing.
Show of hands: how many people here have actually participated (as administrator, experimental designer, researcher, or test subject) in controlled sensory testing of any sort? If yes, can you describe the experience?
Show of hands: how many people here have actually participated (as administrator, experimental designer, researcher, or test subject) in controlled sensory testing of any sort? If yes, can you describe the experience?
Unless we just told him 'yes, yes!, YES!' as it went, no matter how he was going and just revealed the correct answers at the end
I wonder if we could have a recorded female voice doing that?
You're right - I didn't think that through.
Interesting to know if that additional knowledge would help or hinder - I could see it hurting if the person tried to reconstruct what they did to get a right answer and tried to do some sort of deconstruction of their internal processes, looking for a way to replicate it.
Yes.
Much the same may be said with regard to an actual audible difference.
And when I said "nothing more than psychological phenomena," I wasn't saying or implying that it's necessarily known a priori. I said it only in the sense that we know it's a possibility.
That's why I choose the word "perceive." On its own, it's ambiguous, i.e. it may be due to an actual audible difference or it may be due to something purely psychological.
However the word "hear" is not ambiguous. It implies that there is an actual physical difference which was picked up by our ears and perceived as a difference by our brain.
Until an actual audible difference is demonstrated, the situation remains ambiguous and I feel that "perceive" best suits that ambiguity.
Sorry, but your thought experiment here makes no sense to me whatsoever and I fail to see how it relates to anything I've said.
Or is there something I've misunderstood about your definitions - to me this proposed solution is totally impractical. As well as crucifying the normal English usages of the words 'hear' and 'perceive'.
My proposed solution is simply this:
Until such time as an actual audible difference can be established, or in other words as long as the situation remains ambiguous, the term "hear" should be avoided and "perceive" should be used instead.
se
Motivation? How much effort will a subject apply if the tester has already 'educated' them in advance the purpose of the test itself is to demonstrate belief in a positive result is irrational. Seems pretty obvious to me, and motivation is one of the core components of an 'expert listener' quickly rattled off by Olive.
If you've spilled thousands of lines of electronic ink asserting that a belief in a positive result is essentially religious, delusional or 'idiocracy', it just might have an impact on the motivation of your subject.
I raise my hand!
The real test is nothing like these guys are posting. I find their "theories" to be just excuses. Its definitely like Priest trying to describe sex....what a great analogy.
I was one of those who use to think there was differences. I mean $$$, brand, subjective exaggerations all play a part in our conclusions. I was no different until I bet $$$ one time and lost.
I didnt feel pressure, I was 100% confident, I knew I was going to win the money. I was shocked at the results.
I guess if someone really lacks confidences, if someone is scared to admit they are wrong then somehow the test creates pressure but anyone here beating their chests daily at the pulpit of subjectivity are surely not those who can not admit faults?
OK, could you give specifics? What was the test, who was administering it, what were the protocols?
Hi,
I feel it could work both ways.
Good or bad depending on how the testee responds to that kind of stimuli.
Cheers,
I feel it could work both ways.
Good or bad depending on how the testee responds to that kind of stimuli.
Cheers,
Hi,
How about consulting a dictionary instead of making thing up as we go?
Cheers,
I did, and posted the definition earlier. Steve is correct.
Done in 1990, dorm room University of Waterloo, Canada.
I sat there with just two speakers. I saw nothing else or anyone else.
I had a sheet in front of me to try and explain the differences for 10 different tests lasting about 45 seconds each. It took about 30 seconds between for each cable switch which was manual but hidden...
We did two sessions. One for my favorite rock n' roll bands and then they threw in some classical for me (I hate it but its important to the test).
The idea was that I could spot the better SQ from what I though should have been better cables.
The same sort of relentless effort you poor victimized believers put into this snapshot 15,000 post thread, defending your faith.
Right. No motivation by the believers whatsoever. 30yrs of vociferous claims and 15,000 posts later
Positive result??? What positive result? When? Where?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.