What I said isn't stuff I made up. It it a very brief summary of a pretty substantial body of research. But, I am being very brief and just making general points as I understand them. What I find very interesting about some of the research is how non-intuitive it is. What we keep learning about human brains is they don't work they way it looks to us from the inside. I'm pretty sure I am on about the same wavelength as people like Kahneman, Haidt, Thaler, Tversky, Ariely, Taleb, etc. They are some of the people who study these things and I study their work. Not just them, but a variety of similar researchers. But, sure, there are some disagreements between the experts on some points. There are still open questions, and ongoing research as well.
On the subject of risk aversion, there was a lot of push back from economists on that issue. It is in conflict with the rational man argument, that markets in the aggregate are rational. Now it is the one thing from cognitive psychology that they are starting to include in their models. They do so only grudgingly, because there is a cost to increasing model complexity and they insist that changes be well justified.
Also, the same ideas I have been describing are increasingly making their way into business school curricula, and into the organization and structure of the US Military. Actually, there is one or more military manuals in the public domain that go into great detail about biases and related statistical tendencies.
Other application has been found in the Good Judgement Project which outperforms the CIA and NSA by about 30% in predicting geopolitics 5-10 years out, and they do it with all volunteers and without access to classified information. GJP is run by some cognitive psychologists employing the latest research. Phil Tetlock is one of them and someone who's work I also like to study. Wall Street is also following that very closely to see if they can figure out how to apply what has been learned to making money.
Regarding migration from Africa in particular, I am only speaking from statistical tendencies seen in many migrations, but they are not strict rules that determine every migration, obviously. Many factors including, say, perhaps a nomadic culture, could also be involved in particular cases. So, if its that particular issue you meant to disagree about, I wasn't trying to make a strong argument about it one way or the other. Just saying people sometimes migrate when there is a need, but that's not the only reason.
On the subject of risk aversion, there was a lot of push back from economists on that issue. It is in conflict with the rational man argument, that markets in the aggregate are rational. Now it is the one thing from cognitive psychology that they are starting to include in their models. They do so only grudgingly, because there is a cost to increasing model complexity and they insist that changes be well justified.
Also, the same ideas I have been describing are increasingly making their way into business school curricula, and into the organization and structure of the US Military. Actually, there is one or more military manuals in the public domain that go into great detail about biases and related statistical tendencies.
Other application has been found in the Good Judgement Project which outperforms the CIA and NSA by about 30% in predicting geopolitics 5-10 years out, and they do it with all volunteers and without access to classified information. GJP is run by some cognitive psychologists employing the latest research. Phil Tetlock is one of them and someone who's work I also like to study. Wall Street is also following that very closely to see if they can figure out how to apply what has been learned to making money.
Regarding migration from Africa in particular, I am only speaking from statistical tendencies seen in many migrations, but they are not strict rules that determine every migration, obviously. Many factors including, say, perhaps a nomadic culture, could also be involved in particular cases. So, if its that particular issue you meant to disagree about, I wasn't trying to make a strong argument about it one way or the other. Just saying people sometimes migrate when there is a need, but that's not the only reason.
Last edited:
And I didn't make my stuff up either. I believe that you are taking a far too narrow definition of 'risk'. If we were risk averse we wouldn't play competitive sports or buy things on a whim. Our reward centres are wired for this. Everywhere I look I see people taking risks (on my definition of risk) on a daily basis so I cannot accept your stance without some clarification on what we actually are talking about.
Now WRT to web forums, which is what started all this, risk aversion goes out the window as the keyboard warrior feels safe in the fact that the person he is calling rude names is not
a) 200lbs and built like the rock
b) doesn't know where he lives or is far enough away not to turn up and clock him one.
A lot of things that are said on the web would not be said face to face. I have witnessed this in forums where people do meet up and the biggest online ********* are actually nice people when you meet them and look them in the eye.
Now I try to assume people on here understand what they are talking about and only change my mind if they spectacularly prove otherwise. Always visible posting history does help accelerate that.
Now WRT to web forums, which is what started all this, risk aversion goes out the window as the keyboard warrior feels safe in the fact that the person he is calling rude names is not
a) 200lbs and built like the rock
b) doesn't know where he lives or is far enough away not to turn up and clock him one.
A lot of things that are said on the web would not be said face to face. I have witnessed this in forums where people do meet up and the biggest online ********* are actually nice people when you meet them and look them in the eye.
Now I try to assume people on here understand what they are talking about and only change my mind if they spectacularly prove otherwise. Always visible posting history does help accelerate that.
Many species, including birds raise their young up to the self survival stage and then repel their young to other territories.
This is habitat territory limited resources conservation....it is to be expected that earlier humans would have followed this protocol.
Dan.
Properly designed woofer with low group delay helps, my favorite is sealed box, great transient response, no muddiness.
THx-RNMarsh
This is the part that mitocondrial testing is causing big academic bunfights over. Whilst the Toba eruption clearly nearly wiped us out there do appear to have been modern humans outside Africa before then. As genetic sequencing techniques get more advanced all sorts of new things are being found. Exciting stuff and many academic arguments still to occur!
Try this ---- insert a plug into your ear..... air tight one. Push it in.... compression. Now pull it out ... rarefaction on the ear drum. If you do it well, you should have pain when pulling it out but not when pushing the plug in. You do not have to do this real fast.... just air tight and pull it out. warning - you can really f**k up your hearing this way.
Its just a possible way to learn if the sensitivities are equal or not and which way. Just something I cooked up a minute ago. They appear to be very very different sens.
-RNM
Its just a possible way to learn if the sensitivities are equal or not and which way. Just something I cooked up a minute ago. They appear to be very very different sens.
-RNM
Last edited:
Hi Richard.
I'm not sure that this is a valid test of acoustic polarity response, perhaps more so showing limits of mechanical movement of the ear bone transfer system.
That said, when live amplified music is done correctly there is not ear pain, however when done wrongly ear pain/'ear bleeding' is the resultant.
Polarity considerations are a big part of sound 'done right'.
Dan.
Last edited:
Huh, I've never tried anything fancier than the silicone rubber tips that came with my earbuds. They seal pretty well but certainly not amazingly (enough that I don't completely lose auditory cues around me like I would with earplugs). Am I missing out?
As to the evolutionary psychology front, it seems you guys are using different definitions of risk and doing a decent bit of talking past one another. And probably being a bit too speculative. (The narratives being written are too neat to survive contact with reality)
As to the evolutionary psychology front, it seems you guys are using different definitions of risk and doing a decent bit of talking past one another. And probably being a bit too speculative. (The narratives being written are too neat to survive contact with reality)
Hi Tryphon,
That said,
Since the big difference between the two groups is test equipment, that test equipment comes under attack by those without access to it in an attempt to justify a point of view that is missing crucial information. Validation.
-Chris
Then, welcome! You have however landed in the one area of the site where moderation is very lightly done and tempers / feelings can get pretty frayed multiple times. In other words, in this thread, be prepared to defend yourself!
That said,
I can agree with you on that point.
Careful, we have both male and female members who are both capable of some excellent work!
That will change the sound of the amplifier for sure!
You can see the differences in most cases, but it is generally not a huge difference. One method I use is to take the output from a good THD meter and run that into a spectrum analyser. You may measure a little THD change, but the "residuals" in the monitor output tell the whole story.
Because one group has available to them both test instrumentation and the ability to listen to their work. On the other hand, most people who want to participate in these discussions do not have access to any good measuring instruments and can only listen. For some people who wish to be included, they can only agree or disagree on the basis of what they hear. It becomes problematic when expectation bias occurs and the only back-up they have is to claim superior listening skills. Anyone who claims to have superior listening skills with some backup is then pushed forward as "proof" that what they are hearing is true no matter what measured performance reveals. It doesn't help things when someone with decent instrumentation makes claims that are in opposition but the measurements are not done correctly or without enough resolution. The end result is what you see here.
Since the big difference between the two groups is test equipment, that test equipment comes under attack by those without access to it in an attempt to justify a point of view that is missing crucial information. Validation.
-Chris
Chris, Maybe some things left out? Not many people have an exact combination of the best of everything, test equipment, reproduction systems, hearing, training, etc. If they did there might be some disagreement, but probably less. Of people who do have all those things, not all of them want to say everything they know in this forum.
Then there is the issue Earl Geddes has pointed out, even with the best of everything, not everything that can be researched about hearing music has been researched. So, people who have everything still might have some work to do to make sure they are conducting experiments consistently with each other, comparing apples to apples, as it were.
Then there is the issue Earl Geddes has pointed out, even with the best of everything, not everything that can be researched about hearing music has been researched. So, people who have everything still might have some work to do to make sure they are conducting experiments consistently with each other, comparing apples to apples, as it were.
I still reckon that 80% of online spats are due to the word 'better'. And that is ignoring all the 'Whatz the best xxx' threads that pop up here. I do not enter those threads. If people say 'I prefer' then there is no argument. Some prefer horns and low wattage, high distortion single ended amplifier. And good on them. Others prefer restoring old massive JBL studio monitors or even Lancing theatre systems. They generally enjoy the end result as well as the journey and we should raise a glass to their efforts.
But saying 'this is the best' or even 'better than' from a purely subjective standpoint is bound to be a red rag to some.
I get more enjoyment out of my system now than ever before because I have someone to share the music with me (well at least 60% of it)
But saying 'this is the best' or even 'better than' from a purely subjective standpoint is bound to be a red rag to some.
I get more enjoyment out of my system now than ever before because I have someone to share the music with me (well at least 60% of it)
(well at least 60% of it)
Still hovering just over 0% here.
Maybe more if I include bhangra. The Indians invented audience participation.
Last edited:
There were several experiments in the 1970s and 1980s exploring the audibility of phase distortions and absolute polarity and it was discovered that the ear works in a asymmetrical way or more precisely responds differently in different frequency regions.
In the lower frequency region the ear seems to have a half-wave rectifier mechanism which means that hair cells respond to the positive cycle but not during the negative cycle. Therefore the conclusion that on asymmetrical waveforms the effect of polarity reversal is quite obvious.
Unfortunately i have to search for specific papers, so it might take some time.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.