There's certainly a level of mechanical knowledge that allows eventual penetration of sleights and not being fooled by ones that you know (though a good three card mollie guy can fool me every time, even though I know the trick and can do it reasonably well). Analogously, if I were presented two amplifiers in A/B and one sounded a bit clearer and more open than the other, I know enough to first look at level matching, but my monkey brain is still telling me that one is "clearer and more open."
View attachment 154086 Actually Scientology came about due to L. Ron Hubbard & Isaac Asimov having a bet about who could create a new religion
Looks like Mr Hubbard won the bet
I'd name the book i read this in if only i could remember it, however it was one of Asimovs.
I have heard that, but I'm not sure it was Asimov.
Fredex used a paint brush that would do Earl Scheib proud and you agreed. I found that ridiculous too.
Interesting SY. I assumed once familiar with the mechanics of a trick seeing through it was second nature for pros. While one could quibble about the difference between deception and self-deception (either way, or that there is a difference!) it's a good reminder about limits.
@ champ04,
to dismiss the observations of thousands (or only one single person) isn´t part of the scientific methodology (obviously it is often done in the name of science, but that isn´t necessarily _real_ science), but to accept these observations as a fact is a totally different thing.
Science is simply based on reliable routines to establish facts (if possible, or more philosophically based is trying to falsficates hypothesis by these routines) and therefore a basic set of requirements is mandatory.
But to just dismiss an observation is quite often just bad science.
Unfortunately a real dilemma exists, as we don´t know (exactly) what people percept if we don´t do controlled tests, but otoh we either don´t know if they percept in the _same_ way as before if we do controlled tests.
We have wrt to these questions to rely on humans as detectors and that is different than doing tests with just "things" .
Ideally _good_ (or so to speak _real_) science tries to find solutions for this dilemma but that first of all requires to deal with human imperfection under test conditions.
Wishes
I think we basically agree.
In know that in physiology (and I assume any case where humans are involed) we have to account for all sorts of things that could negatively impact the actual testing proceedure. And many times we find out after the fact that we were inadvertently testing the wrong thing.
To be clear, when someone equates my sensibilities to that of a Scientologist it is tantamount to calling me stupid.
I and many audiophiles perceive something seemingly unexplainable. But when we earnestly seek for reasons and are met with the idea that you either pass a DBT or you are simply fooling yourself it does no good. And then to go further and equate my position as "faith" (which is to also imply ignorance) and act as if you (the "science" guy) can explain it all away with the results of a DBT also does nothing for the advancement of understanding.
Incidentaly, I think the marketing effect on people for a product like coke is a far cry from that of stereo cables. Constant bombardment in daily life for products that wont affect the pocketbook of anyone is not nearly equatable to something that can cost thousands of dollars.
If a man decides to buy a Ferrari when he could also have chosen a Lamborghini, Porsche, or Buggati, did he do so simply because of that well placed add in the Robb Report? I think not.
I and many audiophiles perceive something seemingly unexplainable. But when we earnestly seek for reasons and are met with the idea that you either pass a DBT or you are simply fooling yourself it does no good. And then to go further and equate my position as "faith" (which is to also imply ignorance) and act as if you (the "science" guy) can explain it all away with the results of a DBT also does nothing for the advancement of understanding.
Incidentaly, I think the marketing effect on people for a product like coke is a far cry from that of stereo cables. Constant bombardment in daily life for products that wont affect the pocketbook of anyone is not nearly equatable to something that can cost thousands of dollars.
If a man decides to buy a Ferrari when he could also have chosen a Lamborghini, Porsche, or Buggati, did he do so simply because of that well placed add in the Robb Report? I think not.
You use DBT in a very broad sense. Are you saying that sighted testing is the only option? Earnestly seeking reasons includes eliminating the obvious which I find too few audiophiles interested in.
No. It is quite explainable...and verifiable. It's called psychology. Accepted by everyone else, as part of the "hearing" process of the human brain.
You absolutely refuse to even consider this, much less accept it, as a possibility.
So you tell us in your own words, what does that make you?
You got it all wrong.
a) Unfortunately faith does not imply ignorance. I wish it were otherwise, ignorance is always a good excuse.
b) DBT doesn't explain anything; it only scientifically confirms there's something happening that requires a scientific explanation.
Hi,
Should tolerance not work both ways?
Cheers,
I don't know what you mean.
Curly character.
I admit being tough on people who will just not look at most-likely explanations, waving them away in pursuit of the exotic and mysterious. But at the same time, I'm quite tolerant of anyone who will bother getting evidence, going where experiment leads, and willing to give up their preconceived ideas when reality intrudes.
I've also been pretty clear on what it would take to change the minds of rationalists, and while some have run away, and others have gotten more creative and abusive with their excuses, at least a couple have stood up and said, "You know, it would be interesting to find out what I can actually hear. Let's try it."
If that's intolerant, I'm intolerant.
I've also been pretty clear on what it would take to change the minds of rationalists, and while some have run away, and others have gotten more creative and abusive with their excuses, at least a couple have stood up and said, "You know, it would be interesting to find out what I can actually hear. Let's try it."
If that's intolerant, I'm intolerant.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
"See, Oprah? I'm taller than you now"
Why are we now speaking in absolutes? Wasnt it you that included Scientology as an example of people believing anything they are told?
Really? And you know me how well? I ABSOLUTELY refuse? And you base that on exactly which one of the four posts I have in this thread so far?
As a matter of fact, I have a fair amount of training in psychology. FYI
And seriously, I cant be the only one here that see's the complete condecending tone of this guy. Really?
As an aside I could just as easily say that you ABSOLUTELY refuse to accept any reasoning whatsoever in the fallability of a DBT!
To be honest I dont know what options we have. I dont claim to have all the answers.
BUT, as a physiologist I see particular aspects of this line of thinking that could be very problematic. I'm happy to try to explain.
Please indulge me and consider everything I am about to write as a whole. It is all interrelated.
In sport we have what we call an Anxiety/Performance relationship curve. In short, it describes the optimal anxiety level an athlete SHOULD reach in order to optimise their peformance.
Extreme examples would be Shooting/Archery on one side and Olympic lifting on the other. A shooter must reduce anxiety to an absolute minimum due to the minimal body movement and the intense focus. An Olympic lifter must generate very high anxiety as it stimulates muscle bundles that otherwise would not come into play. Ever seen those guys inhale the smelling salts just prior to a lift? Thats part of it.
Beyond the anxiety level is the psychological aspect. Some athletes can be considered "pre-wired" for certain events. And since we will have the Winter Olympics on in a few weeks I'll use an example from there.
By all outside perception there is very little difference between Long Track Speed Skating and Short Track Speedskating. In fact, the only perceivable difference is the length of the track and whether its raced against the clock (Long)or pack style (Short).
But there is a fundamental psychological difference that blocks most elite athletes in either discipline from excelling to the same point in the other. Basically Long Trackers have very disciplined lives where everything is in their control. Short Trackers tend to be more seat of the pants type people. This makes perfect sense since in a Long Track race nearly everything IS in the racers control. Its just him and the clock. In Short Track you can be far and away the best athlete in the world but still not win because of interactions with other skaters. Remember in 2002 when the guy in dead last wins the gold medal because all three guys in front of him fall. A typical Short Trackers response to this is "Thats Short Track!" A Long Tracker would be demanding a re-race, which is expressly against the rules.
Yet another aspect to performance is the environment. It is quite common for athletes to achieve personal bests in practice and totally crumble in competition. It also quite common for people to perform differently simply based on the people around them at the time.
Many years ago while I was training myself we were performing time trials during practice. I was feeling good and expecting a good peformance. My coach saw me relating this to a friend. He scoffed and belittled me. In that time trial I fell.
That afternoon I went to the bar early and by time I got home I was good and drunk. Being drunk I also ordered a large pizza which I nearly consumed.
You dont have to be a physiologist to know that this is NOT the right diet going into any athletic performance. And yet the following morning, perhaps still a little buzzed and certainly of a different frame of mind I did another time trial. I blew away my previous best and actually qualified for the Olympic Trials. Obviously I was fully capable of doing this the day before and yet my psychological perspective kept me from peforming at the time.
My psycholigical makeup allowed me to not only bounce back but to excell given this obstacle. Others, friends with much more talent than I, never became anything because they never developed the ability to adapt to differing preasure situations. They were never able to adapt their personal anxiety level.
How does this relate?
I should think it obvious that differentiating subtle differences in cables would neccesitate extremely low anxiety levels. And it is perfectly within the rhelm of possibility that not many "audiophiles" would be capable of achieving this level during a DBT.
A) Because they may not be "wired" that way to begin with.
B) Because even if they were they probably dont have anywhere near the practice neccesary to perform under preassure. And given the climate and length of this debate a DBT could only be considered a high preassure performance request.
Many people scoff at John Curl when he shamelessly admits that he can tell the differences only when seeing the actual cables. (I trust I got this correct)
But to a physiologist (WITH psychological training), its not suprising in the least. John's brilliance is not in performing under preassure. Its designing exceptional equipment. And no offense to Mr. Curl, but I happen to be standing next to him at CES last week and didnt exactly get the impression that he would have ever had the benefit of any elite athletic training under preassure.
I applaud the efforts of SY to create a DBT where TubeGuy would have a minimal level of performace anxiety. And I applaud those who have strongly suggested he practice for the occasion.
But just as it takes years for a shooter to perform well under preassure, despite consistent and repeated ability in practice, I would not be suprised should even TG end up failing the test. In fact I think the three scenarios listed above are enough to weed out just about any audiophile, truth be told.
And my point is NOT that a DBT is invalid. It is simply that there are numerous reasons to fail that do not include the inability to differentiate the performance of cables. ALL of these are valid reasons and not "making excuses" as the hard liners would suggest.
Like I've said before, I'm no electrical engineer. But I am a scientist and my scientific training is no less valid than anyone elses.
How would we construct a test to allow for these hurdles? I dont propose to know at this point. All I ask is a little more openmindedness in considering all angles. I dont think the fields of EE, Audiology, and Psychology are able to explain everything that MAY be going on.
Cheers,
- Status
- Not open for further replies.