Not at all.
(1) Many people who work primarily by themselves haven't lost their appetite for the kind of conversation they once enjoyed when they worked with larger groups of people.
(2) General intellectual curiosity about what people are talking about, and concerned with these days.
(3) If you're in business serving the public it is highly useful to know what people with the interests of your business are thinking.
I know a fair amount of people who are in the audio business, and it is not the least bit uncommon for them to complain about being attacked and disrespected on audio forums.
I think that this article might explain a lot of it:
http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kruger_dunning.pdf
It explains that just about everybody but the true experts overestimate their competence in an area.
I conclude that therefore if someone who is a true expert corrects them they may tend to resent it because they overestimate their expertise in that area.
If you read the book by Kanneman (which I strongly recommend,) he says that everyone over estimates his own competence, even experts, and recognizing this fact is an individual thing. He shows several examples, but my favorite is the Wall Street traders who claimed one thing but he shows that the data says something completely different. These guys made millions and swore they were experts (and apparently their clients did too, even though it was their millions that they were taking.)
Knowing accurately what you actually know is a very difficult thing. One that takes a lot of practice.
The scientific method was created just to circumvent this problem. How many people in audio actually use it though? Just a few.
This is a great idea, but one that is a little time consuming. I will usually say where one might find the information, but seldom will I actually go out and track it down. To me that's the responsibility of the reader.
But I certainly appreciate people who do post the actual sources. I'm just too lazy to do so!!
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
this thread is kind of recursive isn't it - the very topic of discussion seems to have generated the very kinds of posts we find so entertaining 🙂 !!!!
I'm not friendly like SY so this is a warning to those who have decided to push their own agendas here. No further personality bashing or you'll be riding the pine. Get over yourselves.
Gee I started this to thank the other audio pros here and it went to this. Well I personally thank you. Lesson learned.
Do you think that's funny? I think it's mean to the kid, OTOH I think W. C . Fields is funny.
IMO the worst situations here don't have to do with competence, but simply the opinion that science/engineering is flawed with respect to one thing or another.
Attachments
Last edited:
I see Arny K. here another voice of reason in the wilderness of real statistics and anti snake oil. Arny, I never would have made it to Mix or EQ cover if it had not been for learning about sound cards from you. Ygank you.
Yes, it precisely proves my point about why experts don't come here. Who wants the abuse.
I am dismayed that whether a scientific paper is funny is being suggested as a significant criteria for judging it.
Of course, I'm also dismayed that people with a serious interest in audio and loads of relevant knowledge are being discouraged from participating in audio forums.
I've seen this happen to others way too much.
That, too.
Arny did you read the joke I copied out of the paper, the joke about fooling kids?
The premise is that recognized experts in comedy gave it a high rating, I think a lot of people would not find it very funny.
You weren't curious about what I was referring to? I'm surprised this passes as science.
Jack Handy quote, if memory serves. Then again, I think Michael O'Donoghue is one of the funniest humans who ever lived.
I did't see where you copied a joke out of the paper because it was way out of order. You might want to read your posts...
Oh, I think I know which joke you are referring to and frankly I had a similar reaction.
Well I'm not a professional comedian and my wife tells me that I can ruin any joke by telling it so, well what do I know? ;-)
I thought you were just being your usual semi-cryptic self... ;-)
I'm not. They used what on the face of it seems like a good procedure.
That some of their authorities may have mislead them a little, well stuff like that happens, humanity being what it is, and all. I still think that it is a pretty good paper.
Science is formed in such a way that it is self-correcting because everybody knows that nothing is perfect.
Sorry, my bad, the paper was an image and I didn't feel like typing it in. Me cryptic?
We should already know that posts on the web tend towards harshness and being perceived harshly, and hopefully people are being respectful of this.
If we can add to that our knowledge base the tendency to overestimate our competence, then we might contribute to a kinder, gentler web.
I didn't understand your post either.
Maybe Arny and I are just dumb - we agree on most things so either were both dumb or both enlightened.
But I don't see how the joke has any implications to the validity of the paper.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.