Why do you think soundbloke is asserting that you can't (in reality) do the things that you've described?
Could be that I've missed something, but isn't he just pointing to the fact that there exists a risk of fooling oneself? Means that we all should be aware of the potential to be mistaken (even consistently) by our perception.
Hard to debate as obviously the risk exists, regardless of whether you're perceiving something or not perceiving something.
Although we/I have done over the years controlled listening experiments with roughly 160 different listeners (as stated before, observing the whole range in self-assessment, from severe underestimation to strong overestimation of their own listening abilities), I've not tried to find out if people are able to maintain a false (means very likely false) perception consistently over the years.
It is not renaming 'hearing', it is instead descriptive of a part of our cognitive processing that enables one signal to be discerned from another, such as distinguishing two voices from each other or an instrument played in a reverberant or noisy environment.
You have not missed much
It is not, however, a question of whether something is perceived or not. I take it as a true report that something is perceived. The question is whether or not that perception is the result of a real event or simply imagined.
Audio-wise I have no data to contribute here, but many delusions can exist for life, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Often too, such evidence only serves to aid the affirmation of such false hypotheses. I would offer for consideration examples of songs for which people hear and thereafter sing the wrong words (Desmond Dekker's "My ears are alight" is a well-known example). Unless something happens to make a subject aware of their error, it will persist with added certainty each time it is remembered.
Unfortunately simply "sticking to one's guns" just increases the probability of assimilating perceptual errors.
My uncle calls the hardware chain Lowe’s ....Lowell’s, and it’s not a speech impediment either, he even spells it Lowell’s.....when confronted he thinks he’s right. Now that’s delusional perception!
So fill me in on what makes you so sure your on the right track? Years of training and experience.....hmmmm?
So fill me in on what makes you so sure your on the right track? Years of training and experience.....hmmmm?
A more pertinent and useful question would be to ask why am I not on "the right track".
Again that is nonsense. I have cited two people and worked with many others that have convinced me beyond all reasonable doubt that they possessed exceptional hearing acuity. You might well have similar acuity, but that in no way precludes you from the same possibility for delusion in your perception that is possessed by myself, my colleagues and the population at large.
There is nothing of particular note in any testing protocol I have ever observed, taken part in, adopted or devised myself. I have repeated several times in this thread too that there is wholly justifiable reason to question the accuracy of double blind testing. But that does not give good reason to ascribe certainty to any individual's subjective observation without objective grounds to support it. You seem to be searching for certainty that will almost certainly allude you forever.
What is not? The difference with the long-established models I describe here and that which you simply assert is that the models I describe are supported by real evidence that affords them a higher degree of certainty.
It’s really just a fancy way of saying what is repeated on this forum regularly......subjective opinions mean nothing except to the ones giving it.
I don’t find that so in my reality, there have been many subjective opinions set forth by others here that I fully concur with by way of mutual experiences.
I also think the discussion to be able to link objective testing with subjective claims is of high importance, and deserving of more effort.
What bias now....Is disagreement bias? ......I suppose it is to the other feller!
I don’t find that so in my reality, there have been many subjective opinions set forth by others here that I fully concur with by way of mutual experiences.
I also think the discussion to be able to link objective testing with subjective claims is of high importance, and deserving of more effort.
What bias now....Is disagreement bias? ......I suppose it is to the other feller!
Last edited:
I have never said that at all, only that there is good reason to question the certainty ascribed to any subjective finding.
Given that our perceptions are inherently private, this statement too begs certain questions. But that heads off-topic somewhat...
Indeed it is! But such a model will likely require an acceptance of the uncertainty in all of our perceptions and the likelihood that many subjective observations will be further evidenced to be false hypotheses. Please do not be under the impression that such a model will simply vindicate your assertions.
Bob, You are pointing out things you have learned to recognize largely automatically. Exactly the same thing I do, but with different sounds that have been learned.
Confusion seems to occur when other people can't imagine they could not recognize the same things without taking the time to develop your level of recognition ability.
For a rough analogy, take recognition of regional or local accents in language. There are audible differences, but they are something that non-expert speakers may insist do not exist or insist that magic powers or trickery must be involved in recognizing, since they (the non-experts who haven't taken time to learn how) can't do it too.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.