Nobody has really used the word stupidity applied to people who give credence to subjectivity, but your post here definitely implies foolishness, which is an unfair characterization as well.
John
Magura said:
When was the last ,or,when will be the first time that you had/will have your hearing checked?You might be either plesantly,or,unplesantly surprised.Do you know the status of your hearing at this moment?Don't hide behind old sayings/slogans.Their use cannot be a privillage of neither,a believer or a non-believer.Are you sure that your hearing is in a position to feed your brain with the maximum possible information when yo are listening to your audio system?
jlsem said:
A "very smart" way to cover-up the fact, that some,believe they are superior intelligence creatures,IMO.
jlsem said:
John, is that fair? I go to great length to explain that it's NOT a matter of calling of thinking someone stupid. It IS NOT. Yet, you seem to persist to say: maybe, but that's what you meant! No, I didn't mean that. Stop putting words in my mouth I didn't say, just because you have no real arguments.
You know, it's so predictable. It's ALWAYS the perceived victims that shout "You calling me a stupid/liar/deluded/fill in your pick??", everytime somebody is critical. Don't you realise its always the so-called victims that insist they are called stupid? IT IS NOT THE CASE.
jd
Maybe there is a language barrier here, but in English stupidity and foolishness have very different meanings. I read in your post that otherwise intelligent people fall victim to audio snake oil. I can think of no other way to read this than you believe that people who perceive differences in audio components where the laws of physics seem unable to provide an explanation are behaving foolishly. If I am wrong, what was the aim of your post?
John
John
janneman said:
You are doing it again.Only this time it is not smart/stupid,but "very smart/not so very smart.
Re: elementary watson
From a discussion on the JoeList... black jacketed cable often does perform different than the same cable in other colours because the black is often made by adding carbon as a colouring agent. Jacket longevity is also affected.
dave
Coyote said:
From a discussion on the JoeList... black jacketed cable often does perform different than the same cable in other colours because the black is often made by adding carbon as a colouring agent. Jacket longevity is also affected.
dave
jlsem said:
OK, let me try to explain. Often it is implied that people who believe in snake oil (however defined) are stupid, which in my understanding of the word implies a lack of intelligence or, as was said, substandard intelligence.
My aim was to explain that that is not the case, by referring to a lot of studies that show that even extremely intelligent and logical people can believe in things or do things that most of us would call 'stupid'. IOW, believing in cable directivity, the healing effects of triangular stones and the sound absorbtion of upside-down broomsticks does not mean someone is stupid or has substandard intelligence.
Hence it is very unfair to call someone stupid just because he believes in something that a lot of others would not.
Am I making sense?
Edit: what I would like to get rid of is the knee-jerk reaction, when I say for example that sound differences can be explained by a lot of other things than just the sound, automatically the person addressed shouts: 'you calling me deluded??". No I didn't. If that person would spend 20 mins on google he/she would know what I was talking about.
jd
janneman said:
IMO this is a contradiction.You say that intelligent people can believe in things that "most of you would call stupid".This IMO means that those who don't believe in those things are not-in their opinion,or,according to some studies-stupid.So,in any case you are just telling us who you think the stupid is,provided of course that you consider the studies you are refering to,as facts.
janneman said:
EXACTLY! No one is calling anyone stupid. We are all HUMAN and fallible. When people fly off the handle at the mere mention of the possibility of the placebo effect I find it hard to logically discuss difficult subjects with them. They consider themselves infallible.
You hear a myriad of rational that is supposed to make them somehow superhuman and immune to being mistaken. Things like "Well I didn't expect the change, I was expecting nothing to happen" in a way this sets you up MORE for the placebo effect. If you just hear exactly what you expect well then no big deal it was expected.
Anyway we can get kind of snarky in this thread but I don't think anyone is really trying to call anyone stupid. One of the weird thing about the placebo effect is that it DOES work. People really hear things with placebo tweaks the same as people who take a sugar pill thinking it is a drug will get better quicker.
Now I'm not calling anyone stupid with this sentence but I will say that one of the stand out traits of a truly intelligent person is doubt.
Key said:
Aren't there any people who take the sugar pill and DON'T get better quicker,or,don't get better at all?I know there are.The problem of these examples,is your choice of only the one side of the coin,usually the one that it is closer to back-up your opinion.
Let us include the sugar pill in the examples that prove there are no cable differences.Will any one tell us if they have ever checked their hearing and if the results allow them to be confident enough so as to rely only to measurment results?
Panicos K said:
No, it varies with the case or circumstance. We are all stupid once in a while, no exceptions.
Maybe an other example. Lots of people lost money in the latest crisis because they were investing in schemes that clearly were very high risk, and that those people that lost even themselves said, afterwards, 'I was sooo stupid'. But these were not stupid people, these were often very intelligent people that did a thing that many others (and, in hindsight, even themselves) thought stupid.
OTOH, if I have a very strong believe and someone challenges me, it's hard not to feel belittled and called stupid or dumm. So it's an understandable reaction but not necessarily correct, and not at all constructive. Once you can accept criticism on your ideas or believes and not see it as a personal attack on your intelligence or whatever, you can learn very fast.
jd
Perhaps then there is the language barrier. I said this, "Nobody has really used the word stupidity applied to people who give credence to subjectivity...". You replied thusly, " I go to great length to explain that it's NOT a matter of calling of thinking someone stupid. It IS NOT. Yet, you seem to persist to say: maybe, but that's what you meant!".
I then replied, "Maybe there is a language barrier here, but in English stupidity and foolishness have very different meanings...I can think of no other way to read this than you believe that people who perceive differences in audio components...are behaving foolishly."
If you don't want to address the difference between stupidity and foolishness, then we'll leave it at that.
Snarkily,
John
Just listen to North Mississippi Allstars "Hernando" and all the pain goes away.
Its the music, stupid...
Its the music, stupid...
OK. Good discussion, though.
Edit: I *think* I understand the difference between foolishnes and stupidity, but I don't want to imply either of those terms in my posts.
jd
Edit: I *think* I understand the difference between foolishnes and stupidity, but I don't want to imply either of those terms in my posts.
jd
janneman said:
I understand what you are trying to explain.But as long as your examples always end with someone who is the stupid of the example-in this one the investors-the other side of the coin is unavoidably the "smart".Sorry🙂 🙂
Who would be the "smart"if the investment was profitable"?On the other hand,if an investment could be known to be profitable,all would be smart.Therefore I find your example unsuccessful🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.