Indeed I am, but that is not the reason. The reason is that it is impossible to prove something is true with complete certainty. Instead we are constrained to excluding what is not true.
Serious question soundbloke, are you dyslexic?
I have difficulty communicating with those who have that affliction......my wife has a pretty good dose of it and I can barely have a conversation with her without the same level of frustration I get conversing with you.
You don’t seem to understand that I agree with most of what your saying just disagree in that everyone doesn’t fall under this net you’ve cast.
Besides the two examples you’ve cited as ‘surprising’ you leave no middle ground.
I have difficulty communicating with those who have that affliction......my wife has a pretty good dose of it and I can barely have a conversation with her without the same level of frustration I get conversing with you.
You don’t seem to understand that I agree with most of what your saying just disagree in that everyone doesn’t fall under this net you’ve cast.
Besides the two examples you’ve cited as ‘surprising’ you leave no middle ground.
No.
But everyone does fall within the perceptual model I have cited. I actually span both subjectivist and objectivist "camps" too, because I am aware of the errant assumptions in both.
Soundbloke, Maybe you should also recognize the possibilitiy of a certain percentage (say 5% for example 😀) fall into a higher functioning category and can maybe slip out of the net.
I’m thinking the more time and effort one puts in comparing in a real world setting the more accurate the results will be.
Learned behavior like mark says......you have to work at it.
I’m thinking the more time and effort one puts in comparing in a real world setting the more accurate the results will be.
Learned behavior like mark says......you have to work at it.
If you read my contributions you will find that the model I have applied is applicable to people of all hearing acuities. I have also described how a hysteretic model is required to account our learning capabilities.
I know the type, but in my experience maybe only make up 20% (Random pull it out of the behind number) of the populace.
Yay and now the thread has descended into two old men who think they can hear better than everyone else ganging up on someone trying to have a serious discussion.
That is not an assumption I have made or anything to do with any post I have made - or even an assumption as far as I can tell. So I ask again, please cite an assumption I have made that you believe is errant...
I happy you agree with soundbloke that you are deluded just like everyone else. You are deluded in more ways that you know in fact, and so is everyone else (including ScottJ).
Look, I know what soundbloke is talking about, I have studied plenty of the literature too. I don't have a problem with him stating things that are understood by experts in other fields.
I also don't have a problem with people describing their audible perceptions, accurate or not. The perceptions are real mental experiences to the people hearing them. On average there is probably useful information, and some people are probably more expert at listening than others (if they can be reliably identified).
Where I have a problem is with causal explanations about humans expressed with certainty without appropriate supporting experimental confirmation. That's nothing new on my part, I have always been leery of unsupported certainty regarding causal explanations.
With that, I will withdraw from the conversation for the time being and watch how things unfold.
Last edited: