We did a sort of similar thing when we first got a totem beak.Subtle differences. A few coins on the top of the enclosure created the same thing.
dave
dave
Maybe, but what about MRI ?
Another thing to consider, cells in your body are refreshed at a rate of 500.000 per second, almost 50Gig per day.
In two weeks all cells in your body are replaced by new cells, but you memory and consciousness are still intact, how’s that possible with all those new cells .
I don’t believe in astrology or anything coming even close to to that, I’m just mentioning facts.
Talking about consciousness is not that simple as it may seem to be.
Hans
Just Sunday i spent about a half hour in a shiny newish Seimans MRI machine. Much more open than the machine they had some 6 years earlier when i had a scan.
zI’m allergic to the dyd in CT scans so my doc has switched to using MRI to see inside me. We are really just in the start of the blood-letting, barber=doctor days.
I expect we will continue to see better and better observatiuonal tools. Big bucks in medicine, not nearly as much in hifi.
dave
There is something to it, even though its a model. Thousands of college students were tested for lazy/dysrational thinking. IIRC those at Harvard and maybe MIT did better than those at most other universities. Still, there was a lot of what Kahneman termed as lazy thinking. There is a lot of meat in such research. Not something to dismiss too quickly based on negative emotion.
Also, maybe people who don't work in the sciences, where they can see how the sausage is made, don't like what they see if given the inside view. Its a messy process a lot of the time. Takes time to work itself out, but eventually science does tend to make useful progress.
Last edited:
I found that very hard material like “NASA grade” ceramic cones from Golden Sound work best, allowing excess energy to exit rapidly via the tips of the cones; aluminum, carbon fiber and brass are considerably softer than ceramic or, say, tempered steel. once upon a time I must have had fifty of those suckers in the room.
Nah, I have a STEM degree and my interest in science began when cars had fins. Upstream the philosopher Ellul was mentioned for his work on technological societies. He also wrote a well respected tome on propaganda, worthwhile reading for Wikipedia users.
Okay. So...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...onal-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/
https://academic.oup.com/mit-press-scholarship-online/book/22880
https://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Quotient-Toward-Rational-Thinking/dp/0262034840#:~:text=A monumental achievement and a,call themselves scholars of reasoning.&text=This volume profoundly challenges the,cognitive science's dual-process model.
"This groundbreaking book is the culmination of decades of research on what it means to be rational."
"A monumental achievement and a must-read for all who call themselves scholars of reasoning."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01889/full
"This book shows that rational thinking, like intelligence, is a measurable cognitive competence. Drawing on theoretical work and empirical research from the last two decades, The Rationality Quotient presents the first prototype for an assessment of rational thinking analogous to an IQ test: the CART (Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking). The book describes the theoretical underpinnings of the CART, distinguishing the algorithmic mind from the reflective mind. It discusses the logic of the tasks used to measure cognitive biases. The book presents a unique typology of thinking errors. The Rationality Quotient explains the components of rational thought assessed by the CART, including probabilistic and scientific reasoning; the avoidance of “miserly” information processing; and the knowledge structures needed for rational thinking."
Given the above and more, would you still regard Stanovich's work as propagada? If so, what sort of propaganda to serve what interests?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...onal-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/
https://academic.oup.com/mit-press-scholarship-online/book/22880
https://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Quotient-Toward-Rational-Thinking/dp/0262034840#:~:text=A monumental achievement and a,call themselves scholars of reasoning.&text=This volume profoundly challenges the,cognitive science's dual-process model.
"This groundbreaking book is the culmination of decades of research on what it means to be rational."
"A monumental achievement and a must-read for all who call themselves scholars of reasoning."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01889/full
"This book shows that rational thinking, like intelligence, is a measurable cognitive competence. Drawing on theoretical work and empirical research from the last two decades, The Rationality Quotient presents the first prototype for an assessment of rational thinking analogous to an IQ test: the CART (Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking). The book describes the theoretical underpinnings of the CART, distinguishing the algorithmic mind from the reflective mind. It discusses the logic of the tasks used to measure cognitive biases. The book presents a unique typology of thinking errors. The Rationality Quotient explains the components of rational thought assessed by the CART, including probabilistic and scientific reasoning; the avoidance of “miserly” information processing; and the knowledge structures needed for rational thinking."
Given the above and more, would you still regard Stanovich's work as propagada? If so, what sort of propaganda to serve what interests?
Last edited:
what does the book say about the "rationality" of arguing with rando's on the intertubes about a subjective hobby that many of us spend a perhaps irrational amout of money and time obsessing over? j/k
Last edited:
In regards to audio and the so-called objectivists, some of the objectivi are converts from once having been audiophiles. Someone else may have at some point 'confronted' them with incompetent perceptual testing in the form of ABX to prove to them they can't trust their hearing at all. There is then often a subsequent conspiracy element to the convert's thinking.
Jakob2, given his somewhat limited English skills, explained the objectivist convert syndrome thusly:
"IME this kind of obsession is often to find in people who converted themselves from "golden-ear" to "non-golden-ear" , usually by doing some kind of "blind tests" without knowledge about propper sensory testing.
So they decide having erred all the time when perceiving differences between electronic audio devices (including cables and other stuff) under the premise that the measured numbers are below the known hearing thresholds.
The next step in the reasoning seems to be that they did not just have fooled themselves (when believing these differences exist) but were misled by a world wide conspiracy of manufacturers, reviewers and sales men. This way it is obviously easier to accept the former illusion. "It wasn't my fault, I was tricked into it...."
In this state of belief it is (IMO) apparently extremely difficult to accept informations that provide evidence contrary to the new belief, as it would mean to accept that he might have triple-fooled himself during the conversion process."
Jakob2, given his somewhat limited English skills, explained the objectivist convert syndrome thusly:
"IME this kind of obsession is often to find in people who converted themselves from "golden-ear" to "non-golden-ear" , usually by doing some kind of "blind tests" without knowledge about propper sensory testing.
So they decide having erred all the time when perceiving differences between electronic audio devices (including cables and other stuff) under the premise that the measured numbers are below the known hearing thresholds.
The next step in the reasoning seems to be that they did not just have fooled themselves (when believing these differences exist) but were misled by a world wide conspiracy of manufacturers, reviewers and sales men. This way it is obviously easier to accept the former illusion. "It wasn't my fault, I was tricked into it...."
In this state of belief it is (IMO) apparently extremely difficult to accept informations that provide evidence contrary to the new belief, as it would mean to accept that he might have triple-fooled himself during the conversion process."
That is pretty condescending characterization. We could paint just as foolish a picture of the subjectivist or we could just say to each their own and have fun with our cool sh!t.
What about people who are neither objectivist nor subjectivist? I measure objectively. I also use my ears to hear what isn't so easy to measure. I can use both methods as tools to improve audio an design. It works if you know how and you are willing to practice your listening skills. Does existing research psychoacoustic research rule that out? I don't think so. Maybe for the average guy, but not necessarily for someone who keeps working on skill development. The same could be said for the listening skills of a musician. How much practice does it take to develop the skill to transcribe a symphony. A lot, I would say.
I think I'm in same camp as you and I would imagine most are to some degree. I'm not sure I trust most musicians listening skills.
No one is debating the validity of rationality. Newton harboured irrational beliefs. Most of human history is a record of universally held irrational beliefs. It's pathologizing divergence from commonly held beliefs that has already proven itself an authoritarian nightmare.
See the 1920s works of Lippmann and Bearnaise for example of the rationalisation of propaganda.
I expect many of us were children when the interest came and that was just what was about. A buddy had one like this (his dad owned teh dealership).
But i did, particularily after being tweaked by a particularily good teacher, did get into mathematics heavily. My degree was math with a heavy dose of science (mostly physics) and computer science.
A start of a second degree in EE was short circuited by a work term turning into a more interesting full time job. I did during that take organic chemistry and was offered a work term placement so i was OK at that too.
dave
What most of us probably most frequently encounter around here may well be a product of the the work of Cialdini:
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Ne...p-0062937650/dp/0062937650/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
https://www.amazon.com/Pre-Suasion-Revolutionary-Way-Influence-Persuade-ebook/dp/B01C36E2YS
These are the modern bibles of advertising.
If that comment is aimed at @Jakob2’s comments i would remind everybody that this guy really knows his stuff wrt testing and statistics. My officail degree is in statistical amth and i love the eleganc eof his use of the english language in describing the issues involved. He is very precise.
f you had a million dollas and facilities including an anechoic chamber, he would be on the short list to be lured away from whatever he is doing now to be the technical director of studies to explore some of these controversial issues with scientifically solid subjective studies (any such would also a lot of measurement).
dave
it was in response to marks quote of Jakob, you don't think it's a simplistic lampooning of the objectivist point of view?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.