Our Beliefs and Attacking Ignorance

[rdenney]

Agreed, there will always be the occasional person with a personal agenda of some kind. As you say they can generally be identified and the mods will sort that out soon enough.

Yes, and it should be the standard response to assume new posters have pure motives, whatever the content of their post may reveal about intent. If they don't, it will become obvious soon enough.

(Again, recognizing the difference between motive and intent. One can be found guilty in court based on intent, but this is not a court of law.)

But I want to explore a different facet of the OP's plea: This forum enjoys unprecedented support from industry insiders, journalists, manufacturers, and established experts. But will those pros hang around if ASR develops a reputation for hostility? If the ASR point of view has data to back it up, we simply don't need hostility, however many times a new person brings up a shibboleth.

I was for a very long time an active member of the rec.bicycles.tech newsgroup, and the more technical Hardcore Bicycle Science mail list. As with any human pursuit, what makes a person good at pursuing it may not require expertise in the apparatus that person uses, but because of the close connection between skill and apparatus, the user may believe stuff that the expert knows not to be true. Ask Frank Dernie about his interactions with drivers for examples of what I mean. But those people are the customers of the pros who bestow their expertise on this forum, and cannot be seen to participate where their customers are being attacked. It seems to me ASR must avoid that.

When one has data, one does not need assertion. And there is no place in science for tribalism.

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

 

[rdenney]

There are practical limits to just how many times one can cover the same ground over and over and over again. People who arrive here in the spirit of this forum know why they have come here and, we assume, know what to expect. Sadly, rather more than we like to hope come here with a ‘mission’ to convert the wrong-thinking lunatics of ASR back into true believers.

Never forget that the perception of this forum within the audiopile world in general is, at best, that we suck the life out of their hobby* and, at worst, are a bunch of nutters with an irresponsible agenda to degrade their beloved hobby* to the level of mere numbers.

*I use the word ‘hobby’ in the pejorative here as the principal distinction between audio professionals and hobbyists is that the former know where the line between the subjective and objective is correctly drawn.

Yes, and this is the challenge for the long-time members of this forum. But it will be sensed as: If you don't have the knowledge that having participated here for five years brings you, then we will dismiss you. People sense it as a closed club. It takes someone of very thick skin and more than a little wisdom to endure those hazing rituals.

But if we recognize them as hazing rituals, they may be easier to avoid in the first place. It seems to me that the mission of ASR is not served by following the boot camp or college fraternity model.

Rick "who did read this forum for two years before joining, and joining in" Denney

 

[Robin L]

I came to this forum in large part because it was one of the few places that acknowledged the inherent faulty nature of LPs and LP reproduction. This is something that is easily demonstrated with measurements---you know, science. Of course, there are also people, long standing members at this site, into LPs, who are rational about the whole thing. But a lot of newbies come here with disinformation, I challenge them because the measurements are not in their favor. I don't think this is so much an issue about philosophy as it is about the rise of disinformation. I don't see the point about giving them wiggle room here, they've got plenty at Mikey's Planet or Corner, any number of other sites, they can lie all they want there. If I'm a resident anti LP troll, so be it. This is a subject that appears to generate more disinformation than any other in audio forums.

 

[Thomas savage]

I came to this forum in large part because it was one of the few places that acknowledged the inherent faulty nature of LPs and LP reproduction. This is something that is easily demonstrated with measurements---you know, science. Of course, there are also people, long standing members at this site, into LPs, who are rational about the whole thing. But a lot of newbies come here with disinformation, I challenge them because the measurements are not in their favor. I don't think this is so much an issue about philosophy as it is about the rise of disinformation. I don't see the point about giving them wiggle room here, they've got plenty at Mikey's Planet or Corner, any number of other sites, they can lie all they want there. If I'm a resident anti LP troll, so be it. This is a subject that appears to generate more disinformation than any other in audio forums.

Disinformation is seductive when it enforces the ' self ' , audio is a self indulgence after all so its not surprising.

If you're really wanting better sound be prepared to embrace being wrong ! If you want better anything one has to run toward cognitive dissidence not away from it .

 

[q3cpma]

In Rome, do as the Romans do is for everybody
No mercy for the lazy who wants to be spoonfed everything and expects his ignorant questions and disregard of any sticky to be met with "tolerance" and other eternal September fuel. You don't magically get a community of good quality, you make it.

 

[ahofer]

I was telling @BDWoody privately that one clear rule we should follow is to avoid ad hominem. If you are going to label something wrong, stupid, idolatry, whatever, make sure it is an *idea* not the person. There is a lot more to being polite and receptive, but that goes a long way.

and I agree it is tiresome. The last such incident (Martin of 13th Note) I engaged in a way I thought was fairly patient. But he put forth a long streak of ideas that are unsupported, even contradicted, by research. Hard not to go for the dunk. (If anyone thinks I was inhospitable, I’m open to criticism).

Assuming positive intent is another one. If they are trolling, it only reflects badly on them. No shame on being taken in, although it doesn’t feel that way.


Third and last rule: affirm that we all/both love this hobby, cool gear, and great sound. Narrow the zone of disagreement to the *audibility* of accepted subjective phenomena (or behavioral science, or whatever).

1. label the idea, not the person
2. Assume positive intent
3. Affirm your commonalities

follow these rules, and I think we may be more friendly and, importantly, more persuasive.

I do not intend to suggest I have always followed these rules. I aspire to.

 

[Wes]

Y

For example it's a known fact that DAC's have been transparent to human hearing for decades

I am surprised to see this assertion on a "belief" thread.

There are certainly DACs which are easily distinguished from others. Maybe you mean separate DACs sold as such? Even then, I have not seen DBTs on every one of those.

 

[q3cpma]

I was telling @BDWoody privately that one clear rule we should follow is to avoid ad hominem

Just mentioning that ad hominem isn't just insulting someone, it's doing so in a rhetoric context to fill the lack of salient argument. Thus, calling someone stupid isn't necessarily an ad hominem. Pedant mode off.

 

[Jimbob54]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so apologies if it's in the wrong place. Also, I realize that a philosophical statement might be distasteful to some, so I invite the mods to delete this if they see fit.

I've been a member of this forum for a couple of years now. In the past few months as it has grown, I see a lot of new members both accusing and being accused of everything from being a troll to a shill to an idiot (frequently using those terms). Certainly there are some language barriers and cultural differences that we've always made room for, but I think there is also something else going on.

Humans have a tendency to identify with their beliefs. That is, their beliefs shape how they see themselves as people. Seems obvious, right? When someone's beliefs (and therefore identity) is threatened, they fight back, lash out, become defensive, etc. If a person's identity is (in part) that, "cables make no difference in the sound of an audio system," and someone comes along and says, "I just read this article where someone proves cables make a difference," that sets off an emotional response.

I'll admit to rolling my eyes when I see posts by new members asking for recommendations and then detailing their entire system including power conditioners, expensive cables and interconnects, power cords, etc. so we can make an informed recommendation with appropriate "synergy" (that's what's expected on most audio forums, after all). My eye rolling compulsion is an automatic response that isn't really under my control. I just have to be aware of it and act accordingly. It's tempting sometimes to make a smart-ass remark that is sure to get a dozen "likes" from like-minded members, but I've managed to control myself for the most part.

When we inform people that they are wrong (and we should), sometimes it will cause them to dig in their heels and defend themselves because even well-intentioned rebuttals can come across as attacks. This is inevitable, of course, and knowing why this happens should help us understand how to diffuse a situation that becomes tense. Unfortunately, sometimes those who should simply say nothing go a step further with snarky, rude, or insulting replies. Some visitors or new members who might have been genuinely curious at first are just going to go back to their old audiophile forums and talk about what a bunch of jerks they found.

Many people haven't had any exposure to the ASR way of thinking about audio. Most of the information available on audio equipment is extraordinarily subjective, and there is SO much of it that it becomes hard to believe that ALL these sources of information must be mistaken. Many visitors here are venturing into a whole new world (I can relate to that experience to some extent). We may not change someone's way of thinking with a single forum post, no matter how well reasoned or how much data we provide--it may take some time. If we chase them away with rude or snide comments, they won't hang around long enough to get anything out of this forum. There is a lot to be learned here and a lot of really smart, thoughtful, and knowledgeable people to learn from, so the more people that stick around the better.

Very true and I have been guilty of some of the behaviours you note from existing members, always good to have somebody point out when the line is crossed.

On the other hand, the growth is attracting the trolls and I have a strong hatred of the troll. Yes, it plays into their game, I know, but it's a bit like watching someone pissing on your lawn and doing nothing about it if left unchallenged.

 

[HiFidFan]

I am surprised to see this assertion on a "belief" thread.

There are certainly DACs which are easily distinguished from others. Maybe you mean separate DACs sold as such? Even then, I have not seen DBTs on every one of those.

I'm very interested in that last part.

I'm fairly new here but I see a big point of pushback against subjectivists is the DBT challenge. So am I to understand that every single DAC needs to be DBT'd against one another?

 

[Shimei]

This is known as presuppositional apologetics in both philosophy, apologetics and theology. As well modern science is coming to terms w/ what the previous mentioned schools of thought have been shouting from the rooftops for some millennium: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-01/tud-whw010821.php

What a person believes beforehand really matters. So many in every area of life deny this. I mean in Apologetics Evolutionist vs Creationist look at the same evidence but have quite different narratives they'll defend to the death. In audiophile we witness the same thing. Lord knows this happens in the study of theology. And now neuroscience has confirmed what is. Nobody is truly Agnostic - if that is desirable. I mean when an axiom or premise is true..... an agnostic just learns for themselves what was already true for themselves - they reinvent the wheel.

 

[ahofer]

I'm very interested in that last part.

I'm fairly new here but I see a big point of pushback against subjectivists is the DBT challenge. So am I to understand that every single DAC needs to be DBT'd against one another?

One could insist on that, but it isn't terribly realistic to do so. I tend to think the burden of proof is on others to show that DACs measuring within established audibility parameters *can* sound different. Research needs to stand on the shoulders of (or refute) past research and proceed to test falsifiable assertions.

And it is certainly part of the playbook of subjectivists to peel away years of research in their disbelief to make it impossible to contradict them - requiring of us to prove negatives in a series of turtles all the way down. Prove there aren't exceptions to audibility thresholds for us golden ears, prove that you have measured everything, prove that the setup of your DBT isn't a critical confounding variable (going back to audible thresholds),etc. It's the subjectivist whack-a-mole challenge!

Just mentioning that ad hominem isn't just insulting someone, it's doing so in a rhetoric context to fill the lack of salient argument. Thus, calling someone stupid isn't necessarily an ad hominem. Pedant mode off.

I believe that's true if you refer to the formal fallacy, but the dictionary doesn't require that. "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." /semi-pedantry mode

 

[Robin L]

I'm very interested in that last part.

I'm fairly new here but I see a big point of pushback against subjectivists is the DBT challenge. So am I to understand that every single DAC needs to be DBT'd against one another?

No, the ones that are worth getting pass a certain threshold of SINAD. Once they get to that level, a DBT would be beside the point as the noise and distortion artifacts would be totally inaudible. Thus the SINAD charts in the reviews. If they're in the green, they're what you want.

 

[q3cpma]

I believe that's true if you refer to the formal fallacy, but the dictionary doesn't require that. "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." /semi-pedantry mode

That's what I meant, an insult isn't always an argument.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

From my perspective, the problem with audio is that it is a technological method which is attempting to recreate a very subjective experience, i.e. music. Many if most people don't agree on musical tastes, and everybody's hearing/perception is unique, so it is not a stretch to realize that this subjective mindset can bleed over into the strictly technological aspect of the system which is reproducing their music. To an inexperienced music lover who is new to advanced audio, there is no obvious way to compartmentalize the objective from the subjective. The overabundance of purely subjective publications/websites certainly does not help, and neither does the abundance of seemingly confusing/conflicting technical solutions.

We can provide help to those who are genuinely seeking guidance, but humans being what they are, sometimes this mission is like farting into the wind. We must do this guidance in a sincere manner, with as little dogma as possible, otherwise we're no better than the snake oil salesmen; to the uninitiated, we're just selling a different brand of snake oil.

 

[ahofer]

That's what I meant, an insult isn't always an argument.

Always glad to see another fan of the formal fallacies. They aren't very helpful in conversation, I've found- you have to explain them most of the time, bringing everything to a pedantic halt. And they irritate so much they don't help with persuasion - "do you see that's a No True Scotsman Fallacy?" Plus everyone thinks Begs the Question means "poses the question". The ensuing dialogue clarifying the fallacy often reminds me of Freddie and Frederica arguing about her bosom(s).

 

[q3cpma]

Always glad to see another fan of the formal fallacies. They aren't very helpful in conversation, I've found- you have to explain them most of the time, bringing everything to a pedantic halt. And they irritate so much they don't help with persuasion - "do you see that's a No True Scotsman Fallacy?" Plus everyone thinks Begs the Question means "poses the question". Reminds me of Freddie and Frederica arguing about her bosom(s).

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if I have to explain them, the level of culture of the audience or my opponent is too low to bother. But yeah, Reddit intellectuals and other people who like to hear themselves talk have given these a bad reputation.

 

[mansr]

I was telling @BDWoody privately that one clear rule we should follow is to avoid ad hominem.

What about ad hominem paleas?

 

[mansr]

When I'm in the mood to do so, I'll respond to such posts, and when I'm not, I let someone else do the responding (or not). But forum searches, wiki pages and FAQs can only do so much: Many people want to have a conversation, not read a textbook.

The problem is that a shelf full of textbooks can't be readily condensed into a 5-minute conversation.

 

[q3cpma]

The problem is that a shelf full of textbooks can't be readily condensed into a 5-minute conversation.

And that considering members as answering machines really isn't a good way to keep your long time contributors.