Ok. I'm afraid I won't just take your word for it, though, since I still see you making the same error, and since I have already explained how I can know your claim:
Is wrong.
By observation.
I found that the
experience of listening to music became harder to concentrate on and instant constant access tended to make it feel less special.
Yet I know from the facts of my own experience that I care deeply about music.
So, you've gone wrong somewhere in your attempt to make a deduction about human psychology. It's a frankly naive deduction for the reasons I've already given.
This is hardly an uncommon feature of human psychology. Take your favorite desert from your favorite restaurant, one you love, but only have once in a while. Now switch to being served that desert with every single meal, every single day. If you are like most people, you will get bored of that desert. It simply will not sustain the stimulus that it has when you only eat it occasionally dining out. Is the correct deduction "therefore you NEVER REALLY valued or enjoyed that desert?" Of course not. You loved it. Savored it. But the fact of human psychology is that our reaction to something is affected by the context in which we experience it.
And people are affected in different ways.
I'm sure glad you are nice, and letting me down easy. ;-)
Code:
music + X (vinyl, tubes, whatever floats your audiophile boat) => enjoyment
music alone => "significantly less" enjoyment
=> most enjoyment came from X, not music
Yeah. Naive deduction, unfortunately. For the reasons given. Part of your error is contained in the "music alone" because it simply hides everything of relevance I spoke about, since it's not simply "music alone" because the music isn't simply "appearing alone" it is
being delivered by a particular technology that provides a specific experience of the music, which will affect some people differently than others.
Here's information from which we'll make a similarly fallacious deduction:
Fred has a bad back and requires a chair with good back support in order to be comfortable.
Fred has gone with his wife to see his favorite piece of music, Mahler’s Symphony n 5, conducted by his favorite conductor.
It turns out Fred's seat's back support is sunken, so that he is too uncomfortable to enjoy the music.
He switches seats with his wife, and now has a comfy chair - he's able to focus on and enjoy the symphony.
Now here is the deduction in the way you have made it:
X(music) + comfy seat = enjoyment of music
"music alone" = "significantly less" enjoyment.
=> Most enjoyment came from the comfy chair.
See the problem? In "music alone" I've left out the very rational facts of the matter - Fred's bad back and the broken chair - that made for Fred's significantly less enjoyment of the music in the first place. Which makes for a ridiculous conclusion.
Another way of putting the poor conclusion more explicitly:
X(music) + comfy seat = Fred's enjoyment of music
X(music) + broken seat = Fred's "significantly less" enjoyment of music
= Most enjoyment came from the comfy chair
Therefore Fred never really
didn't care that much about music in the first place (Mahler’s Symphony n 5)
See the fallacious inference? It's not that Fred loved the comfy chair more than Mahler, it's that a comfy chair ALLOWS Fred to indulge in his love for Mahler at the symphony.
But that initial fallacious inference is what you were doing. By not acknowledging how the situation in which X is presented can affect how a person responds to X.
Similarly, if someone is prone to distraction, and takes pains to reduce distraction so they can concentrate on X that he loves, it is fallacious to infer that therefore the steps he takes to reduce the distraction ENTAILS that it's the STEPS the person actually cares about instead of X.
I hope this has cleared things up
Cheers.