• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Grammy nominations and the improbability of 2L

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,133
#21
BREAKING NEWS: No prize for 2L

As expected, 2L and Morten Lindberg didn’t win a prize this year. 2L were nominated for two albums in 2019.

2L have been nominated 34 times since 2007. Still no wins. Given the fact that there seem to be 5 participants in the categories that 2L take part in, the probability of no wins after 34 nominations is 0.8^34=5%.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
20,594
Likes
25,382
Location
Seattle Area
#22
My initial point was about the corrupt Grammy Awards where the 2L case serves as a "proof beyond doubt" that the awards are rigged. I pointed to 2L as an interesting case in a statistical sense because we don't need to use assumptions of representativeness to prove bias. And then I commented that the corrupt Grammy may not be so surprising after all given how low America scores on different surveys of trust, transparency etc., especially compared to the Scandinavian, Nordic and Northern European countries.
Which is complete nonsense. I explained for business reasons why the awards are not fair. You took that to generalize that Americans as a culture are corrupt? Let me quote you since you have forgotten what you wrote:

I think the Grammys show foreigners how corrupt the American society is, and has always been.
Now it is "surveys of trust and transparency?" How did that become American society is and has always been corrupt?

As to what I know, as I explained, you seem to be reading books rather than having any experience in real life. You haven't sat next to an executive in an international standard from another country predicting how another peer company would vote. When I asked why, he said because he knows all the women said executive had slept with that he didn't want anyone to know. And vote came exactly how he predicted. This is corruption as a way of doing business. You don't know the meaning of the word if you think Americans as a whole are corrupt.

I have lived in multiple countries, I have experienced their cultures first hand and I know someone making insulting generalizations with no hands on experience from a mile away. As you setting yourself up as authority, you have established no such level here. You are posting under an alias with a nationalistic agenda. I get that as pride in your countrymen but don't go outside of those bounds, insulting not only me, but the entire country.

The whole point about transparency is ironic here anyway. We have a forum where I lead with the most ruthless form of transparency there is. And you accuse me and my countrymen of being corrupt?

If you are dying to set yourself up above Americans in honesty and transparency, I suggesting taking a 360 test to realize how much you fit that ideal and then save the post for a forum that discusses that. This is not the forum for that.
 

Hugo9000

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
227
Likes
506
#23
The winners are not drawn randomly as in a lottery from those nominated. So how do statistics and probability enter into it? Perhaps the corruption lies in how 2L manage to keep getting nominated, while not producing recordings that are to the taste of those voting on the actual winners? Of course, it's possible that larger record companies pay their way to winning these days, but I don't see how probability enters into what amounts to a popularity contest or taste test of sorts. At this point, considering 2L's history with the Grammy Awards, if they ever DO win, I'd say that would be the suspicious result haha! (Perhaps those that vote don't like MQA, and the fact that 2L is providing "MQA CD" files to Qobuz instead of true CD resolution haha!)

Here's another scenario: a tiny town has a "beauty contest" and every year for the past twenty years, there are the same 5 entrants. One of them looks like Charlize Theron, the other four look like Roseanne Barr. Every year, the Charlize Theron lookalike wins. The losers could certainly claim that it's a result of corruption that they never win, but I don't think anyone would give credence to such claims. :D
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,133
#24
The winners are not drawn randomly as in a lottery from those nominated. So how do statistics and probability enter into it? Perhaps the corruption lies in how 2L manage to keep getting nominated, while not producing recordings that are to the taste of those voting on the actual winners? Of course, it's possible that larger record companies pay their way to winning these days, but I don't see how probability enters into what amounts to a popularity contest or taste test of sorts. At this point, considering 2L's history with the Grammy Awards, if they ever DO win, I'd say that would be the suspicious result haha! (Perhaps those that vote don't like MQA, and the fact that 2L is providing "MQA CD" files to Qobuz instead of true CD resolution haha!)

Here's another scenario: a tiny town has a "beauty contest" and every year for the past twenty years, there are the same 5 entrants. One of them looks like Charlize Theron, the other four look like Roseanne Barr. Every year, the Charlize Theron lookalike wins. The losers could certainly claim that it's a result of corruption that they never win, but I don't think anyone would give credence to such claims. :D
That 2L uses corruption to get their nominations; I must confess I didn’t think about that possibility.

Statistically speaking, your argument makes sense, though :)
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,133
#25
Which is complete nonsense. I explained for business reasons why the awards are not fair. You took that to generalize that Americans as a culture are corrupt? Let me quote you since you have forgotten what you wrote:


Now it is "surveys of trust and transparency?" How did that become American society is and has always been corrupt?

As to what I know, as I explained, you seem to be reading books rather than having any experience in real life. You haven't sat next to an executive in an international standard from another country predicting how another peer company would vote. When I asked why, he said because he knows all the women said executive had slept with that he didn't want anyone to know. And vote came exactly how he predicted. This is corruption as a way of doing business. You don't know the meaning of the word if you think Americans as a whole are corrupt.

I have lived in multiple countries, I have experienced their cultures first hand and I know someone making insulting generalizations with no hands on experience from a mile away. As you setting yourself up as authority, you have established no such level here. You are posting under an alias with a nationalistic agenda. I get that as pride in your countrymen but don't go outside of those bounds, insulting not only me, but the entire country.

The whole point about transparency is ironic here anyway. We have a forum where I lead with the most ruthless form of transparency there is. And you accuse me and my countrymen of being corrupt?

If you are dying to set yourself up above Americans in honesty and transparency, I suggesting taking a 360 test to realize how much you fit that ideal and then save the post for a forum that discusses that. This is not the forum for that.
On a widely used Corruption Perception Index America is number 22:

https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018#results

Scandinavia, Nordics and certain Northern European countries score much higher.

This is not running an agenda. This is not about making insults. This is fact based.

You could argue, however, that many countries are far worse than America. But America is no beacon in this respect, i.e. its rank on a corruption index.
 

Hugo9000

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
227
Likes
506
#26
That 2L uses corruption to get their nominations; I must confess I didn’t think about that possibility.

Statistically speaking, your argument makes sense, though :)
Oh, I doubt that they do that, it's probably not that hard to get a nomination in classical fields these days, as there aren't that many recordings being made. I imagine they'll soon do away with the best opera recording category, as there are so few being recorded. Most of the full opera releases of the past couple of decades have been live recordings. Studio recordings are too expensive, and the record labels won't take the losses for making "prestige" recordings like they used to. If there are only a handful of recordings in a given category each year, it's a sure thing to get a nomination, at least. lol
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
20,594
Likes
25,382
Location
Seattle Area
#27
On a widely used Corruption Perception Index America is number 22:

https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018#results
Seems like you just googled that and didn't bother reading the intro:

1549842604030.png


And what is their definition of public sector? You download their methodology and get this:

1549842973843.png


In other words, it is how money is spent by our government. That of course is far from ideal with the system we have.

Nothing remotely about this survey encompasses all Americans. Vast majority of us have nothing to do with public sector.

It is your data therefore that is corrupt.

Don't feed us google results please. You can't find evidence of what is not there.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
20,594
Likes
25,382
Location
Seattle Area
#28
BREAKING NEWS: No prize for 2L

As expected, 2L and Morten Lindberg didn’t win a prize this year. 2L were nominated for two albums in 2019.
All this time you didn't bother telling us what they were competing against. Here it is:

1549843854031.png


You honestly think they had a chance against Alan Parsons Project Eye in the sky?


With this:

I am a fan of 2L music but it simply is not mainstream enough to get broad support.
 

pwjazz

Active Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
246
Likes
280
#29
Being German, I'm particularly sensitive to attempts to paint groups of people with large brush strokes like "corrupt" or "trustworthy". Corruption in particular also seems to be something that's in the eye of the beholder, which is probably why the corruption indexes published by Transparency International focus on "perception" rather than other measures. I haven't Googled any papers to back this up, but I suspect that in any government/society/economy, those on the bottom see more corruption than those on the top. To give one example, I once worked in a business unit of a large consulting company in which golfing was a major part of the culture. The more successful and actively promoted members of the team just happened to play golf with upper management on a regular basis. I personally gave up golf after my teenage years and had no desire to regularly spend 3 hours or more of my leisure time doing something unenjoyable for career reasons, and didn't think that this should be relevant to my career advancement. There were times in which I perceived this system as corrupt, but I'm sure that at least some of the golfers on the team simply perceived it as enjoyable and synergistic.
 

Kal Rubinson

Major Contributor
Industry Insider
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
1,020
Likes
866
Location
NYC/CT
#30
I am a fan of 2L music but it simply is not mainstream enough to get broad support.
Aside from the oldy winner, you might say that about the rest of the nominees, none of which I have heard. Hard for me to grasp what the choices and awards mean.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
20,594
Likes
25,382
Location
Seattle Area
#33
Aside from the oldy winner, you might say that about the rest of the nominees, none of which I have heard. Hard for me to grasp what the choices and awards mean.
I recognize a few including my favorite Brandi Carlile. Nice to see here get the recognition she deserves.

 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,133
#34
@amirm , your remark in post #22 that I have a nationalistic agenda is somewhat hard to digest. Let me quote Eric M. Uslaner, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, in that respect, to shed some light on where your thoughts get mixed up and confused:

"A standard assumption people make in informal discussions about trust is that the Scandinavian countries rank highest on generalized trust (cf. Rice and Feldman 1997) because it is easy to trust other people in a homogenous society. The reasoning is, of course, that most people can be trusted if they look and think like you do. And, yes, the Scandinavian countries are more homogenous, but they are more egalitarian and especially more Protestant. And, overall, ethnic diversity does not shape trust - or, even, indirectly, economic inequality. So Scandinavian societies are so trusting because they are more equal and Protestant, not just because they are all blond with blue eyes".
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...y_and_Institutions_in_Comparative_Perspective

Think about that quote for a second. Does it make sense?

In one of my first comments, I wrote that American society is and has always been corrupt. That comment was meant to provoke a bit, but let's look at the American history for an anecdote.

If we go back in time, to the 1930s, we have the story of "Business Plot" and marine corps major general Smedley Butler's heroic efforts to stop a coup d'état to overthrow Roosevelt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot). Despite Butler's efforts, the American military has never been more mighty than it's today, yet only about seven members of Congress have children in the military. No skin in the game.

Let's go to present time for anecdotes on the current state and look at a couple of quotes of the last two presidents of the United States.

Obama talked about "fat cats". And Trump now talks about "draining the swamp". Both are alluding to corruption, aren't they?

In 2013, Jimmy Carter said - in the aftermath of the news on NSA and Snowdon - that "America currently has no functioning democracy".

How are we to understand these three presidents? Are they all just trying to win another election or are they delusional?

The military and the presidents may have lost some of their glory to the central bankers in modern times. So take a look at this anecdote on systematic leaks from the Federal Reserve:

https://newschicagobooth.uchicago.e...t-cozy-relationship-between-big-banks-and-fed

The study, which used over 500 million data points on cab rides, found that there's a cozy relationship between the Fed and commercial banks. I am surprised the University of Chicago study didn't make more noise than it did. Most people I talk to have never heard of it.

Enough anecdotes, so let's go back to the more systematic surveys and research.

I referred to a widely used survey of corruption, Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. And you just waved it off as irrelevant in a discussion of corruption. Your attitude makes it hard to lay the foundation of debate.

For readers who are more curious on trust (and by extension corruption, as I believe they are interlinked), take a look at this short well curated page on trust, edited by Oxford University:

https://ourworldindata.org/trust

(They have a dedicated page on corruption as well: https://ourworldindata.org/corruption).

Take a look at this chart on interpersonal trust in America:

Skjermbilde 2019-02-12 kl. 01.05.29.png


It's this kind of data that I think warrants focus on the erosion of trust in society and corruption as a driver of mistrust.

To put this data in context, to illustrate where I come from - and which may explain why I react in a different way when I see sources of trust erosion than @amirm :

Trust-vs-GDP-per-capita.png


Take a look at Norway and some of the Nordics (Netherlands too!). It's on a whole other level. I think this is interesting data, which has been on my mind for decades already. Could these data cast light on how different people react differently when exposed to an example of corruption, like for example the Grammy Awards?
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
20,594
Likes
25,382
Location
Seattle Area
#35
@amirm , your remark in post #22 that I have a nationalistic agenda is somewhat hard to digest.
What speaker brand you like again?

Let me quote Eric M. Uslaner, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, in that respect, to shed some light on where your thoughts get mixed up and confused:

"A standard assumption people make in informal discussions about trust is that the Scandinavian countries rank highest on generalized trust (cf. Rice and Feldman 1997) because it is easy to trust other people in a homogenous society. The reasoning is, of course, that most people can be trusted if they look and think like you do. And, yes, the Scandinavian countries are more homogenous, but they are more egalitarian and especially more Protestant. And, overall, ethnic diversity does not shape trust - or, even, indirectly, economic inequality. So Scandinavian societies are so trusting because they are more equal and Protestant, not just because they are all blond with blue eyes".
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...y_and_Institutions_in_Comparative_Perspective

Think about that quote for a second. Does it make sense?
No, it makes no sense. Your claim was that America is corrupt and always has been. We weren't discussing Scandinavian countries.

Addressing the quote anyway, I explained I have lived in multiple countries, and done business in some 20+. With staff reporting to me in most of those countries where I head to learn and adapt to their cultures. So my case is not "trusting people that look and think like me."

On the other hand, the quote reflects your position very well. You trust your countrymen and mistrust others. Lack of diversity seems to be the reason from what you quoted.

Fortunately there are a lot of people from your neck of woods that don't suffer from the same superiority complex in this regard. One of the nicest engineers I managed was from Scandinavia. I am a fan of companies such as Dirac, Genelec, etc. I suggest some serious self-reflection here. Your enemy is within, not me.
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
7,067
Likes
3,390
Location
Riverview, FL
#36
Philippines has a problem...

Maybe two problems, on that chart above.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,133
#38
What speaker brand you like again?


No, it makes no sense. Your claim was that America is corrupt and always has been. We weren't discussing Scandinavian countries.

Addressing the quote anyway, I explained I have lived in multiple countries, and done business in some 20+. With staff reporting to me in most of those countries where I head to learn and adapt to their cultures. So my case is not "trusting people that look and think like me."

On the other hand, the quote reflects your position very well. You trust your countrymen and mistrust others. Lack of diversity seems to be the reason from what you quoted.

Fortunately there are a lot of people from your neck of woods that don't suffer from the same superiority complex in this regard. One of the nicest engineers I managed was from Scandinavia. I am a fan of companies such as Dirac, Genelec, etc. I suggest some serious self-reflection here. Your enemy is within, not me.
@amirm , your claim I have a nationalist agenda due to my speaker choice sounds like a joke. A bad joke. And I think it's way below the standards of a web forum.

(Having said that, I thought @Thomas savage was joking when he made the same claim, but now I am not so sure anymore. See https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ou-consistant-in-your-views.5986/#post-134392 ).

Your constant reminders of your international experience - that makes you wave off academics, their research and widely used surveys on trust and corruption - is an example of illusory superiority, i.e. overestimating one's competency, skill and abilities in an area. Has it ever occurred to you that your experience as a manager at for example Microsoft doesn't make you an authority on cross-country trends in habits, culture and themes like trust and corruption? Your experience may make you an expert in the Microsoft culture, or even the culture within a specific sector (though I doubt it considering all the cognitive biases you demonstrate), but society is much larger than Microsoft or a subsegment of the technology sector. You don't seem to understand this point (about for example representativeness), which is somewhat disturbing.

Casual observations - even over a life-time - are no replacement for science. Your arguments sound like personal anecdotes rather than scientific facts or empirical data of high quality. You deride social science and ridicule widely used sources and experienced academics, yet you seem to have little knowledge about what social science is; you make the mistake, even if one doesn't have knowledge about a phenomenon, it doesn't mean that the phenomenon is non-existing or cannot be understood. Soft sciences are harder than the hard sciences, but even if a task is harder, you cannot argue that one shouldn't approach it scientifically.

The quote* I gave you, you misunderstood in a way that reminds of stereotyping when you claim I trust my countrymen and mistrust others. What I have been trying to document for you, is - among other things - that Americans are losing trust in each other at a worrying rate; interpersonal trust in America has never been lower since the 1970s, when the data collections started. So America risks becoming a third tier country in terms of interpersonal trust. Social capital is eroding. Hence, lack of trust seems to be more of an American problem to a much higher degree than a Scandinavian problem. If you knew Scandinavia, you would probably know that there's a debate going on whether Scandinavians are a bit too naive, too trusting faced with high immigration (a debate on the future of the welfare state).

The quote* I gave you, said that "Scandinavian societies are so trusting because they are equal and Protestant, not just because they are all blond with blue eyes". Reducing a debate on trust and social capital to nationalism and discrimination (you said I trust only those within a set of borders and mistrust those outside of those borders) - which you do - is dumbing down and hardly in compliance with a web site that has "science" in its name.

What the data I showed you document, is that social capital - where trust and corruption are sub themes - is not randomly spread across the globe. We should not ignore, play down or censor this kind of insights, should we? There are places where social capital is higher than in other places. And it is in this respect that America is only second tier, not top notch first tier. So there is an element of relativity here; and that's why I wrote that from a Scandinavian point of view, from a Scandinavian benchmark, there are things in America that look fishy. The Grammy statistics was just a fun facts example.

My comment that there's corruption in America must also be understood in a context where two of the three last administrations - including one president - stated that America is an indispensable nation; a high example for others to follow. America is the world's unrivaled military might and plays the leading role in our modern financial system (what the French called the "exorbitant privilege"). So I think my comment on American corruption - which initiated your comments, is something that American readers on ASR easily stomach; it's not as if I made a harsh comment on a weakling. I doubt ASR readers need your acting as if I offended all Americans. Which I never did because I wrote about American society (and not all its individuals) which is heavily influenced by a small and narrow-minded elite detached from ordinary Americans and especially those in the periphery.

*"A standard assumption people make in informal discussions about trust is that the Scandinavian countries rank highest on generalized trust (cf. Rice and Feldman 1997) because it is easy to trust other people in a homogenous society. The reasoning is, of course, that most people can be trusted if they look and think like you do. And, yes, the Scandinavian countries are more homogenous, but they are more egalitarian and especially more Protestant. And, overall, ethnic diversity does not shape trust - or, even, indirectly, economic inequality. So Scandinavian societies are so trusting because they are more equal and Protestant, not just because they are all blond with blue eyes".
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...y_and_Institutions_in_Comparative_Perspective
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
20,594
Likes
25,382
Location
Seattle Area
#39
@amirm , your claim I have a nationalist agenda due to my speaker choice sounds like a joke.
That is because of your poor self-awareness. Not only did I see the emotional defense of your speaker choice, but also received complaints about it from another member. Take heed. It is data. Not conjecture and certainly not a joke.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
20,594
Likes
25,382
Location
Seattle Area
#40
Your constant reminders of your international experience - that makes you wave off academics, their research and widely used surveys on trust and corruption - is an example of illusory superiority, i.e. overestimating one's competency, skill and abilities in an area. Has it ever occurred to you that your experience as a manager at for example Microsoft doesn't make you an authority on cross-country trends in habits, culture and themes like trust and corruption? Your experience may make you an expert in the Microsoft culture, or even the culture within a specific sector (though I doubt it considering all the cognitive biases you demonstrate), but society is much larger than Microsoft or a subsegment of the technology sector. You don't seem to understand this point (about for example representativeness), which is somewhat disturbing.
I have worked for multi-national companies for 30+ years. I worked for Microsoft for 10 of those years. so no, this has nothing to do with Microsoft or its culture. You continue to shoot blindly from the hip, trusting googled references with no personal experience in the topic. The topic by the way is social so my social experience is absolutely relevant. After all, I am here for you to examine, but none of the survey people are for you to do the same.

Besides, you have not remotely shown any references or data that Americans are corrupt and have always been. So both on research front and personal experience, you are failing.

As to illusory superiority, that is what I am reading in every one of your posts. Isn't that obvious to you? That is what you are appealing to, self-authority, no?
 
Top Bottom