Snobbery in Hi-Fi. Why are people so stupid and turn their noses up at gear costing much less which is just as good?

[PristineSound]

Yep exactly.
If anyone doubts it, review the news casts days and weeks after New Orlean's Hurricane Katrina

You don't even need a natural disaster to prove this point. Something as simple as 1 chocolate chip cookie and two kids is enough to prove it.

 

[MattHooper]

On soapbox/

I think there are some people who like to believe in the ideal and then there are us, we are realists.

If there is a food shortage, everyone will horde more than they can eat today even if it means other won't have enough to eat, just so that they can have food for tomorrow. Anyone who deny this is delusional.

This is quite sad and cynical, and there might be more than a little projection going on in the views above.

It’s not that hoarding never happens, of course. But the view seems to imply this is the default that shows the selfish underbelly of humanity. That simply ignores the endless examples of human beings good to one another. Including in tough conditions.

So many examples of people risking their own welfare in conditions like war and natural disasters.

Among countless examples: during the London blitz in World War II it didn’t cause an every man for himself scenario . Neighbours regularly shared food, opened their homes to strangers whose houses had been destroyed, and a huge fall service swelled, people trying to help one another.

Or read about how people helped one another during the Dutch Hunger Winter.

There was apparently plenty of mutual aid during the great depression.

There have been all sorts of communities that have had to undergo severe rationing who did not fall into the “ everyone for himself” scenario you assume.

If someone looks at humanity and sees zero sum games of competition and believes we are driven by the lowest desires that may say something more about the individual than about history. Of course there’s been lots of conflict. But the salient feature of human history has been cooperation …. Increasing and more widespread benefits of cooperation over time. This isn’t Pollyanna stuff. Cities countries and global cooperation is built on it.

All too often cynics call themselves “realists” when they are projecting their own cynicism or selfish views out into the world and presuming everybody else shares that temperament.

You don't even need a natural disaster to prove this point. Something as simple as 1 chocolate chip cookie and two kids is enough to prove it.

That’s a very unscientific comment.
The idea that some disparaging view of human nature is proven by a single chocolate chip cookie argument. Yeesh.
I guess that obviates all the examples of cooperation, kindness, compassion, charity generosity, altruism etc.

Also: it’s a silly argument to try to judge human nature and what humans are capable of by appeal to only the worst scenarios.
Yes, it’s true that under severe stress and abnormal conditions people can do all sorts of things that are not in keeping with their normal behaviour. But thankfully, most people are not under such abnormally, stressful conditions because generally speaking they live in a scenario which has been made possible by human cooperation.
The reason I’m living in a house with running water and heating and then I’m able to feed myself and my family without it being some zero sum struggle with other people is due at bottom to a system of cooperation. And under normal conditions, most people are not the “ I got mine screw everybody else” characters you guys seem to be depicting.

/ off soapbox

 

[PristineSound]

On soapbox/



This is quite sad and cynical, and there might be more than a little projection going on in the views above.

It’s not that hoarding never happens, of course. But the view seems to imply this is the default that shows the selfish underbelly of humanity. That simply ignores the endless examples of human beings good to one another. Including in tough conditions.

So many examples of people risking their own welfare in conditions like war and natural disasters.

Among countless examples: during the London blitz in World War II it didn’t cause an every man for himself scenario . Neighbours regularly shared food, opened their homes to strangers whose houses had been destroyed, and a huge fall service swelled, people trying to help one another.

Or read about how people helped one another during the Dutch Hunger Winter.

There was apparently plenty of mutual aid during the great depression.

There have been all sorts of communities that have had to undergo severe rationing who did not fall into the “ everyone for himself” scenario you assume.

If someone looks at humanity and sees zero sum games of competition and believes we are driven by the lowest desires that may say something more about the individual than about history. Of course there’s been lots of conflict. But the salient feature of human history has been cooperation …. Increasing and more widespread benefits of cooperation over time. This isn’t Pollyanna stuff. Cities countries and global cooperation is built on it.

All too often cynics call themselves “realists” when they are projecting their own cynicism or selfish views out into the world and presuming everybody else shares that temperament.



That’s a very unscientific comment.
The idea that some disparaging view of human nature is proven by a single chocolate chip cookie argument. Yeesh.
I guess that obviates all the examples of cooperation, kindness, compassion, charity generosity, altruism etc.

Also: it’s a silly argument to try to judge human nature and what humans are capable of by appeal to only the worst scenarios.
Yes, it’s true that under severe stress and abnormal conditions people can do all sorts of things that are not in keeping with their normal behaviour. But thankfully, most people are not under such abnormally, stressful conditions because generally speaking they live in a scenario which has been made possible by human cooperation.
The reason I’m living in a house with running water and heating and then I’m able to feed myself and my family without it being some zero sum struggle with other people is due at bottom to a system of cooperation. And under normal conditions, most people are not the “ I got mine screw everybody else” characters you guys seem to be depicting.

/ off soapbox

You can be ideal and that shows your character, good character.

I have no qualms to speak how I have seen people act and how I would bet my money on how people would act. Will there be some who are good? Absolutely. Will I assume that to be the default? I grew up in NYC, I'd be stupid if I did but pleasantly surprised if I am wrong.

 

[Sal1950]

You can be ideal and that shows your character,

He's a character all right.

 

[Mart68]

The reason I’m living in a house with running water and heating and then I’m able to feed myself and my family without it being some zero sum struggle with other people is due at bottom to a system of cooperation

Not because someone thought 'Hey if I can supply everyone with food, water and power, I can get rich!' And then paid other people to help them do that?

Cooperation, but driven by selfish motivation. Yes it works. What doesn't work is a zero incentive system where you're expected to do it all just for the common good aka Communism. Why is that?

But I agree selfless acts do happen so it isn't all so clear-cut.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

On soapbox/



This is quite sad and cynical, and there might be more than a little projection going on in the views above.

It’s not that hoarding never happens, of course. But the view seems to imply this is the default that shows the selfish underbelly of humanity. That simply ignores the endless examples of human beings good to one another. Including in tough conditions.

So many examples of people risking their own welfare in conditions like war and natural disasters.

Among countless examples: during the London blitz in World War II it didn’t cause an every man for himself scenario . Neighbours regularly shared food, opened their homes to strangers whose houses had been destroyed, and a huge fall service swelled, people trying to help one another.

Or read about how people helped one another during the Dutch Hunger Winter.

There was apparently plenty of mutual aid during the great depression.

There have been all sorts of communities that have had to undergo severe rationing who did not fall into the “ everyone for himself” scenario you assume.

If someone looks at humanity and sees zero sum games of competition and believes we are driven by the lowest desires that may say something more about the individual than about history. Of course there’s been lots of conflict. But the salient feature of human history has been cooperation …. Increasing and more widespread benefits of cooperation over time. This isn’t Pollyanna stuff. Cities countries and global cooperation is built on it.

All too often cynics call themselves “realists” when they are projecting their own cynicism or selfish views out into the world and presuming everybody else shares that temperament.



That’s a very unscientific comment.
The idea that some disparaging view of human nature is proven by a single chocolate chip cookie argument. Yeesh.
I guess that obviates all the examples of cooperation, kindness, compassion, charity generosity, altruism etc.

Also: it’s a silly argument to try to judge human nature and what humans are capable of by appeal to only the worst scenarios.
Yes, it’s true that under severe stress and abnormal conditions people can do all sorts of things that are not in keeping with their normal behaviour. But thankfully, most people are not under such abnormally, stressful conditions because generally speaking they live in a scenario which has been made possible by human cooperation.
The reason I’m living in a house with running water and heating and then I’m able to feed myself and my family without it being some zero sum struggle with other people is due at bottom to a system of cooperation. And under normal conditions, most people are not the “ I got mine screw everybody else” characters you guys seem to be depicting.

/ off soapbox

Brilliant Matt

 

[pinger]

I lived in an outer borough of NYC a combined total of 10 years. All of my family except for one sister and her family still lives in NYC and Long Island.

I think I am qualified to say that most people in NYC genuinely don't care about anyone else, if you are a poor homeless person panhandling on the streets, they will walk by you as if you don't exist. If you are a rich person wearing a 3 piece suit, coming out of a limo to go to Del Frisco's, and if you so happen to block the sidewalks, they will cuss you out. That is NYC, no one's gives a crap about anyone else.

If you live in large cities you kind of have to ignore people as a defense mechanism since there are so many. If you pay attention to them all its kind of like sensory overload.

 

[EJ3]

You don't even need a natural disaster to prove this point. Something as simple as 1 chocolate chip cookie and two kids is enough to prove it.

That proves the INSTINCT to be that way. But then they may decide to spit the cookie (and then maybe fight over who gets the bigger piece), instead.
But they will each end up with a piece of the cookie.

 

[Newman]

You don't believe a man will fight for his personal survival above all else?
I think the history of the world proves that wrong.

What I believe doesn't matter.

I am confident that your comments are reflecting your beliefs, personal politics, and casual observations.

Just the way of the world and human nature partner.
We're genetically keyed for personal survival first of all.
It's a screw you and hurray for me world.

That may be the reason why you, and others who share your social politics and therefore quickly agree with you, assumed that I was just stating my beliefs, like you are. But I'm not.

I'm reflecting the science on this issue. Paleo anthropologists and geneticists seem to be agreeing that we are not as you describe. And that it has been to our survival advantage to not be that way.

You know me, Sal. I am favourably inclined to the scientific method, and one thing I do believe, as simple belief, is that you and I are both willing to let our learnings from science alter our prior opinions on science-related topics. [Not everyone here is like that (although many are), so some do 'play science' where they eagerly absorb and regurgitate science right up to the point where it challenges their preconceived opinions, at which point they suddenly turn into arch-sceptics (pretending that makes them more 'sciencey' than people who are pro-science) and enacting the Dance of the Seven Veils playbook of science denial.]

So, yes, my earlier comments were not about my beliefs. They were about my understandings.

cheers

 

[pinger]

What I believe doesn't matter.

I am confident that your comments are reflecting your beliefs, personal politics, and casual observations. That may be the reason why you, and others who share your social politics and therefore quickly agree with you, assumed that I was just stating my beliefs, like you are. But I'm not.

I'm reflecting the science on this issue. Paleo anthropologists and geneticists seem to be agreeing that we are not as you describe. And that it has been to our survival advantage to not be that way.

You know me, Sal. I am favourably inclined to the scientific method, and one thing I do believe, as simple belief, is that you and I are both willing to let our learnings from science alter our prior opinions on science-related topics. [Not everyone here is like that (although many are), so some do 'play science' where they eagerly absorb and regurgitate science right up to the point where it challenges their preconceived opinions, at which point they suddenly turn into arch-sceptics (pretending that makes them more 'sciencey' than people who are pro-science) and enacting the Dance of the Seven Veils playbook of science denial.]

So, yes, my earlier comments were not about my beliefs. They were about my understandings.

cheers

I'm sure you agree though that Science that censors is propaganda not science. Thats a key point. May be off topic though

 

[MattHooper]

I'm reflecting the science on this issue. Paleo anthropologists and geneticists seem to be agreeing that we are not as you describe. And that it has been to our survival advantage to not be that way.

Yes exactly Newman! Good post.

Anthropologists, evolutionary biologists, and geneticists tell us that humans are deeply adapted for cooperation.

Not perfectly cooperative of course. But cooperation is widely regarded as one of our species most important survival strategies.
It seems an evolutionary niche we have exploited is not that we are the strongest, fastest or toughest primates/animals, but because we are the most cooperative.

Your posts are most fruitful when sticking to what can be defended scientifically without the turn to axe-grinding

 

[Oddball]

Yes exactly Newman! Good post.

Anthropologists, evolutionary biologists, and geneticists tell us that humans are deeply adapted for cooperation.

Not perfectly cooperative of course. But cooperation is widely regarded as one of our species most important survival strategies.
It seems an evolutionary niche we have exploited is not that we are the strongest, fastest or toughest primates/animals, but because we are the most cooperative.

Your posts are most fruitful when sticking to what can be defended scientifically without the turn to axe-grinding

Lol, I can't resist but to say that we are soo cooperative to wage terrible wars (real ones as well as economical and political) at this very moment, and at the same time disregard the climate that is likely to kill our kids, and even more likely our grandkids.

World has never been so divided across all planes possible. A bit of a bleak outlook, but a realistic one. While all that is happening, the ones with wealth (not necessarily just rich) seem to be getting richer, and the ones without it are falling further behind.

There is no science to prove this, but there is such thing as "news" that brings us updates on real important issues for the mankind. One just needs to read them and they don't generally require PhD and actually engineers are know to focus too much on detail (lol, let's see how this one goes ) not so much on the big picture.

 

[MattHooper]

There is no science to prove this, but there is such thing as "news" that brings us updates on real important issues for the mankind. One just needs to read them and they don't generally require PhD and actually engineers are know to focus too much on detail (lol, let's see how this one goes ) not so much on the big picture.

You do realize the self-selecting bias in news media for reader/viewer engagement?
Selecting for the unusual, surprising .. or threatening, conflict driven, emotionally, engaging… and it exploits our human negativity bias.

“ if it bleeds it leads”

A plane crash is news.

The roughly 100,000 - 130,000 aircraft that land safely every day is not.

A violent crime is news. The thousands of peaceful interactions among neighbours that day don’t make the news.

A government scandal is news. But a government department quietly doing its job is usually not.

This is why a more accurate and reliable picture will involve a scientific outlook, statistics, the views of relevant experts, etc.
And not the vibes we get from the news or social media.

 

[Oddball]

This is why a more accurate and reliable picture will involve a scientific outlook, statistics, the views of relevant experts, etc.
And not the vibes we get from the news or social media.

I do think that lots of experts agree on what I summarized - and I was very specific. Of course some seem to downplay the chaos in what used to be the geopolitical order but evidence to the contrary is mounting by day.

I would also not be waiting for a scientific outlook as real life decisions happen is split second - based on the Bloomberg tape and a sentence or two. Let's take UN as one of more "scientific" organizations. While it's mission is admirable, its effectiveness is absolutely negative if you subtract the cost from the outcomes they are able to achieve.

 

[Sal1950]

So, yes, my earlier comments were not about my beliefs. They were about my understandings.

No problem friend, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that subject.

 

[krabapple]

You don't believe a man will fight for his personal survival above all else?
I think the history of the world proves that wrong.

You need to study evolutionary theory more.

If organisms are 'genetically keyed' to anything, it's to pass on their genes to the next generation.

That can involve sacrificing one's own life, so the similar genes of kin are passed on.

Of course, once we evolved human consciousness , we could bypass purely evolutionary imperatives. We could decide not to have kids, for example.
We also developed concepts like 'dying for one's king/country'. And 'altruism'.

 

[krabapple]

I'm sure you agree though that Science that censors is propaganda not science. Thats a key point. May be off topic though

Perhaps you could distinguish between 'censoring' and 'discounting claims that currently lack enough scientifically credible support'. Science operates best under the 'show me your evidence' paradigm. Not 'everything is equally possible, because we can't know everything'.

And also, consider history and context, without facile 20/20 hindsight.
It's amazing , for example, how many have forgotten how events really unfolded during the COVID pandemic. That was a situation where new data was coming in almost weekly. The booboisie was seeing science happen in real time, and it wasn't always pretty enough for them.

NB all this has little to do with ASR's remit, but it beats more stupid boring blather about cars and watches.

 

[krabapple]

You can be ideal and that shows your character, good character.

I have no qualms to speak how I have seen people act and how I would bet my money on how people would act. Will there be some who are good? Absolutely. Will I assume that to be the default? I grew up in NYC, I'd be stupid if I did but pleasantly surprised if I am wrong.

I did too, and the idea that New Yorkers don't give a shit about anyone but themselves is more a cliche than a fact. And it doesn't capture the full dynamic. For example, it's more accurate to say that New Yorkers have to tolerate difference, to live happily in a city that diverse. That means 'not caring' that someone isn't like you. The other kind of 'not caring' -- being indifferent to suffering of others -- is belied by random personal acts of kindness happening there every hour of every day, as well as instances of 'organized' kindness like, oh,electing a democratic socialist as mayor. Hell, I've even seen New York drivers encourage another driver to cut in front of them .

 

[Sal1950]

Maybe science fiction but the idea was the basis of what killed the entire Krell race.
Monsters Jim, Monsters from the ID. !

I did too, and the idea that New Yorkers don't give a shit about anyone but themselves is more a cliche than a fact. And it doesn't capture the full dynamic.

Not quite a cliche.
The real reason big cities have that reputation is the very high crime rate that exists on their streets..
Murder, assault, robbery, etc rates in NY, Chicago, LA, etc are thru the roof, law and order is totally out of control. We can't get into any of the reasons for such here, but none the less do exist and are true.

 

[krabapple]

Maybe science fiction but the idea was the basis of what killed the entire Krell race. Monsters Jim, Monsters from the ID. !

The Krell died after creating a god-like instrumentality that turned their thoughts and desires into reality. 'But they forgot about the subconscious...' -- which seems really implausible that they'd forget that, but whatever, great movie.

The parallel today is AI. AI 'knowledge' all comes from human sources. Thus the alternately hilarious and horrifying biases that have popped out from it.

Not quite a cliche.
The real reason big cities have that reputation is the very high crime rate that exists on their streets..
Murder, assault, robbery, etc rates in NY, Chicago, LA, etc are thru the roof, law and order is totally out of control. We can't get into any of the reasons for such here, but none the less do exist and are true.

LOL. Tell me in one sentence that you don't know dookie about NYC, you don't live there, and you get all your takes on it from hysterical right wing propaganda outlets pushing dystopia.

It's not 1990 in NYC anymore, and it hasn't been for decades.

Right now the country, big cities included, are enjoying a remarkable trend of murder rates going down. After the COVID spike, we're now back to where we were in the 1950s and early1960s.