Stereophile and Audio Cables

[Axo1989]

Eyes & ears pick up radiations-light waves or sound waves, respectively. There's no physical material in them. Your tongue and schnozzolla pick up actual molecules--physical material. It will be harder to fool those senses.

While conceptually fun, that does appear to be a bit dubious. Matter and energy are interchangeable, and we convert stimuli into electrical signals (and store them in calcium structures and etcetera) in the brain. So ultimately the same thing, perception-wise? I'm open-minded though: any interesting reading to support the argument of matter stimuli being more reliable than energy stimuli in human perception?

Edit: that'll teach me to write a post then get distracted before pressing the button ... I'll be reading @JaMaSt's stuff for a bit.

 

[JaMaSt]

*long draw on bong*

I think that should be, like, your thesis, man!

Cognitive Bias

Criticism​

Cognitive bias theory loses the sight of any distinction between reason and bias. If every bias can be seen as a reason, and every reason can be seen as a bias, then the distinction is lost.[69]

Criticism against theories of cognitive biases is usually founded in the fact that both sides of a debate often claim the other's thoughts to be subject to human nature and the result of cognitive bias, while claiming their own point of view to be above the cognitive bias and the correct way to "overcome" the issue. This rift ties to a more fundamental issue that stems from a lack of consensus in the field, thereby creating arguments that can be non-falsifiably used to validate any contradicting viewpoint.[citation needed]

Gerd Gigerenzer is one of the main opponents to cognitive biases and heuristics.[70][71][72] Gigerenzer believes that cognitive biases are not biases, but rules of thumb, or as he would put it "gut feelings" that can actually help us make accurate decisions in our lives. His view shines a much more positive light on cognitive biases than many other researchers. Many view cognitive biases and heuristics as irrational ways of making decisions and judgements.

 

[MattHooper]

Cognitive Bias

Criticism​

Cognitive bias theory loses the sight of any distinction between reason and bias. If every bias can be seen as a reason, and every reason can be seen as a bias, then the distinction is lost.[69]

Criticism against theories of cognitive biases is usually founded in the fact that both sides of a debate often claim the other's thoughts to be subject to human nature and the result of cognitive bias, while claiming their own point of view to be above the cognitive bias and the correct way to "overcome" the issue. This rift ties to a more fundamental issue that stems from a lack of consensus in the field, thereby creating arguments that can be non-falsifiably used to validate any contradicting viewpoint.[citation needed]

Gerd Gigerenzer is one of the main opponents to cognitive biases and heuristics.[70][71][72] Gigerenzer believes that cognitive biases are not biases, but rules of thumb, or as he would put it "gut feelings" that can actually help us make accurate decisions in our lives. His view shines a much more positive light on cognitive biases than many other researchers. Many view cognitive biases and heuristics as irrational ways of making decisions and judgements.

I also think we need to be careful when alluding to bias. That it can become too knee-jerk, as I've argued here before.

However, it's hard to deny bias effects exist, since they have been well demonstrated.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Humans can be strange creatures. A good friend in college had a couple model cars on his shelf in his dorm room. Spent a long time putting in just the exact right spot to look how he wanted. I knew this. I for some reason did a mean trick. He went out to the restroom. When he came back I said, "I'm sorry man, I grabbed your chemistry book and bumped your Boss Mustang. I put it back exactly where it was though." He looked peeved, said no it wasn't in the right spot. Not really close. Spent near a half hour moving it this way and that before he was okay with it. Of course I never touched his car. Emotions are sometimes why intelligent people, believe and do things they should know better.

 

[caught gesture]

Humans can be strange creatures. A good friend in college had a couple model cars on his shelf in his dorm room. Spent a long time putting in just the exact right spot to look how he wanted. I knew this. I for some reason did a mean trick. He went out to the restroom. When he came back I said, "I'm sorry man, I grabbed your chemistry book and bumped your Boss Mustang. I put it back exactly where it was though." He looked peeved, said no it wasn't in the right spot. Not really close. Spent near a half hour moving it this way and that before he was okay with it. Of course I never touched his car. Emotions are sometimes why intelligent people, believe and do things they should know better.

That sounds more like a personality disorder!

 

[Palladium]

That sounds more like a personality disorder!

There are also people who are heavy smokers, heavy drinkers and other assorted unhealthy lifestyles day in day out and yet somehow still get worried about medical X-ray radiation.

 

[olieb]

That sounds more like a personality disorder!

Sure, but what do you call buying a RCA interconnect in the 4 figure range?
And many personal disorders can be seen as cognitive bias gone wild anyway.

 

[caught gesture]

Sure, but what do you call buying a RCA interconnect in the 4 figure range?

More money than sense.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Sure, but what do you call buying a RCA interconnect in the 4 figure range?
And many personal disorders can be seen as cognitive bias gone wild anyway.

I've purchased some in the high 3 figure range that would probably be low 4 figures if inflation adjusted. This was 2nd hand purchases. The market is what people will pay. So I could re-sale if needed and recoup my money.

 

[Talisman]

Eyes & ears pick up radiations-light waves or sound waves, respectively. There's no physical material in them. Your tongue and schnozzolla pick up actual molecules--physical material. It will be harder to fool those senses.

In reality, this is not the case in this area either.
Understanding what you are eating when the solid component is missing, therefore the chewing feedback, becomes much more difficult, furthermore the taste is easily deceived if you associate a food with a neutral flavor with a specific smell. Normal water seems to taste like cod or strawberry if that scent is offered to us while we drink.
Our senses are never perfect, they evolved to interpret reality, not as measurement tools, and as strange as it may seem, that's why they are exceptional

 

[Beave]

Right. Senses - even taste - can be fooled by simultaneous input from other senses. Smells can obviously influence taste, as mentioned above. Sights can too - put green food coloring in red ketchup and people often think it tastes different. That's one of countless examples. And there's a reason high end restaurant chefs spend a lot of their effort into "plating" food, ie, making it look good before serving.

 

[Talisman]

To understand how our perception works, we need to understand how the brain works. The example of the dress that is gold and white for half the population and black and blue for the other half is a perfect example.
For a while the case of this dress broke out on the internet, it seemed that for some the dress was absolutely black and blue, for others it was white and gold, and anyone on the two factions didn't understand how something could seem so different to the opposite faction, EVERYONE would have sworn on their children that they were right and that it was impossible otherwise.

The explanation is as incredibly fascinating as it is banal.
Obviously everyone saw the same objective color, and a measurement tool and would simply identify the color, however those who saw the white and gold dress interpreted it as a dress IN THE SHADOW with sunlight behind it, while those who saw it as blue and black saw a dressed IN FULL SUN.
The brain does not read a value and stop, but ALWAYS, INEVITABLY AND UNFAILURELY interprets it in context and processes it according to a series of secondary information of which we are almost never aware but which direct our perception absolutely

 

[Beave]

Even crazier, I always saw it as white and gold. But I just now looked at it again - and this time I covered over all the surroundings, so that only the dress was visible. And then it looked very blue to me. And then, crazier still, I took the covering of the surroundings away, and it still looks blue to me.

 

[Audiofire]

black and blue

for the color blind

 

[Axo1989]

To understand how our perception works, we need to understand how the brain works. The example of the dress that is gold and white for half the population and black and blue for the other half is a perfect example.
For a while the case of this dress broke out on the internet, it seemed that for some the dress was absolutely black and blue, for others it was white and gold, and anyone on the two factions didn't understand how something could seem so different to the opposite faction, EVERYONE would have sworn on their children that they were right and that it was impossible otherwise.

The explanation is as incredibly fascinating as it is banal.
Obviously everyone saw the same objective color, and a measurement tool and would simply identify the color, however those who saw the white and gold dress interpreted it as a dress IN THE SHADOW with sunlight behind it, while those who saw it as blue and black saw a dressed IN FULL SUN.
The brain does not read a value and stop, but ALWAYS, INEVITABLY AND UNFAILURELY interprets it in context and processes it according to a series of secondary information of which we are almost never aware but which direct our perception absolutely


View attachment 357500

There is no dress on the page we are looking at, of course, only pixels. The reason some people see white and gold is that the photo records the dress backlit, overexposed and desaturated. The actual HSB (hue-saturation-brightness) colour values in the image range from around 17-35% saturation for the blue/white, while an accurate rendering of the blue is more like 60% (the hue is close, so the white is really a light blue-grey). Similarly, the objective values for the black/gold range are gold-bronze—with brightness values ranging from around 27-51%—and not black (0% for the bars each side of the image here, 15% would still be a reasonable facsimile of black in a photo).

The real-life dress was blue and black, however. But even covering parts of the image as @Beave suggests, I can't see it that way (only by squinting until the image is very, very dark). I found it most interesting that some perceive blue/black (ie the real dress colours) when the colours aren't really there in the image. The light/shadow compensation thing works well for those people. Knowing the dress colour makes no difference to my perception. I'm not looking at a dress, I'm looking at a photograph. Apparently, that's all I can see.

 

[mhardy6647]

There is no dress on the page we are looking at, of course, only pixels.

Ahh -- the treachery of images.
I've seen this sort of thing before. It's not pretty*.

_____________
* Gary Larson, too.

 

[mhardy6647]

Oh, and, in all seriousness, the issue discussed above (i.e., that danged dress) is behind the phenomenon that most (although certainly not all) bird watching guides are illustrated not with photographs but with paintings of birds.
Long-time birder favorite The Sibley Guide to Birds is a salient example.
Photographs of individual birds can convey a very misleading impression of any arbitrary bird (of a given species) in the field under arbitrary conditions of light, weather, and season.

Generally speaking* carefully reproduced (i.e., carefully printed) paintings can be more generically illustrative of what an arbitrary bird of a given species looks like, especially for neophytes.

... and in our backyard last winter...

 

[Sal1950]

That sounds more like a personality disorder!

Talk about OCD

 

[mhardy6647]

Sure, but what do you call buying a RCA interconnect in the 4 figure range?

I call it someone who's using a three-figure mains fuse and thus can hear the jaw-dropping difference the interconnect makes.

I always think (and I know I've mentioned this ad nauseum!) of The Emporer's New Clothes in this context.

 

[AdrianusG]

Ahh -- the treachery of images.
I've seen this sort of thing before. It's not pretty*.

View attachment 357548

_____________
* Gary Larson, too.

View attachment 357554

Gary Larson+++++