SoundAndMotion
Active Member
I've often wondered why many people get so intense on audio forums. At best they are passionate, at worst pathological. For most of us, it's just a hobby and for everyone it's just audio! Understanding why there's a problem might make a nice dissertation topic for a psych or sociology student. If we understand why, it may be easier to find a solution.
I speculate as to the cause, but I don't have a solution. Some solutions already offered here don't appeal to me.
If you'll allow me for this post, I'd like to talk of subjectivists and objectivists as if they were well-defined groups... without defining them, and knowing many don't fit the classification. I think a problem arises when anyone has a concept, that in their mind they believe is fact, proven, indisputable and undeniable. When someone challenges them, they find that person argumentative, confrontational or stupid, or they find them loose with the truth due to having some agenda.
Silly examples to make a point:
An objectivist may state a "fact" that they sincerely believe is as indisputable and undeniable as if they were to state "2+2=4".
When a subjectivist responds "well we know it is 4 sometimes, but is it always 4?"
Objectivist, patiently at first:"Yes, we absolutely know it is always 4"
Subjectivist, unconvinced:"But 2 of what plus 2 of what equals 4 of what? In normal usage, we use numbers to mean something real, not abstract mathematical concepts. 2 apples plus 2 oranges doesn't equal 4 apples or 4 oranges".
Objectivist, face turning red, but still civil: "It equals 4 pieces of fruit! But it is obvious that one means quantities of the same thing!!"
Subjectivist, unconvinced: "2 dollars(money) plus 2 cents(money) doesn't equal 4 anything, nor does 2 dollars(money) plus 2 euros(money)! So it is not obvious to me".
Objectivist, spitting blood: "If you're allowed to stay in this forum, I'm leaving".
While a subjectivist may state:"I saw a fire-engine-red Bentley yesterday. It looked odd". He sees this as his observation, and obviously not really disputable. It was bright red and his opinion was that it was odd.
Perhaps an objectivist responds:"You know ALL perceptions are subject to expectation bias, confirmation bias, placebo effect and the conditions during the test. Did you do any bias-controlled observations, being sure to match lighting conditions for any comparison?"
Subjectivist, dumbfounded: "Uh, I know what I saw. It was red and I thought it odd".
Objectivist, frustrated that the other doesn't get the science of it: "Calibrated spectrophotometer evaluation of the color and statistically significant double-blind modified BS.1116-style oddness test, or it never happened"
Subjectivist, giving it a last chance: "C'mon, look at this picture. Is is red?"
Objectivist, given up: "That's a fire engine. The vehicles have to be matched. It's your life; you can be delusional and ignorant, if you want"
Subjectivist, spitting blood: "If you're allowed to stay in this forum, I'm leaving".
Of course, they're silly. But when it comes to the general idea of "audibility", both groups are as convinced as the first objectivist and the second subjectivist, they they offer facts that are indisputable. I think both groups need to tolerate someone from the other group believing that what they are saying may not be true, then accepting it and moving on. No endless attempts to persuade.
So what can be done? It seems most suggestions I've read include some sort of homogeneity rules: we don't want any of THOSE people here. THEY are disruptive and love to argue in circles. Exclude THEM and we can have a good forum. I have to admit that there are few or no racial problems in whites-only clubs, very little or no sexual harassment in men-only groups, but I like the diversity of hearing both subjectivist and objectivist ideas, stories, comments, AS LONG AS THEY ARE CIVIL. Yes, I would like homogenous, in terms of civility.
Before joining ASR, another member and I lamented that we were frustrated that audio forums are so contentious, and filled with people ready to fight. We want to find a forum that was "dominated by somewhat-knowledgable, open-minded skeptics. A mixture of subj/obj, but with humility and curiosity and fun being the dominant traits"
We both independently joined ASR, hoping....
What are your thoughts?
p.s. I hope Blumlein88 returns and everyone who can discuss this hobby civilly stays.
I speculate as to the cause, but I don't have a solution. Some solutions already offered here don't appeal to me.
If you'll allow me for this post, I'd like to talk of subjectivists and objectivists as if they were well-defined groups... without defining them, and knowing many don't fit the classification. I think a problem arises when anyone has a concept, that in their mind they believe is fact, proven, indisputable and undeniable. When someone challenges them, they find that person argumentative, confrontational or stupid, or they find them loose with the truth due to having some agenda.
Silly examples to make a point:
An objectivist may state a "fact" that they sincerely believe is as indisputable and undeniable as if they were to state "2+2=4".
When a subjectivist responds "well we know it is 4 sometimes, but is it always 4?"
Objectivist, patiently at first:"Yes, we absolutely know it is always 4"
Subjectivist, unconvinced:"But 2 of what plus 2 of what equals 4 of what? In normal usage, we use numbers to mean something real, not abstract mathematical concepts. 2 apples plus 2 oranges doesn't equal 4 apples or 4 oranges".
Objectivist, face turning red, but still civil: "It equals 4 pieces of fruit! But it is obvious that one means quantities of the same thing!!"
Subjectivist, unconvinced: "2 dollars(money) plus 2 cents(money) doesn't equal 4 anything, nor does 2 dollars(money) plus 2 euros(money)! So it is not obvious to me".
Objectivist, spitting blood: "If you're allowed to stay in this forum, I'm leaving".
While a subjectivist may state:"I saw a fire-engine-red Bentley yesterday. It looked odd". He sees this as his observation, and obviously not really disputable. It was bright red and his opinion was that it was odd.
Perhaps an objectivist responds:"You know ALL perceptions are subject to expectation bias, confirmation bias, placebo effect and the conditions during the test. Did you do any bias-controlled observations, being sure to match lighting conditions for any comparison?"
Subjectivist, dumbfounded: "Uh, I know what I saw. It was red and I thought it odd".
Objectivist, frustrated that the other doesn't get the science of it: "Calibrated spectrophotometer evaluation of the color and statistically significant double-blind modified BS.1116-style oddness test, or it never happened"
Subjectivist, giving it a last chance: "C'mon, look at this picture. Is is red?"
Objectivist, given up: "That's a fire engine. The vehicles have to be matched. It's your life; you can be delusional and ignorant, if you want"
Subjectivist, spitting blood: "If you're allowed to stay in this forum, I'm leaving".
Of course, they're silly. But when it comes to the general idea of "audibility", both groups are as convinced as the first objectivist and the second subjectivist, they they offer facts that are indisputable. I think both groups need to tolerate someone from the other group believing that what they are saying may not be true, then accepting it and moving on. No endless attempts to persuade.
So what can be done? It seems most suggestions I've read include some sort of homogeneity rules: we don't want any of THOSE people here. THEY are disruptive and love to argue in circles. Exclude THEM and we can have a good forum. I have to admit that there are few or no racial problems in whites-only clubs, very little or no sexual harassment in men-only groups, but I like the diversity of hearing both subjectivist and objectivist ideas, stories, comments, AS LONG AS THEY ARE CIVIL. Yes, I would like homogenous, in terms of civility.
Before joining ASR, another member and I lamented that we were frustrated that audio forums are so contentious, and filled with people ready to fight. We want to find a forum that was "dominated by somewhat-knowledgable, open-minded skeptics. A mixture of subj/obj, but with humility and curiosity and fun being the dominant traits"
We both independently joined ASR, hoping....
What are your thoughts?
p.s. I hope Blumlein88 returns and everyone who can discuss this hobby civilly stays.
Last edited:
), I hear it therefore it is, then I for one will point and laugh at you. I don't respect everyone or all opinions. I have no requirement to, and I see no reason not to express that.
