Why has Audio (and maybe all hobbies) become so hostile?

[Lbstyling]

Nope, you don't get do overs in exams. You've changed at least 2 of your posts significantly since I replied to add a little more relevance. Poor form.

I added the last paragraph within a couple of mins of posting it as I realised afterwards you may be reading the question differently to myself.

Imagine this paragraph is posted below yours of it pleases you? It was somewhat an attempt of adressing your feeling the conversation may cause conflict.

 

[Jimbob54]

I added the last paragraph within a couple of mins of posting it as I realised afterwards you may be reading the question differently to myself.

Imagine this paragraph is posted below yours of it pleases you? It was somewhat an attempt of adressing your feeling the conversation may cause conflict.

Fair enough.

 

[Lbstyling]

Typically qualifying and/or comprehensive exams occur before the dissertation is defended - they often serve as a way for enemies of the student's major professor to get their jollies in on them by attacking the student...

The "defense" is merely a presentation to a wider audience, and a warm up for job seminars. If a student flunks that, then their committee has made a stupendous error earlier on.

The PhD essentially means that "we think you are capable of conducting science without the supervision of a graduate committee, and we hereby loose you on a hapless world."

Ouch. There's a voice of experience in that. You sound like a friend of mine who works in a nearby Uni.

 

[Lbstyling]

Fair enough.

In the interest of full disclosure/ transparency, I added this link to an earlier post too (as at the time I couldn't remember the name of the paper, so could not Include it but it was not really relevent to add in a later post as the conversation had moved on

'Unfortunately, as it stands the bar in the social sciences is set rather low to get a PhD right now.....
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368

Yup. That low.

 

[digitalfrost]

I'm not sure how much this applies to audiophiles, since it is not a mainstream movement anymore for a long time now, but I had to think of this article when I read the headline:

https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

On a personal note, audiofoolery is full of people claiming unsubstantiated bullshit, and it's also full of people who can spend more money than you and thus are more "right". It's also a topic that is highly subjective, lacks industry standards, and thus creates a circle of confusion and it's highly emotional. Combined with the technical intricacies you couldn't pick a better topic to get heated about.

In recent years, this combines with a populace that is no longer able to accept differing opinions. "Live and let live" seems to be generally in decline. That said, there is so much bullshit in audio world that I'm kinda glad we don't accept stupid and unproven subjective opinions - because without standards, the only way to go is down.

On the other hand, if somebody enjoys his objectively bad audio system it's no skin off my back.

What I see everywhere is tribalism. Doesn't matter what topic it is. People choose sides, maybe they invest in them by buying a product, and then ideology takes over. It seems these days, you can't just enjoy a thing for what it is, you have to make it your identity.

It's all very strange to me. I don't think it will end well.

 

[virtuovice]

People choose sides, maybe they invest in them by buying a product, and then ideology takes over.

confirmation bias

 

[virtuovice]

For the OP; how we take other people's words is completely up to us. Yes, peoples' words can be thick but it's more likely that we are taking their words personally.

 

[Haflermichi]

Three of your questions involve a time frame: "What happened...", "Why has audio become...", "When did people..."
One question is a "Why".

1) What happened to being civil to each other?

Bad behavior will always occur. But the Internet and forums allow a level of anonymity that shields posters from dealing with the face-to-face
consequences of their inappropriate, insensitive and/or offensive behavior.

2) Why has audio become a personal religion rather than a fun hobby?

This hobby has ALWAYS been a personal religion for certain people. Some of us can even derive spiritual elevation from the enjoyment of
the synergy between music, equipment, room etc. The lucky ones among us are having a LOT of fun in the process! But it's our choice.

3) Why can people not be intellectually honest with themselves (i.e. I know it measures like shit, but I like the way it sounds)?

This question can be asked about any and every aspect of human behavior.
Two words: Cognitive Dissonance. Look it up.
By the way, your example is completely honest to me. If you like the sound that should be all that really matters.
You paid for it, you own it. If you love it, keep it.
No one is holding a gun to your head to sell it because it measures poorly.

4) When did people become unable to separate personal preferences from fact?

Since Adam and Eve.
See: "Cognitive Dissonance"

Again, sorry to the extent I am rambling, but this is something that just constantly sits there in the back of my mind.

Rambling is okay. It let you get this all off your chest. Now just clear your mind of all this worry and go listen to many hours worth
of fantastic music that you can make space for instead of worrying.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Typically qualifying and/or comprehensive exams occur before the dissertation is defended - they often serve as a way for enemies of the student's major professor to get their jollies in on them by attacking the student...

That is not my experience in participating in the preparation of qualifying exams. In fact, we often prepared common exams for many students with different major professors.

The "defense" is merely a presentation to a wider audience, and a warm up for job seminars. If a student flunks that, then their committee has made a stupendous error earlier on.

Indeed, since the audience is the committee save for the addition of one or two invited outsiders, it would be. OTOH, it is not only the thesis that is examined by the committee but the student's defense of the thesis which calls for knowledge and skills beyond what is on the pages and slides.

The PhD essentially means that "we think you are capable of conducting science without the supervision of a graduate committee, and we hereby loose you on a hapless world."

"..we think you are capable of conducting science without the supervision of a graduate committee." Not a bad criterion, I think.

I am sorry if your experience differs.

 

[Beershaun]

This phenomenon happens all over the internet in every forum.
I see 2 patterns that cause this to happen
1)anonymity creates a place where people can easily act on their impulses and behave badly. Because they are not standing in front of the other person and there are no consequences to their actions. If all these discussions were in a physical room people would treat each other much better. Their collective Moms would would more likely to be proud of their behavior.
2) text is a poor medium to communicate. Much of our intent and voice is lost in conversion to text. And the recipient is left to try and interpret our words. And many times people perceive negative intent when there is contrary viewpoints, so they tend to react defensively. That’s why letter writing and document writing is so much more formal. To ensure there is no negative intent conveyed unintentionally.

so what do we do?
In my humble opinion:
1)write more thoughtfully and formally as if you were writing a letter to your grandmother and you want her to be proud of your grammar and elocution.
2) when reading someone’s response, don’t ascribe negative intent based on perception or assumption up front. Assume a person is generally a nice person who has a common interest and would likely have been friends with you if you knew each other in person. Try to treat them that way in response. Ask questions for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions.
3) stay out of the fire. If some responses aggressively and with bad form, disengage and ignore them. Internet bullies are paper tigers that Everyone else just wants to scroll past in order to get back to the topic at hand.

 

[CDMC]

It has nothing to do with any of this.

It's the times we live in.

2 words.

Income inequality.

Google the social effects in history of this.

We have evolved to handle this problem in tribal situations just like monkeys.

It's a a real eye opener to the world you live in right now to understand it.

I believe I'm correct in saying there is no example of sustained high levels of income Inequality in civilisation that don't end in civil unrest.

There's an itch the world wants to collectively scratch, and this drives a social pattern in the way everyone interests with other individuals that passes on to the collective.

People don't assume others are part of their tribe. How they identify their tribe is up to them, but recent riots may give 1 indication of the way some involved vent this.

Just my two cents in response. I think you are taking an overly myopic view of the situation. While we have income disparity in this county, it pales in comparison to historical income inequality. Perhaps more importantly, the poor in our country are better off than in many other societies, not as well off as Western Europe, but much better off than say, Venezuela, Cuba, or Nigeria. I won't bore you with my Milton Friedman quotes.

 

[CDMC]

The price for altercation online is next to zero. I would wager winning a big argument could deliver a sizable dopamine hit though. That's a massive risk return ratio....too much to say no to for some.

The psychological cost of loosing is twice as powerful as the kick of winning. So when ppl are 'on the ropes' they also fight harder.

Does anyone ever win an internet argument? At best it seems like two people just go toe to toe exchanging insults like 10 year olds.

 

[LeftCoastTim]

First, I should start by saying that I am not trying to start some war, but am frustrated/confused by the hostility I see on some forums. I am posting this here, as I believe that there will actually be a thoughtful discussion that won't devolve into a war of insults.

1) What happened to being civil to each other?
2) Why has audio become a personal religion rather than a fun hobby?
3) Why can people not be intellectually honest with themselves (i.e. I know it measures like shit, but I like the way it sounds)?
4) When did people become unable to separate personal preferences from fact?

Again, sorry to the extent I am rambling, but this is something that just constantly sits there in the back of my mind.

Cary

It's not you, it's the Internet, and the people who are in it.

Internet forums have been dealing with these very problems since the very first one (The WELL). Read any book or good article about The WELL and you'll see that 1) people get carried away and war of ideas become war of personalities, 2-4) people don't change beliefs based on facts.

 

[solderdude]

I would say it is caused by the anonymity the internet can provide, personal convictions and/or very strong feelings towards a subject they are passionate about. Combine this with a strong desire to defend their viewpoints and toxicity is right around the corner.
When an argument can't be won (in their eyes) they usually resort to verbal diarrhea as a form of 'fighting'. The only consequence for the culprit could be a ban unless they own the platform. Using a VPN, other device and different name and they are back again.
It's human nature I guess. Oh... don't forget typing while drunk, another good recipe for internet disasters.

Indeed people don't (or very rarely) change their beliefs based on presented facts.
This is not exclusive to audio but just about everything in life it just seems that way because audio is what we (forum members) usually are passionate about. One of the ingredients... passion.

 

[Lbstyling]

I'm not sure how much this applies to audiophiles, since it is not a mainstream movement anymore for a long time now, but I had to think of this article when I read the headline:

https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

On a personal note, audiofoolery is full of people claiming unsubstantiated bullshit, and it's also full of people who can spend more money than you and thus are more "right". It's also a topic that is highly subjective, lacks industry standards, and thus creates a circle of confusion and it's highly emotional. Combined with the technical intricacies you couldn't pick a better topic to get heated about.

In recent years, this combines with a populace that is no longer able to accept differing opinions. "Live and let live" seems to be generally in decline. That said, there is so much bullshit in audio world that I'm kinda glad we don't accept stupid and unproven subjective opinions - because without standards, the only way to go is down.

On the other hand, if somebody enjoys his objectively bad audio system it's no skin off my back.

What I see everywhere is tribalism. Doesn't matter what topic it is. People choose sides, maybe they invest in them by buying a product, and then ideology takes over. It seems these days, you can't just enjoy a thing for what it is, you have to make it your identity.

It's all very strange to me. I don't think it will end well.

Just my two cents in response. I think you are taking an overly myopic view of the situation. While we have income disparity in this county, it pales in comparison to historical income inequality. Perhaps more importantly, the poor in our country are better off than in many other societies, not as well off as Western Europe, but much better off than say, Venezuela, Cuba, or Nigeria. I won't bore you with my Milton Friedman quotes.

Totally get where your coming from with this, and as a fan of Friedman, you are in good company!

As mentioned in my previous post, the problem is that humans just like apes operate on seeking out dopamine and ceratonin (as well as other such as oxytocin).

We generate a lower base level of ceratonin when we rank lower in our social groups. This has lots of effects such as reducing self belief (that's not the exact correct term in this case)

But the problem is who we identify as our social group is evolutionarily limited to a small group of (usually local) interactions.

We can't easily rank ourselves against people and cultures we have no daily exposure to.

This means a countries 'poor' don't logically function to rank themselves as comparitively fortunate.

In short Friedman is logical to a fault. The apes that talk are collectively not.

You only have to look at social behaviours like mass hysteria, cults and evangelical exorcisms to see we function on social levels as much if not more by our genes as we do by out frontal cortex.

That's partly why this forum is so great! Amir works very hard against the forces of apes gone past.

 

[ttimer]

1) What happened to being civil to each other?
2) Why has audio become a personal religion rather than a fun hobby?
3) Why can people not be intellectually honest with themselves (i.e. I know it measures like shit, but I like the way it sounds)?
4) When did people become unable to separate personal preferences from fact?

I don't see this as a problem related to audio in particular. Nasty arguments and personal attacks over insignificant topics have been a defining characteristic of the internet before it was even called "internet". The Usenet was already full of bitterness and flamewars. The larger a forum community gets, the more likely for threads to devolve into flamewars. Maybe the internet was a mistake? Admittedly, young, small forum communities can sometimes keep a civil environment going for an extended period of time, especially if well-moderated.

 

[Rizzle]

This phenomenon happens all over the internet in every forum.

Not just online, sometimes it feels like society is polarizing. Most people see personal preference as hating the rest.

 

[CDMC]

We generate a lower base level of ceratonin when we rank lower in our social groups. This has lots of effects such as reducing self belief (that's not the exact correct term in this case)

But the problem is who we identify as our social group is evolutionarily limited to a small group of (usually local) interactions.

We can't easily rank ourselves against people and cultures we have no daily exposure to.

This means a countries 'poor' don't logically function to rank themselves as comparitively fortunate.

So if I am understanding your argument correctly, part of the behavior and extreme dissatisfaction we see in today's society is in part driven by what I call the "Kardashian Effect". People compare themselves to these internet stars, many of whom online "amazing" lives are simply fabricated, take that as their reference point for what the viewer's wants are, which leaves the viewer dissatisfied? This is in contrast to say, the pre-internet era, when the majority of societal interactions were with people in similar socioeconomic classes (neighbors/co-workers), so the reference would be something like they have a color tv, I have a black and white, I want a color tv, as opposed to I live in an apartment and don't own a car, but I should have a jet, vacations in the bahamas, and a mansion.

It is an interesting line of thought that makes a lot of sense. I am fortunate that I grew up in the pre world wide web world with a father that was very poor as a child that regularly reminded my sister and I, be thankful you have food to eat and a roof over your head, many people don't. My parents were also good at distinguishing wants and needs. You want a new toy, you need food.

 

[SIY]

One of my friends got Godwined online by... Michael Godwin. Delightful.

 

[North_Sky]

One believes what they see.

We all see the above picture 'rotate' yet all of us know it doesn't.
When printed on A4 paper we know for certain it does not move.
Yet ... we clearly see movement (not on small screens)... we KNOW it is not there but cannot do anything than see it move.
You can't switch that 'off'.
Ask someone else and they say it rotates.. it doesn't but they say it does because it is perceived that way so it is real.

Like you've just said; it doesn't work on smaller devices, only on larger screens.

Faith; what we believe drives us, and no one (no two people out of 7.8 billion living souls on planet Earth) believe the exact same for anything and everything.
Who's right who's wrong is the art of knowing the difference and applying it with the very best outcome...peace.

How do you get peace? Open vision ... respect, understanding human psychology, civilisation in a culture of decent harmony. ...Science.

Just shooting @ the stars ...

* Seeing the measurements with objectivity and accurate interpretation is believing.
Hearing the music we love spinning is also believing.
I believe in senses and sensibilities, logic and let live.