How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[elcorso]

3 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

300?

 

If 300 (I asked my health insurance provider) the prime I have to pay is higher than the benefits.  My break-in point is 250 years, but for that I have to live in Dr. Sears Longevity Clinic in Florida (for the rich & famous that I'm not) and so expensive than I rather quit smoking now!

 

By the way, there are still hopes for smokers and I live according to this article:

 

https://www.phillymag.com/be-well-philly/2013/01/23/smokers-guide-health-fitness/

 

I am also shortening the length of my cigarettes. Here is a picture of me when I was stressed:

 

 

No wonder, stress is killing more people than cigarettes !

 

Anyway be carefully how you interpret statistics... If 67% of tobacco smokers die because of tobacco smoking, 33% don't...  Everything in this life is a risk, a calculated one and I'm an optimist ?

 

I forgot to tell you, three days after the IQ test that my ex-wife submitted to me, she told me that she had made a mistake in the calculations (she was never good at math) and that I had had a normal result. I went to see myself in the mirror and I did not notice any change in my face ?

 

Then, be carefully with all kinds of test, even the medical screen test.  I f something is out of your normal (or statistical) range, repeat it and, if possible, in a different lab !

 

And, of course, be carefully with statistics. Normally, trying to save money, they use very small samples and on the other hand, many of the subjects in the studio lie. I have worked in that some time of my life !!!

 

Roch

[AudioDoctor]

IQ tests are, imo, a means to bragging rights for people that usually have little else to brag about, or to make up a number.  Lets stop talking about stupid IQ tests.

[Jud]

On 6/17/2018 at 4:32 PM, gmgraves said:

I think that's probably not correct. It's not "in the view of the testmakers", it's the result of a standard test given across all social, economic, racial and gender groups. It's non-verbal and basically is designed to measure only one aspect of any human being's make-up and that's the individual's ability to solve problems. Most of the tests are based on visual cues using shapes and forms which makes some apologists say that some groups don't do well because the tests are "culturally biased", which is, of course, nonsense. One doesn't even have to know how to read to take a Stanford-Binet IQ test. 

 

It's not a "test," it's a variety of tests across different topics - topics that the testmakers think intelligent people ought to know about.

 

Besides the blog post I've already linked a couple of times, further suggested reading material: "None of the Above," by David Owen ( https://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=none+of+the+above+sat ); and "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould ( https://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_10?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=mismeasure+of+man&sprefix=mismeasure%2Caps%2C182&crid=9J004H44CGGA&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Amismeasure+of+man )

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, daverich4 said:

Just curious what any of this Intellectual Masturbation you guys are doing has to do with the topic this thread is supposed to be about?

I was about to make a similar observation that we should get back to the topic at hand: "How Much Does It Cost To Be An Audiophile?" 

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

IQ tests are, imo, a means to bragging rights for people that usually have little else to brag about, or to make up a number.  Lets stop talking about stupid IQ tests.

Very few people who have High IQs ever talk about it. It's generally self apparent and they don't have to brag about it. The exception is Mensa. But, if you knew the kinds of people who frequent Mensa, you wouldn't want any part of it, irrespective of whether or not you qualified for membership!

[AudioDoctor]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Very few people who have High IQs ever talk about it. It's generally self apparent and they don't have to brag about it. The exception is Mensa. But, if you knew the kinds of people who frequent Mensa, you wouldn't want any part of it, irrespective of whether or not you qualified for membership!

 

That was my point exactly.

[gmgraves]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

It's not a "test," it's a variety of tests across different topics - topics that the testmakers think intelligent people ought to know about.

 Jud, I was referring to a "test"; the standard Stanford-Binet IQ test given in the United States to most school children. It's the test upon which the averages are calculated; the test that gives standard reference for statistically figuring the "Bell Curve" that puts the average IQ at 100. 

[mansr]

28 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

IQ tests are, imo, a means to bragging rights for people that usually have little else to brag about, or to make up a number. 

Mensa members.

[Jud]

On 6/17/2018 at 5:20 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi Jud,

I find (IMO) we often agree on things even if sometimes coming at the problem from a different angles. Perhaps tho the point of difference here is that I do believe in the concept of a "general intelligence" but possibly that apparently differing view can be reconciled.

 

Regarding "general intelligence"  I consider you an intelligent person and there are many more on this forum which I would consider "intelligent" (whether I like them or not, whether I agree with them or not......but of course the ones that agree with me are more intelligent ?, not)

 

The question for me therefore is can you quantify it in a meaningful way. This leads to the whole murky area of efficacy and applicability of "tests" (you know, sensitivity, specificity, reliability....etc). As is known by many here I am a self proclaimed test skeptic. I didnt think of myself in this way prior to visting audio fora because in my line of work it is standard operating procedure to define the accuracy and quality of test parameters ( as no doubt it is for good engineers etc). Thus I have a similar stance to you, it appears to me anyway, on say audio ABX blind tests. Thats just an example so a plea to others, lets not go there.

 

So, the examples you cited of applying "standardised" tests to 'non-standard', not neurotypical individuals seriously challenges if not invalidates the test procedure. Similarly using the same test battery on a tribe of natives in an undiscovered part of a jungle somewhere is meaningless. Cultural background counts. However that doesnt mean they are or are not intelligent in a generic sense, IF you test them the right way eg sensitive to finding what you are looking for. In some cases that may just not be possible.

 

Actually, I don't have to go to any kinds of extremes to throw serious doubts on the validity of IQ tests, or indeed neuropsych test. Two words, Anxiety and Depression. In (mostly) "normal" neurotypical people these two things confound the results of most neuropsych testing procedures. At least for the higher order levels of functioning where mild levels of brain impairments just can't be distinguished from impaired performance from A + D. Neuropsychs may wish to disagree but if I had a $ for every time I have read that in reports I could buy a new car!

 

So for me, it is not a question of if and more a matter of how. The "test makers" need to apply tests relevant to the subject and exercise judgement in test interpretation making note of confounders and qualifiers.

 

 

Thank you again.  Let me offer one last perspective on this, a scientific one.  I'm supposing @Ralf11 will be able to provide something that's more correct and detailed, since IIRC he was a biologist and I believe taught some evolutionary biology as well.

 

Here's the thesis: IQ tests cannot possibly be measuring an inborn quality of mental acuity, because humans simply do not evolve as rapidly and significantly as these test scores are changing.

 

Though we are continuously "evolving," significant, noticeable human evolution that alters the genes of our species ordinarily takes place on time scales of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years.  There are things that can speed it up (though these don't operate on anything close to the time scales of a couple or a few decades - a human generation or two - over which IQ test scores have been changing):

 

- Selective pressures, most notably from parasites.  Malaria is the strongest known selective pressure on humans, responsible for the prevalence of sickle cell trait in African populations.  I haven't read academic work on how long it took for sickle cell trait to become prevalent in these populations, but hundreds of years would be lightning speed.  There is absolutely nothing known to science that would exert such selective pressure in the direction of lesser mental acuity over time scales of even hundreds of years, let alone 20 or 25.

 

- Notice the mention of "populations" in the previous paragraph.  If groups of people are divided into separate breeding populations, especially small ones, a mutation can spread through such a small population and become dominant quite quickly.  But among people who are taking IQ tests, there is no effective reproductive separation.  We're all one big happy family.  (This is the reason so many people can claim someone like Charlemagne as part of their ancestry.  With such a huge human planetary population intermingling, we've all effectively crossbred into each others' families not that far back in time.)  So there's no small separate breeding population in which a genetic trait for lower mental acuity could become dominant quickly.

 

So whatever IQ tests are measuring, it cannot be inborn mental acuity.

[Ralf11]

DNF

 

but we can say: So whatever IQ tests are measuring, it cannot be solely inborn mental acuity.

 

Here is one parenting tip before we return to the original topic of how many IQ points you lose if you become an audiophile...

 

Never tell a kid "WOW!  you have a really high IQ."

 

Tell them: "Well, you did ok I guess, but you are really going to have to work hard in your life."

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

DNF

 

but we can say: So whatever IQ tests are measuring, it cannot be solely inborn mental acuity.

 

Here is one parenting tip before we return to the original topic of how many IQ points you lose if you become an audiophile...

 

Never tell a kid "WOW!  you have a really high IQ."

 

Tell them: "Well, you did ok I guess, but you are really going to have to work hard in your life."

 

Since the significant changes in average scores are (1) comprised of the scores of the individuals taking the test, and (2) can't reflect significant changes in inborn mental acuity, then for at least a very large number of individual scores (large enough to materially affect the average),  there *must* be significant variation in individual scores for reasons other than inborn mental acuity, mustn't there?

[Ron Scubadiver]

More than it is worth.

[esldude]

What about the Wonderlic test given by the NFL to potential draftees?

 

At one time the test was available online (I believe only samples are now).  One night having just finished a few glasses of wine I decided what the heck I'll take it?  I scored a 48 out of 50.  I attribute the two misses to somehow not noticing you had only 12 minutes to complete this after being about 8 minutes into it and only halfway done.  So I had to hurry. I attribute not noticing that to the wine.  

 

Now if they get those brain transplants perfected I might be a potential star quarterback in the NFL.  

 

Or maybe if the Wonderlic were really important I'd be rich enough to own myself a team.  

[esldude]

Maybe we need to develop the Standford Audiolic test for potential audiophiles.  Unless they have a score higher than GUTB we don't let them take part.  Some questions will be mental and some will be about the gear you own.  That way you can aspire to own better gear and make up the mental differences if you fail to qualify the first time.  

[Ralf11]

could reflect significant changes in inborn mental acuity...

 

but there is significant variation in individual scores for reasons other than inborn mental acuity

 

like lead exposure

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

could reflect significant changes in inborn mental acuity...

 

but there is significant variation in individual scores for reasons other than inborn mental acuity

 

like lead exposure

That's okay.  Most of the world uses lead free solder now.  Standford Audiolic scores would only be effected among audiophiles with older gear. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Very few people who have High IQs ever talk about it. It's generally self apparent and they don't have to brag about it.

 

Yeh, that's right!! I hardly ever mention my excessively high IQ !.. Oh damn I've just done it haven't I

 

I went to a party once where a good looking girl bragged to me that she had a "High IQ". I thought she had a lisp and replied, "I like you too!"

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Thank you again.  Let me offer one last perspective on this, a scientific one.  I'm supposing @Ralf11 will be able to provide something that's more correct and detailed, since IIRC he was a biologist and I believe taught some evolutionary biology as well.

 

Here's the thesis: IQ tests cannot possibly be measuring an inborn quality of mental acuity, because humans simply do not evolve as rapidly and significantly as these test scores are changing.

 

Though we are continuously "evolving," significant, noticeable human evolution that alters the genes of our species ordinarily takes place on time scales of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years.  There are things that can speed it up (though these don't operate on anything close to the time scales of a couple or a few decades - a human generation or two - over which IQ test scores have been changing):

 

- Selective pressures, most notably from parasites.  Malaria is the strongest known selective pressure on humans, responsible for the prevalence of sickle cell trait in African populations.  I haven't read academic work on how long it took for sickle cell trait to become prevalent in these populations, but hundreds of years would be lightning speed.  There is absolutely nothing known to science that would exert such selective pressure in the direction of lesser mental acuity over time scales of even hundreds of years, let alone 20 or 25.

 

- Notice the mention of "populations" in the previous paragraph.  If groups of people are divided into separate breeding populations, especially small ones, a mutation can spread through such a small population and become dominant quite quickly.  But among people who are taking IQ tests, there is no effective reproductive separation.  We're all one big happy family.  (This is the reason so many people can claim someone like Charlemagne as part of their ancestry.  With such a huge human planetary population intermingling, we've all effectively crossbred into each others' families not that far back in time.)  So there's no small separate breeding population in which a genetic trait for lower mental acuity could become dominant quickly.

 

So whatever IQ tests are measuring, it cannot be inborn mental acuity.

 

There are lots of reasons why the IQ test may lack specificity for "inborn mental acuity" or evolutionary selection pressures. To be honest I don't see the need to go there.The question remains is there such a thing as "general intelligence" however you define that and however you acquired it.  If so is there some marker that can act as a quantitative correlate for most neurotypicals in a given setting.

 

Likewise, I will leave it there too.

 

[firedog]

9 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 Jud, I was referring to a "test"; the standard Stanford-Binet IQ test given in the United States to most school children. It's the test upon which the averages are calculated; the test that gives standard reference for statistically figuring the "Bell Curve" that puts the average IQ at 100. 

What's lost in these discussions about groups and their average intelligence: even if the numbers are correct, they are irrelevant. Decisions should get made about individuals. The group IQ means nothing about the abilities of an individual from that group. 

[elcorso]

 

Maybe not audiophile bu with great ears:

 

 

-Firulais, ¡where are you!  Bark,

please...

-¿Meow?

 

 

 

Too much pollutant today...

 

Roch

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, esldude said:

Maybe we need to develop the Standford Audiolic test for potential audiophiles.  Unless they have a score higher than GUTB we don't let them take part.  Some questions will be mental and some will be about the gear you own.  That way you can aspire to own better gear and make up the mental differences if you fail to qualify the first time.  

Now, is the point of the test to have more expensive gear than GUTB, or to be more cryptic about one's tweaks than Frank? Perhaps a combination of both will give a pair of curves and where they cross will give the test givers an "index of audiophilia" for each test taker, whereby one can figure out where they lie on the audiophile loon line.

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

What's lost in these discussions about groups and their average intelligence: even if the numbers are correct, they are irrelevant. Decisions should get made about individuals. The group IQ means nothing about the abilities of an individual from that group. 

I don't know about today but when I was in the Seventh Grade (for you non-Americans, whose school systems work differently, that's about 12 years old) we were given a Stanford-Binet. When we got to Eighth Grade, we were separated into "classes", 8A through 8D. The 8A group took algebra1 and creative writing class while 8B and 8C took basic practical mathematics and English Grammar. 8D classes were all remedial and the 8D boys spent a lot of their time taking metal shop, and the 8D girls spent a lot of their days taking home economics. Boys in the higher Eighth Grade classes wished they had been put in 8D so they could spend their days learning how to weld and fabricate things out of metal! I asked my guidance counselor what the different classes meant, and he's the one who told me that the Eighth Grade class was divided-up along IQ lines. The smartest were in 8A, the largest class was 8C, and 8D had the lowest IQs.

[Ralf11]

I took a welding class in grad. school - or at least I tired to.  The instructor kicked me out, since I wasn't a "professional" welder wanna be.

 

But maybe it is evidence that my IQ declined 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I took a welding class in grad. school - or at least I tired to.  The instructor kicked me out, since I wasn't a "professional" welder wanna be.

 

But maybe it is evidence that my IQ declined 

Those off gases in welding will do that to you.  :)

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Those off gases in welding will do that to you.

Are they as good as solder flux fumes?