Objectivists/Subjectivists

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

 

You might want to try to understand the difference between your and you're.

 

Pathetic.

 

Mani.

I've had a few of those recently.  Posting from a phone and it's auto correct. So apologies for that.

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I realize you are fairly new here,

We may have different definitions of new, but I've been a member since 2011 while I see you (at least as Ralf11) have been a member since 2016 (and I have 800+ posts while you have 9400+ posts).

 

As far as reading back through threads, I'm finding just trying to follow the few posts in this thread to be almost a full time job. You must be some kind of super human to be able to intelligently follow all the threads and posts you've been involved in.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

morality??

 

If you directed this to me Ralf11:

 

Yes, my observation is that part of the subjective/objective divide is how the two camps differ in their interpretation of facts themselves in a moral way

[manisandher]

34 minutes ago, crenca said:

Your [sic] a guy who did an "experiment" with results that were unexpected.

 

No.

 

1. I was certain I could hear a difference between bit-identical playback

2. I was confident I could demonstrate this

3. I invited a well respected CAer up to my place for the sole purpose of demonstrating this

4. I scored 9/10 in a blind ABX

 

The results were totally expected.

 

Mani.

[89reksal]

25 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

The real problem is that some people fly into an uncontrollable rage when they are asked how they determined if something is true or not.

I'm going to circle back on this since I find it almost unbelievable that it would already have received 4 likes/upvotes. I guess the issues go a lot deeper then I ever dreamed.

 

How did you determine that "some people fly into an uncontrollable rage....."? Do you have some kind of specific test that you'd like to share with the rest of us that would help us know when we're dealing with someone in an uncontrollable rage? Is that a subjective or objective conclusion you've reached? I'd be very interested in seeing those test results.

 

Un-fricking-believable.

[Ralf11]

11 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

We may have different definitions of new, but I've been a member since 2011 while I see you (at least as Ralf11) have been a member since 2016 (and I have 800+ posts while you have 9400+ posts).

 

As far as reading back through threads, I'm finding just trying to follow the few posts in this thread to be almost a full time job. You must be some kind of super human to be able to intelligently follow all the threads and posts you've been involved in.

 

I've done quite a bit of reading & lurking here.

 

While not at all super or even supra-human, I am supposed to be retired (twice) and am a fast reader to boot.

 

Wait and see if there isn't a lot of rage expressed by certain posters.

[Ralf11]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

If you directed this to me Ralf11:

 

Yes, my observation is that part of the subjective/objective divide is how the two camps differ in their interpretation of facts themselves in a moral way

 

 

no I think lasker used that term - seems odd w.r.t. stereo systems (unless he meant MQA)

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

I've done quite a bit of reading & lurking here.

So just to clarify, we do have different definitions of new.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

I'm going to circle back on this since I find it almost unbelievable that it would already have received 4 likes/upvotes. I guess the issues go a lot deeper then I ever dreamed.

 

Un-fricking-believable.

 

Excellent!  Now your starting to understand how deep this divide really is.  To put a humorous twist on your words (to me anyways - this is subjective), you are starting to believe in the subjective/objective divide ?

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

no I think lasker used that term

Maybe it would be beneficial if you tried not reading as fast?  Apparently it may not be working for you.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

no I think lasker used that term - seems odd w.r.t. stereo systems (unless he meant MQA)

 

I used it initially, I don't think he did...could be wrong

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

your

I guess it's true; "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".

[crenca]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

I guess it's true; "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".

 

LOL!  Sorry, I can't seem to help myself today with that! ?

[Abtr]

30 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Are you serious here or are you also exaggerating for effect? How could you possibly come to that from what I wrote?

...

I think it's called trolling.

[PeterSt]

25 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I realize you are fairly new here, but you can either read back threads or just watch the flow of output from the limbic system as it scrolls past...

 

Maybe you read too fast.

blaxwards

[crenca]

Just now, Abtr said:

I think it's called trolling.

 

Maybe, but what about the truth in it?

 

lasker98 did say that he is perfectly justified in the past and any future negative reaction to an objective world view.  He reacts if not with "uncontrollable rage", then (self admittedly) with negative feelings, that these feelings are in of themselves right and so it must be objectivists who modify their world view and/or observations and/or forum behavior and/or posts.

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I'm going to circle back on this since I find it almost unbelievable that it would already have received 4 likes/upvotes. I guess the issues go a lot deeper then I ever dreamed.

 

How did you determine that "some people fly into an uncontrollable rage....."? Do you have some kind of specific test that you'd like to share with the rest of us that would help us know when we're dealing with someone in an uncontrollable rage? Is that a subjective or objective conclusion you've reached? I'd be very interested in seeing those test results.

 

Un-fricking-believable.

Since he's taking part in this thread a good example would be a thread I had. Mani eventually became upset that I didn't accept what he was hearing.  I would not call it rage. But his reports were not sensible to me. 

 

I'll dig up the thread and you can read it. Maybe it can be used for both groups to understand each other. Let me find it.

[89reksal]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

lasker98 did say that he is perfectly justified in the past and any future negative reaction to an objective world view.

I've lost any desire to continue on with you but I have to respond to this; NO I DIDN'T. Hopefully that's clear enough.

 

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it's almost like this thread has been attacked by some kind of Russian bots. (No offense to any Russians. I had to use something?)

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I've lost any desire to continue on with you but I have respond to this; NO I DIDN'T.

  

YES, you did:

 

 

 

[manisandher]

13 minutes ago, esldude said:

Mani eventually became upset that I didn't accept what he was hearing.

 

Don't flatter yourself.

[esldude]

 

@lasker98 it will take time to read. But it might illustrate how high faith in subjective listening impression and data based methods don't mesh well.

 

Oh and the files aren't there to download anymore.

[esldude]

1 minute ago, manisandher said:

 

Don't flatter yourself.

Well I wasn't trying to flatter myself. Trying to illuminate the divide.

[89reksal]

crenca, so you got "lasker98 did say that he is perfectly justified in the past and any future negative reaction to an objective world view."

from this

"I don't how much of what I'm taking from this is your true intention, but are you aware of the sense of superiority and I'm right/you're wrong attitude  that is just oozing off this post?

 

I'm sure you'll think I'm responding emotionally, while I would argue I'm responding reasonably to what you've written, but I have to say this would be, for me, the exact type of post that I find verging on offensive.

 

Hopefully you'll take my response as an opportunity to possibly rethink how some of your posts may be received."

 

I don't know how to respond other than WOW!! just WOW!!

 

I don't know if you have some kind of medical condition that you're taking medication for, in which case I apologize.

 

A lot of I don't knows is all I do know.

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well I wasn't trying to flatter myself. Trying to illuminate the divide.

 

You guys don't know me personally and yet feel that you can get away with saying things like:

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Your [sic] ill equipped to do the hard work (both thought and practical) to investigate the "why" of these results.

 

Where's your evidence for this claim?

 

20 minutes ago, esldude said:

Mani eventually became upset that I didn't accept what he was hearing.

 

Where's your evidence for this claim?

 

As I said earlier, pathetic.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

My experience: if the outcome of a blind test is contrary to the 'expected outcome', it's dismissed. It's that simple.

 

Our beliefs are deep-routed and not easily lodged, even (especially?) in the scientific field:

 

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

 

Mani.

 

Spot on !

Many E.E.s refuse to accept the results when they don't agree with those they expected, even when correctly performed by a well qualified Electronics Engineer.

 DBTs are only the " Gold Standard" when they confirm their own expectations.