Objectivists/Subjectivists

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, wgscott said:

The term "objectivist" is primarily deployed by "subjectivists" as a label and a term of dismissal.  It is like calling the other guy a "socialist."  You give them a label, so you don't have to take their point of view into consideration.  They become, by definition, the outsider, the gadfly, the disruptive tendency.

 

I think objectivists see it that way, and subjectivists see posts about "radical subjectivism" as the flip side of that coin.  What a surprise, eh?   

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

It seems a lot of objectivists are more focused on the perception issue. I get that everyone has their own way of perceiving something and when it comes to spending my hard earned dollars, my perception and experience of others that I may have a level of trust in, is going to be the deciding factor. For one thing, I don't have the expertise to make an intelligent decision based on measurements. As well, what makes those specific measurements relevant or accurate? Who am I to know?

Where I believe the objectivists can make a truly valuable contribution is in actually doing the investigation based on their own actual experiences (if they really do care enough) and then providing the results. A lot seem to have the ability but not the desire. In my case I may have the desire but not the ability.

Some of the time I've posted files to listen to were exactly addressing your last paragraph above. Plus a chance for both sides to share a common experience and learn about each other from it.  Instead some subjectivists ( not all) consider any such attempt an attack upon their position and derail such activity.

[89reksal]

7 minutes ago, wgscott said:

The term "objectivist" is primarily deployed by "subjectivists" as a label and a term of dismissal.  It is like calling the other guy a "socialist."  You give them a label, so you don't have to take their point of view into consideration.  They become, by definition, the outsider, the gadfly, the disruptive tendency.

I only used those terms because they're so commonly used and hopefully understood in here.

I'd say from the initial responses there 's much more focus on the extremes rather than the common ground. If that's the case, then it's hard to see anything changing.

All I was trying to do with my OP was hopefully give some perspective on where I'm coming from as a "subjectivist". I was hoping a little explanation would help show that in general, we're not as far apart as it may appear.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I think objectivists see it that way, and subjectivists see posts about "radical subjectivism" as the flip side of that coin.  What a surprise, eh?   

 

The lack of gray area, the polarization into extremes is a big problem. Not just here on CA, but in society in general.

[PeterSt]

OK. As long as the auto-correction does not know of the word "objectivist", you objectivists do not exist.

Too bad.

 

I'll be back later to check for a status change.

[Jud]

Just now, esldude said:

Some of the time I've posted files to listen to were exactly addressing your last paragraph above. Plus a chance for both sides to share a common experience and learn about each other from it.  Instead some subjectivists ( not all) consider any such attempt an attack upon their position and derail such activity.

 

Yes, I remember some of those threads, and the attacks were painful to watch, as are recent attempts to derail some long-running threads reporting subjective experiences.  What the hell is everyone so afraid of?  Criticism of "safe spaces" in a forum with thousands upon thousands of threads is just as ridiculous as walking into a bar across the street from Lincoln Financial Field (where the Philadelphia Eagles football team plays) and dumping on the customers for being unduly sensitive to criticism from Dallas Cowboys or New York Giants fans.  There are a million other bars where fans of the latter teams can enjoy themselves.

 

Just let folks have fun.  If you want to offer advice, do so respectfully.  This ain't hard.

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

....

None of this means I don't see among the forum posts claims that I feel are almost certainly ridiculous.  But to me it does counsel a certain way of discussing things that begins with humility.  And just personally, I have always had a predilection to give far more credibility to those who evidence such humility.

 

I appreciate your diagnosis and prescription here Jud.  But in humility I think you will have to admit that it is not for everyone.  You are no doubt familiar with humilities place in history and how it often leads directly to...martyrdom ? 

 

Along the subjective/objective divide, humility is drowned out among the feriosity of the faith.  CA is unique, in that it is a place where one side or the other is not allowed to impose itself, either by force of will or through "moderation" or "civility", on the other.  

 

Your way might work for you, but for most it just leads to the status quo...

[look&listen]

13 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I have to say I don't get the point you're making

IMO - agressive distraction & dissension.

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 What the hell is everyone so afraid of? 

 

Right!  So why do we have a call, mostly by "subjectivists", for moderation and enforced civility?

[PeterSt]

Just now, crenca said:

So why do we have a call, mostly by "subjectivists", for moderation and enforced civility?

 

What do you think ?

[89reksal]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

objectivists have nothing better to do here but to attack subjectivists and to derail their threads. 

I hate to say but I do believe in some cases that's likely true. But again, those would be at the extreme. I'm just as sure that there's some subjectivists that are at the extremes. Why is so much of the focus on the extremes?

 

Why is it that the "objectivists" are the ones that seem more compelled to jump into threads and attempt to make their same points again and again? It's almost like some believe they're doing a public service, saving people from themselves. One in particular actually posted almost exactly that in a thread here recently when asked, saying something like he was providing "consumer protection". It implies a sense of superiority that the rest of us aren't capable of coming to our own equally valuable conclusions. Thinking about that, maybe that perceived superiority is on some level adding to the resentment against some of the more obvious objectivists.

[wgscott]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

What do you think ?

 

Because exponents of irrational belief and imaginary phenomena (think religion) cannot tolerate dissent.

[wgscott]

6 minutes ago, look&listen said:

IMO - agressive distraction & dissension.

 

i.e., people with the temerity to voice an opinion at variance with my own.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

Your way might work for you, but for most it just leads to the status quo...

 

I couldn't disagree more.  If everyone in a conversation is cocksure of himself (or not sure and reacts defensively), you get an interminable argument and nothing moves forward.  So, status quo.  Only where people have the humility to grant that there's something they may not know do you get discussion, learning, and progress beyond the status quo.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I hate to say but I do believe in some cases that's likely true. But again, those would be at the extreme. I'm just as sure that there's some subjectivists that are at the extremes. Why is so much of the focus on the extremes?

 

Why is it that the "objectivists" are the ones that seem more compelled to jump into threads and attempt to make their same points again and again? It's almost like some believe they're doing a public service, saving people from themselves. One in particular actually posted almost exactly that in a thread here recently when asked, saying something like he was providing "consumer protection". It implies a sense of superiority that the rest of us aren't capable of coming to our own equally valuable conclusions. Thinking about that, maybe that perceived superiority is on some level adding to the resentment against some of the more obvious objectivists.

 

Think of the extremes as a "negative" and "positive" pole in an electric circuit...oh wait, your a subjectivist...think of the extremes as the veil lifted when you "ground" a part of your system in a box of rocks ?

 

I hope you can get the humor!

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Because exponents of irrational belief

 

eh

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I couldn't disagree more.  If everyone in a conversation is cocksure of himself (or not sure and reacts defensively), you get an interminable argument and nothing moves forward.  So, status quo.  Only where people have the humility to grant that there's something they may not know do you get discussion, learning, and progress beyond the status quo.

 

I agree with you, except one critical word, which changes everything:

 

"I couldn't disagree more.  If everyone in a conversation is cocksure of himself  faith (i.e. is the truth of audio "subjective" or "objective") (or not sure and reacts defensively), you get an interminable argument and nothing moves forward.  So, status quo.  Only where people have the humility to grant that there's something they may not know do you get discussion, learning, and progress beyond the status quo."

 

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I hate to say but I do believe in some cases that's likely true. But again, those would be at the extreme. I'm just as sure that there's some subjectivists that are at the extremes. Why is so much of the focus on the extremes?

 

Why is it that the "objectivists" are the ones that seem more compelled to jump into threads and attempt to make their same points again and again? It's almost like some believe they're doing a public service, saving people from themselves. One in particular actually posted almost exactly that in a thread here recently when asked, saying something like he was providing "consumer protection". It implies a sense of superiority that the rest of us aren't capable of coming to our own equally valuable conclusions. Thinking about that, maybe that perceived superiority is on some level adding to the resentment against some of the more obvious objectivists.

 

I have seen the self-same thing happen in threads started by people of an objectivist bent, and they didn't get nearly as far as the subjectivist threads.  Almost immediately after they were started, subjectivists jumped in and started arguing, feeling that they were somehow impliedly criticized by the very existence of such threads.

 

Perhaps it's because it's an easier, lazier habit to argue than to actually engage, discuss and learn.  But IMNSHO, the latter is infinitely more rewarding for not that much more effort.

[89reksal]

22 minutes ago, esldude said:

Some of the time I've posted files to listen to were exactly addressing your last paragraph above. Plus a chance for both sides to share a common experience and learn about each other from it.  Instead some subjectivists ( not all) consider any such attempt an attack upon their position and derail such activity.

This could be a good example to explore. I say I wasn't aware of it. That's probably because I wasn't interested enough to read further. But I also didn't jump in and try an convince others that it was wrong or not possible or expectation bias or whatever the word of the day is. That may be an issue at the root of some of the problem; those on the extremes (both sides) that do seem to have to jump in every thread and try and convince others to see their viewpoint.

Live and let live.

[Dutch]

These radical objectivists to me often come across to as joyless, insecure, bitter people feeling unrecognized or misunderstood in life. Of course all they, like anyone else, need and want is a pat on the back now and then and a bit of recognition. They just don’t know how to get it. I’d say there’s better places to find that than on an audiophile forum but of course they’d need to find out themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink it.

 

BTW to me the worst are those who seem to have a compulsive need to save ‘innocent people’ from what they feel is expensive ‘audiophoolery’. Of course everybody knows that those who want to save others usually want to be saved from something themselves. Those who they want to save don’t need saving, they’re either learning or getting what they want!

 

???

[89reksal]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

I hope you can get the humor!

I get that it was an attempt at humour. Whether it was successful or not I'd say is open to debate. ?

[Sal1950]

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

So why keep hammering on in every thread with requests to have them provided if it's obvious they're not available?

If I was to walk outside tomorrow and report I saw a red/purple sky with green colored clouds,  and you knew it was a typical blue sky-white gray clouds day, wouldn't you query me on what the conditions were that I had these impressions?  People can not constantly post having audible impressions that make no sense within known science and not expect to be asked to present supporting evidence.

 

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

To be honest it's something I have no interest in. No offense meant.

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

I have no idea about your background but do you honestly believe that everything relating to the science of electronics is already known? Nothing more to be learned?

If there is, how do you expect to learn anything new when you refuse to involve yourself in any testing, preferring to stick your head in the sand and say  "I heard it, so it is so"?

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I agree with you, except one critical word, which changes everything:

 

"I couldn't disagree more.  If everyone in a conversation is cocksure of himself  faith (i.e. is the truth of audio "subjective" or "objective") (or not sure and reacts defensively), you get an interminable argument and nothing moves forward.  So, status quo.  Only where people have the humility to grant that there's something they may not know do you get discussion, learning, and progress beyond the status quo."

 

 

As long as you grant that for some people an "objectivist" bent can also be a kind of faith (what @wgscott quoted Richard Feynman describing as "cargo cult science" when he encountered it in another forum) I fully agree.

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

I have seen the self-same thing happen in threads started by people of an objectivist bent, and they didn't get nearly as far as the subjectivist threads.  Almost immediately after they were started, subjectivists jumped in and started arguing, feeling that they were somehow impliedly criticized by the very existence of such threads. 

That's equally as bad. I guess I don't read enough objectivist threads. ?

[89reksal]

13 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

If I was to walk outside tomorrow and report I saw a red/purple sky with green colored clouds,  and you knew it was a typical blue sky-white gray clouds day, wouldn't you query me on what the conditions were that I had these impressions?

I'm assuming by "you knew" you mean I had first hand experience or had observed for myself? As opposed to basically implying that based on science that would be impossible while I had never seen a sky?

And yes, of course I should be able to query you. Once, maybe twice. And query, not mock.

 

13 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

If there is, how do you expect to learn anything new when you refuse to involve yourself in any testing, preferring to stick your head in the sand and say  "I heard it, so it is so"?

By actually trying the product or suggestion for myself after making my determination on how worthwhile it may be. I much prefer "I heard it, so it is so" as opposed to "I haven't heard it, but it isn't so".

 

I would expect that concept to be even more relevant for an "objectivist". I see very little interest from some of them in learning anything knew. Most seem to have the mindset that they already know everything.

 

I'm already sick of typing objectivist and subjectivist. They're already sounding more like us and them then the more accurate suggestion that most have a lot more in common then being us against them