The problem with subjective impressions

[Solstice380]

43 minutes ago, marce said:

I get the impression from these sort of comment on this thread and similar comments on other threads by others, that the hardcore subjective fraternity won't be happy until I and certain other members are banned and every thread is censored and cleansed of any comments they don't like. The forum has already been stifled by recent events and there are specific threads to discuss this, instead of every thread getting polluted by this negativity. What was an interesting forum full of lively debate has turned into a rather dull place, where the only conversations allowed are approved ones.

 

Agreed.  The epitome of "cancel culture".  NOT what , I think, most of us here want.

[Solstice380]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

For any customer or regulator to say we were right, it meant admitting they were wrong.

 

I know that you have a pretty good grasp on some science fundamentals, but an area where you aren't as familiar as law is the scientific / engineering world.  I have been published in refereed journals and been a reviewer.  In the science world you have to tell someone specifically where and why their assumptions or conclusions aren't / can't be correct.  There are no ifs, ands or buts - it's all physics.  Somebody failed to tell the cold-fusion folks they had their heads somewhere besides in the lab.  There are nicer ways to say it, perhaps, but as scientists and engineers it is our responsibility to not let the idiots of the world try to make shit up as they go.  People also aren't always good at communication (No, really?) so the way they write conflates facts with subjective impressions.  And, some just don't know the difference in their own mind.

 

 

[Solstice380]

54 minutes ago, Jud said:

Obviously the layperson in these interactions can make it unpleasant - I'm not absolving laypeople of their own responsibility at all.

 

Oh yeah, we know both sides can go there!  I do have a problem that people that readily conflate facts with opinion.  My father didn't suffer idiots well, either.

 

I have to remember what my High School calc teacher said one time:  "The only good reason to beat your head against the wall is because it feels good when you stop."  😁

[Solstice380]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Since he is obtuse to six sigmas, the best thing is prevent the infection from spreading to all the other neighbors, who are listening in.

 

Unfortunately, the dumb ones are winning.  They have more kids.

[Solstice380]

9 hours ago, Allan F said:

if the difference is significant enough to justify the expenditure of changing the device.

 

Your whole post is good. I think that this (quoted) is always going to be a personal thing, as you say.  How do you gauge the value of an incremental improvement to someone other than yourself?  Hell, I wrestle with myself all the time over that one!  I LOVE the sound of my system as it is - best I've ever had in my life since I dove into this rabbit hole buying good equipment starting in the early 80s.  The incremental for me would cost huuuuge money but for someone else starting out it may not.  And my gains will, most likely, be less than theirs.

 

I used to (somewhat) jokingly say:  The universe is 100% physics and 100% personal preference.  Respect both!

[Solstice380]

 

We get bored and we want to try something new.  Is that consumerism?  Maybe our First World consumerism feeds into that, but I think we all start because of what Chris said.

[Solstice380]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'd love to be educated a bit about what you're getting at. 

 

General cynicism? LOL

[Solstice380]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's what it seems to me, but I want to ask so I can fully understand before I conclude anything. 

 

I agree with STC ( @Samuel T Cogley ) that it is pretty much rampant consumerism that is killing everything in the world, planet included, if that is the basis of his comments. It's often a fine line between cynicism and harsh, but unpopular, reality.

[Solstice380]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Well, I upgrade every 20 years so you got me with that quote.

 

 

 

You must not listen to powerful enough music!

[Solstice380]

1 hour ago, Summit said:

 

If we lose a lot of organisms and if many ecosystem would decline or collapse the humans and our society will be affected negatively as a result.

 

There is also a lot of fluff in the whole ecosystem.  Just like with humans, not everything in nature worked out well.

[Solstice380]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'm glad you found some information that you like and that suits your needs. 

 

Who actually believes that they can decide the perfect component to purchase form reviews??? OK, if a lot of negatives then you may have something to "not" go for.  There is no way that another person's impression, whose tastes you really don't know, should influence you.  I'm not that easily lead.  Problem is that there is no way short of a long car / plane trip to audition equipment.  Not to mention if it is only sold on the web.  That's a conundrum. 

[Solstice380]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Put another way, if all the bugs die, all the people die. If all the people die, all the bugs will be just fine :~)

 

Yeah, that's the way the food chain works!  LOL

[Solstice380]

29 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

given a shot to evolve their equivalent of language and writing systems

 

Haven't they had eons already and didn't?

[Solstice380]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is interesting. You can use a group of negative reviews but not positive reviews? Care to square that?

 

Expectation bias on the part of the reviewer.  Nobody WANTS to do a negative review so if it out there the product must really be bad.  It takes forever to prove a theory right and one negative instance to prove it wrong.

[Solstice380]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Doesn't that go both ways?

 

3 minutes ago, Solstice380 said:

 

Expectation bias on the part of the reviewer.  Nobody WANTS to do a negative review so if it out there the product must really be bad.  It takes forever to prove a theory right and one negative instance to prove it wrong.

 

See new edit.  You are fast with that mouse!

[Solstice380]

Just now, Richard Dale said:

You could have said that about the bipeds until very recently, less than 500k to 100k years or so.

 

No where near as long as those squiggly things have been around.  So they aren't evolving very fast.

[Solstice380]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

If one is careful, you can separate value from description if you try. 

 

One man's trash is another man's treasure.  Nobody can determine the value for you, that's up to you.  And there really isn't any way to measure the magnitude of these differences.  So reviews of anything other than functionality and whether or not it hurt the reviewers ears are useless.

[Solstice380]

Just now, esldude said:

I don't agree at all past your second sentence.  Any reviews for which that is true are not worth the time it took to write them.

 

Okay, we agree to disagree on this one. 🙂  Can a reviewer truly determine the value of something for you?  i don't think you really mean it that way do you?  You seem an independent sort who proves things to themselves.  Your posts may just read that way.