My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Responding to Mr. Cogley above re. confirmation bias:

 

Someone completely rejecting the notion of confirmation bias isn't a convincing demonstration of self-awareness or scientific knowledge.  You and I and many others know it.  I just wouldn't use the names or belittle.  There is simply nothing to be gained by bashing your head against something that for many is an intuitively obvious human feature.

 

OTOH hand, to say "I am concerned that the science suggests that in this you may have been subjected to confirmation bias" then leaving it at that seems acceptable even outside the "objectivist quarantine" :).  It is collegial, non-threatening/belittling, and maybe they will eventually come around.  If not.......oh well.

 

Your last sentence is perfectly stated in my opinion.

 

Man I am posting a lot!  Sorry!

 

I'm concerned that science suggests that we are all subject to confirmation bias, even when listening to different USB cables  How's that? I'm trying...

 

[pkane2001]

59 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

There's another element at play here, George, As you know, those who insist that sonic differences are impossible, readily dismiss all experiences of those hear them as "expectation bias". However, they ignore the fact that expectation bias can work both ways, i.e. if you are convinced that there can be no sonic difference, you won't hear it if it's there. That is not to say that expectation bias does not exist. It does, but it cannot possibly explain sonic differences heard repeatedly over extended and different listening sessions.

Check the Objectify forum for a good answer on expectation bias and why it’s important to be aware of it... oh, wait, I don’t think there is anyone posting there. Carry on.

[pkane2001]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

You’re free to be sophomoric or actually be part of the solution. 

Just a comment on the result of alienating and chasing away those who could actually contribute to this conversation with anything but a blank agreement. 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

They had 12 years to do so, but chose not to. 

 

Right. Nobody from the objectivist camp has contributed anything of value here for 12 years. Now it makes sense why you’d banish them all to a sub-forum.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

I might be crazy.

 

You may be right
I may be crazy

   -- Billy Joel

[pkane2001]

31 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

We need to define value here - which is hard. I have been trying to stay out of this, but I just want to say  that  this post is one example of why the fray keeps getting hotter.  Because really, since there is no agreed definition  of what "value" is, all it means that @pkane2001 disagrees with everyone in the objective side.  To phrase in terms of "value", turns that idea into an insult.

 

Haven't read the whole thread yet, since I came to it a bit late - but I assume this post will have reactions - let's see!  🍿

 

v

 

I'm glad that you reacted to just my post in this thread from 200+ others. But I'm sure if you read the context of that post, as well as my other posts, you may see it in a slightly different light.