Expectation Bias

[botrytis]

No, expectation bias is based on our positive and negative attitudes. We don't even know we are doing it.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/brains-built-biases-insulate-beliefs-193305581.html

 

 

[botrytis]

The other issue is once a person doubles down on their beliefs,     https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pathways-experience/202102/doubling-down-why-people-deny-the-facts   they will only accept what supports their own position. This is how it works, and it works the same in Audio. People like to think that audio is different, it is not. It is EXACTLY THE SAME.

[botrytis]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Nah. We loose the term loosely in audiophilia, it could also be called confirmation bias, or a couple of other things. It's also the reason people talk about double blind testing: so that the biases of both the tester and the subject being tested are removed.

It's extremely well established that such perception bias exists and influences all aspects of human perception: sight, hearing, and the other senses. To the extent that we can hear something that isn't there, just because a visual reference is telling us it is. Or see something that isn't there, just because their are visual clues that tell our brains it "should" be there. 

Audiophiles tend to arrogantly assume they are immune to it. They aren't. Ever (in any sighted/conscious testing).

 

As you said, this is why Double-Blind testing is the standard to remove bias. W/O it, we would never know how good or bad the drugs we use really are.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

I’m glad you mentioned this because it supports my argument.  Typically only a small percentage of those given the placebo react as if it actually did something.  Blind testing relies on this number being small as it represents the control group.  They can know a drug is effective when those actually given the medication have a reaction that exceeds that of the control group
 

If perception bias were as bad as some in audio say, double-blind testing would be useless because mostly everyone given the drug would imagine that it helped.  That double-blind testing can be counted on as being reliable is proof that expectation bias isn’t as big of a factor as some make it out to be.  

 

Then you don't understand how DB testing works and your your bias is showing. I would say, you underestimate the impact of expectation bias, it is that strong.

[botrytis]

20 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

That you brought me into it is very telling.  Instead of attacking my arguments you attacked my understanding.  @firedogdid that too.  This is not at all surprising to me actually. 
 

I’m not surprised either with you flagging my posts as disagree.   That confirms that I made a really good argument.  You guys are so helpful to my understanding of psychology.  Thanks so much.

No, you had no argument and that IS the point. Expectation bias affects every decision we make, good or bad. It is built-in to our decision making process. Understand that.

 

You had no argument and that is why I disagreed.

[botrytis]

14 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Imagine though what happens when an individual has never heard their own system do this.  Most healthy individuals will react to that by acknowledging to themselves that their system is in need of improvement.  But what if they are unable to acknowledge weaknesses in themselves or in something they themselves have assembled?  To such folks the problem cannot be on the “inside”, it has to be coming from the “outside”.   
 

I put the words inside and outside in quotes as I really like how Wikipedia has defined psychological projection: psychological projection is the process of misinterpreting what is "inside" as coming from "outside”.  I think something similar happens in some individuals where they have to shift the problem that is happening on the “inside” (their system isn’t producing the magic others report about theirs) over to the “outside” (those reporting the magic must be imagining it).  

 

Maybe they thought it would do this, so they heard it, but it didn't happen. That is expectation bias.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

Having tried Blue Jeans interconnects myself, I can see why you think it must be something others imagine.  
 

The healthy response to hearing what @fas42said he hears would be to wonder what you need to change so you can hear that too.  Instead you shifted the problem to the “outside” and pretty much proved my point.  Thank you.

 

You have proved my point by agreeing with Frank. Everyone knows he is 'Our Crazy Uncle Larry' - the one that sniffed modeling glue for fun, that is what I think of Frank, off in his own little universe where Laws of Science don't exist and basically harmless.

[botrytis]

A great article here as it shows what expectation bias is. 

Do All amplifiers sound the same.pdf

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

There may be good reasons why interconnects may sound different, like poor connectors, incorrect wiring, shields miswired, etc.

 

But, expectation bias isn't a conscious state. Whether you realize it or not, you are expecting to hear something when you're listening to any new device.  The knowledge of that device being in the circuit already sets up subconscious expectations. The act of careful, focused listening helps you notice new things. Even if these things were already there before the new device.

 

Audio memory is very short (seconds), and the tiny details in soundstage or airiness or pace, or musicality, or whatever you think you're hearing, are easily faked by our minds. These are not easy to test for and to compare unless you do fast switching blind test without the knowledge of what device is playing. If you do that, you'll discover quickly how frequently your mind makes s**t up.

 

Just like you can't easily examine your subconscious, you can't tell what influences you to hear one thing or another. Sometimes it's the subconscious mind making stuff up by filling in "new" details, sometimes it's what you had for dinner, and sometimes it's what you read online or what a buddy told you about it. Sometimes it's what you think about the whole idea of interconnects making (or not making) a difference. 

 

Requoting - This hits to the heart of the discussion.

 

 

[botrytis]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

 

You have expectations whether you are aware of them or not.

 

Exactly, it is a built-in bias system.  It was developed to help keep us safe. Now it bamboozles Audiophiles.

[botrytis]

[botrytis]

3 hours ago, GregWormald said:

You guys are too deterministic for me. I guess your expectation bias is getting in the way of you seeing reality.

Not a problem. I'm gone from this discussion.

 

As a scientist, that took stats, etc. expectation bias was discussed all the time and how one can design experiments that do away with it. Most scientists deal with it one way or the other as that is how decisions are made, expectation bias trumps all.

[botrytis]

I think after all this heavy lifting? Something fun to read....

 

Jean Paul Satre cookbook

 

I think it might hit too close to home for audiophiles.....

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Science is not a belief system, Frank. Your approach to audio is.

Exactly. Many audiophiles are the same way.

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is exactly what someone who hasn't gained better understanding about what matters, and what doesn't, in achieving accurate playback could be expected to say ...

 

Anyone who has ever experienced, "Magic Sound!", from some rig, most likely not their own, over the decades of their audio journey has stumbled across what's possible. The smart, 'scientific'  approach is then to try and understand what just happened, and how to replicate it ... IME, almost no-one does ...

 

 

Sorry, Frank. Science isn't a belief in magic, that is religion. Science is based on facts. When you use the term, magic, with science, you have lost any credibility.

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Expiation? ... Hmmm, "the act of extinguishing the guilt incurred by something" - okay, if you want me to atone for my sins, in going against the grain of conventional thinking, how many Hail Marys should I do?

 

But, if you mean expectation bias, I would say, generally no - I really, really, earnestly wish that when I try a tweak that it will make things better; but I learnt very early in the piece that all that wishing don't make an ounce of difference, if I haven't got a good handle on what's going on - the frustration of not solving issues back then caused me to abandon ambitious playback for over a decade; these days, all that past experience tends to push forward something to try pretty quickly, that shows itself to be of benefit.

 

The music playback is either in an acceptable zone of SQ, or not. If not, it just irks me - usually, I start fiddling. If I don't get at least some answers then I might walk away from using the setup for as many days as it takes for another thought to pop in, as to something to try. Which may or may not help ... expectation just doesn't figure, when I do this.

 

Frank, sorry to say, you are deluded. Everyone one has expectation bias, whether you admit it or not. It is part and parcel of the human condition. It is built-in to our brain wiring.

[botrytis]

Everywhere Frank, including audio. You can't decide to turn it off. It doesn't work that way.

[botrytis]

It is hard, Frank. When people start using words like magic, etc. it tells me subjectiveness. You need both objective and subjective. One has to have both. 

[botrytis]

On 9/14/2022 at 9:17 PM, fas42 said:

Okay, another way of stating it is, that "magic" is a term that I would use when the playback doesn't put a foot wrong - it's the absence of any 'defects' in the sound that I hear; of course, nothing is perfect, but subjectively one is never aware of such. As an example, can one raise the volume, seemingly limitlessly, and at no point does it become uncomfortable to listen to? Whenever people say that there is an optimum volume for some album to be played back at, then to me that's a tell that there is too much distortion in the replay chain; at some level of volume the inaccuracy becomes too much, and the listener has no desire to hear any more of it.

 

Magic is still a BS term. You still don't get it. You are expecting a change, so you hear it. That is all that is happening.

 

There will always be defects. You can't get away from it. 

 

You are just a classis BS master, is all.

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Jeff_N said:

Frank is a walking, talking, posting example of an audiophile who refuses to recognize that we all have expectation bias.

 

"Something didn't sound quite right with my 'rig.' I made a tweak - installed a different interconnect, raised my cables off the floor, stacked magazines on my speakers, or whatever - and then listened closely, and... the magic was back! Suddenly the music 'snapped back' into perfection, just like the first time I heard it thirty years ago!"

 

THAT, my friend is EXPECTATION BIAS!

 

Memory is a fickle thing, also. Most audiophiles can barely remember what they listened to 20 seconds ago to compare. That is why, when you go to an audiophile sales pitch, they tell you what to expect, play the piece, explain again, and play it again. That is how they use expectation bias to sell you something.

[botrytis]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, "frequently filling in the details that are not really there by interpolation and extrapolation" is exactly what we want to exploit - the field of Auditory Scene Analysis is exploring this vigorously; how one can create an illusion by feeding hints to the brain - leaving the mind to do the rest. But, and it's a very big but, the hints have to have, adequate integrity. If not, then it's just noise - and no illusion forms.

 

Which is why it's essential to scrupulously reveal everything on a "bad recording" - if enough is in place, then the mind "allows itself" to be fooled - this is one of the markers of fully convincing SQ; that the brain refuses to give up the illusion that "something real is happening", no matter how much you try and show it that it's wrong. It was the most amazing thing about what happened to me 35 years ago - for comparison, my current setup is teasingly close to this at its best, but still reveals itself if I put my ear close enough to a driver.

 

Frank, Frank, Frank, so you want people to buy into the expectation bias as REAL sounds? WOW! I guess you like auditory hallucinations too which are the most common form of hallucinations.

 

If it is not there, and not produced and your brain fills in the details, how is that accurate? To mean that is the antithesis of accuracy.

 

Accuracy = What files says = exactly what you hear, no more.

[botrytis]

Frank, this will fix all your supposed tweaks.

 

https://tigerfox360.com/

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

What are those qualities?

 

Frank doesn't know. He assumes much, understands little. I do wish Frank well, but he is a bit too inside his head.

[botrytis]

7 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I would agree that it's impossible to measure such a subjective and abstract quality as "blurring of the fine detail". 

But, it could be in his head also. See, Frank thinks just because he hears it, it is real. It maybe his brain is actually doing it but until DBT is done, one will never know.

[botrytis]

One has to realize our ears are as fallible as the rest of our senses.