[Davesrose]

I understand your professional qualification, and your view point.
I also understand the reason why you try to avoid answering A or B to the question (again, I am not pressing you for answer. Feel free not to answer explicitly).

Just wondering why you said in your reply that I insist you don't know the 'correct answer'? Did I reply with anything saying that you don't know the "correct answer"? I think I didn't. Please let me know if I did.

In the test I posted earlier, there is no "correct" or "wrong" answer to the last question.

Do you think one answer is correct and the other one is wrong?

By the way, I believe that confirmation bias is a well-studied area in Psychology (I am not sure the coverage of "confirmation bias" in the Medical Illustration study. It may be a lot but I cannot tell).

If you know of any one who is major in Psychology, I sugggest you can check with them to see what's their understanding of confirmation bias and see if your definition aline with them.

Cheers

I didn't avoid the answer: I revealed exactly what the values of the squares in the center column are if you were to understand what an example of opitical illusion is. You yourself revealed it when you gave the answer for "larger" image vs the same smaller image. But then you continue to confuse "confirmation bias" as to what you could see based on how the same image is scaled. Really??? Resolution does not equal a different answer. The measured value of the squares are solid, but they perceptually look like gradients due to optical illusion of the other columns being gradients (none of this is confirmation bias).

The one thing this exercise of yours proves (apart from another area where you misinterpret), is that you insist to keep convoluting basic terms. These examples of optical illusion are understood aspects of visual perception (in which there are fundamentals with neuroscience and psychology). But all of what we've been discussing with optical illusions have no relationship to confirmation bias.

 

[sunjam]

I suspect you got kicked off ASR because you became a pain in the backside.

I am interested in the technical stuff in general but not particularly in this instance because the thread is going nowhere. My interest in this thread is the mindset of somebody that believes they hear what science says they shouldn't then seeks confirmation via their own theories rather than in the grey matter between their ears. I attempted to engage on that matter with you but you don't understand my question so I gave up and I have no interest in trying again.

You don't want to gain knowledge because you think you know better than everybody else already and you don't want to share knowledge you just want to spout your beliefs.

If this is what you want to do with your time perhaps you should get out more.

You are in no way promoting critical thinking, you are utterly unable to think critically because you are so full of your self importance born out of believing you know an awful lot more than you do based on the constant rebuttal that you get with next to no agreement. Is that because you are always right or because you are always wrong ?


And on your optical illusion I see grey scale on both because my eyes function properly, our vision is tricked and that is very hard or impossible to override even with the knowledge that what you see isn't actually what is there. Audio is not a lot different, you can be fooled despite that you know you are hearing something that isn't even real.

'I suspect you got kicked off ASR because you became a pain in the backside." <== why they consider I am a pain in their backside? Why I could cause pain to them. Is there any weakness in the backside already? Is it possible that I just triggered their weakness and it causes them to feel pain? What's their actual weakness they don't want to face? (Sorry, it is off topic again)

'And on your optical illusion I see grey scale on both because my eyes function properly, our vision is tricked and that is very hard or impossible to override even with the knowledge that what you see isn't actually what is there." <=== Cool, I agreed 100% what you said. I have to say you have a great mind.

'Audio is not a lot different, you can be fooled despite that you know you are hearing something that isn't even real." <=== 100% agreed again here too.

Now, the tough part....

If someone insists that, they claimed based on Science, you should not see the optical illusion. What would you think about such comment? Would you NOT see such illusion after someone tell you that you should not?

Similarly, if someone insists that, they claimed based on Science (this one is questionable), you should not hear anything. What would you think about such comment if you really do hear something (either based on illusion or real difference in the bio electrical signal that your sensory organ generates).

 

[bigshot]

This is an obvious troll. Signed up a month ago, almost all of his posts are in this thread. Tag team again.

 

[sunjam]

I didn't avoid the answer: I revealed exactly what the values of the squares in the center column are if you were to understand what an example of opitical illusion is. You yourself revealed it when you gave the answer for "larger" image vs the same smaller image. But then you continue to confuse "confirmation bias" as to what you could see based on how the same image is scaled. Really??? Resolution does not equal a different answer. The measured value of the squares are solid, but they perceptually look like gradients due to optical illusion of the other columns being gradients (none of this is confirmation bias).

The one thing this exercise of yours proves (apart from another area where you misinterpret), is that you insist to keep convoluting basic terms. These examples of optical illusion are understood aspects of visual perception (in which there are fundamentals with neuroscience and psychology). But all of what we've been discussing with optical illusions have no relationship to confirmation bias.

Cool, that's my understanding from your reply:

1. Your answer is B
2. You don't think you have confirmation bias when you pick answer B

Is it correct? Feel free to re-read the test question and change your answer if you want.

 

[Davesrose]

Cool, that's my understanding from your reply:

1. Your answer is B
2. You don't think you have confirmation bias when you pick answer B

Is it correct? Feel free to re-read the test question and change your answer if you want.

Cool....I see you've completely ignored everything to do with our exchanges and continue to confuse your made up preface as having anything to do with confirmation bias (when all it is is misunderstanding of optical illusion).

 

[sunjam]

Cool....I see you've completely ignored everything to do with our exchanges and continue to confuse your made up preface as having anything to do with confirmation bias (when all it is is misunderstanding of optical illusion).

I understand 100% what you want to say. i.e. the picture shown in my test is an optical illusion. We can see the gradients because we have optical illusion. If we don't have the optical illusion, we would see 4 boxes of static grey color.

Let me said it one more time, I can see the gradients because my brain fooled me into seeing that. Correct?
I hope you agreed that I don't have any misunderstanding of optical illusion. Please let me know if you still think I have problem in understanding optical illusion.

================================

Ok, let's go back to the confirmation bias test I posted earlier. It is not to a test for our understanding of optical illusion. It is a test to see if we have confirmation bias.

Let's go back to your answer. Since you said you had revealed your answer, I want to ensure that I understand you answer correctly.

My understanding of your answer from your reply is:

1. Your answer is B
2. You don't think you have confirmation bias when you pick answer B

Is my understanding correct? A simple answer Yes or No would be good enough. (Feel free not to answer).

 

[Davesrose]

Go back to your original tomfoolery post. You said this was confirmation bias with a scaled down image of the original (in which you admitted they were solid gray squares). What the heck? There is no difference with an image when it is scaled up or down: it has the same properties. You’re not posting a confirmation bias test here: you keep trying to insist some made up condition for an optical illusion is some kind of confirmation bias test. The properties of the squares are the same if they’re 300px or 1200px square.

 

[BS5711]

You became a pain in the backside because you just have to keep hammering away at the same thing incessantly with an unusual manner of communication.

Even if it was something that you were correct on, someone going on and on for a week using the manner of communication that you do will become infuriating. Not because they are proving others to be incorrect like you seem to think you are doing but just because it is painful to witness. This is a car crash and a long way from critical thinking which I imagine the ASR thread became.

On the optical illusion:

In your illusion our visual senses are fooled and we understand and accept that we are being fooled and happily acknowledge the truth. The illusion has a basis in scientific understanding of our vision. Nobody with any common sense is going to dogmatically insist the inner squares have a gradient colour because we can easily prove otherwise and that proof is backed up by science.

In audio we can be just as easily fooled and we can demonstrate that with proper controlled testing to show that you can’t actually differentiate between audio A and audio B with whatever the part of audio we might be comparing. You can provide your own proof that the difference is imagined with proper testing and the science supports that so we can accept the truth. The testing proves one cannot hear a difference and the science supports that, a sensible person will accept the science not question the science and fail to accept appropriately robust testing.

To hear a difference in audio where science says there shouldn’t be one and to insist that the difference is there is analogous to saying the internal squares in your illusion do indeed have a colour gradient because you can see it. Someone would need to be completely lacking critical thinking skills to not understand the optical illusion just as they would need to be to not figure out an audio illusion.

To take the standard audiophile stance of “I hear it so it is real” despite being told that science doesn’t support that position is like blankly staring at your illusion and insisting they are gradients despite having someone tell you about the illusion and describing how to zoom in on the squares to prove the illusion.

I think you are closer to doing what I said in my last sentence than you are genuinely thinking critically about your original premise that you believe you can audibly differentiate between CD and Hi Res. A genuinely critical thinker would robustly test if they can in fact hear a difference as the very first step not immediately delve into the technical aspects of the audio looking for confirmation of their mistaken perception of the audio output.

You have not done truely robust testing to even prove you can hear the difference you assert you can have you ? If you haven’t, wouldn’t a critical thinker realise that makes all the rest of what you theorise about completely irrelevant ?

 

[castleofargh]

@sunjam is the journalist in the Jordan Peterson's "so you're saying" meme.

 

[sunjam]

Go back to your original tomfoolery post. You said this was confirmation bias with a scaled down image of the original (in which you admitted they were solid gray squares). What the heck? There is no difference with an image when it is scaled up or down: it has the same properties. You’re not posting a confirmation bias test here: you keep trying to insist some made up condition for an optical illusion is some kind of confirmation bias test. The properties of the squares are the same if they’re 300px or 1200px square.

No problem. I know sometimes a simple Yes or No answer is not easy. Let's move on.
=================

In the test, if a person picked answer B after knowing the fact that the four boxes are indeed static grey color, the person shows his confirmation bias behaviour.

Why?

Like @BS5711 mentioned below, people with eyes that "function properly" will see the grey scale.

And on your optical illusion I see grey scale on both because my eyes function properly, our vision is tricked and that is very hard or impossible to override even with the knowledge that what you see isn't actually what is there. Audio is not a lot different, you can be fooled despite that you know you are hearing something that isn't even real.

In the test, the last question is "What do you see in the middle column of the above picture".

If a person just report what he see, he would pick answer A.

Why some people pick answer B? It is because of his confirmation bias. Let me explain:

Let's look at the definition again:

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.
For the people who picked answer B, it is because they want to pick the "correct" answer.

"Correctness" is deep in his belief / value, he wants to pick the "correct" answer even it goes against what he see. So, when he picked B for the question "what do you see?", the answer is biased. Without bias, he would just simply answer A as that's what he indeed see.

When you answer the last question, if you have the idea of right, wrong, correct, incorrect, good, bad, postive, negative judgement in your mind (even for a very short time), it may be an indication of your confirmation bias is indeed at work. It is because there is no right or wrong in your answer to the question "what do you see?"

==============================================

Let's go back to audio world,

how many people would pick the answer B (i.e. hear no difference) because of confirmation bias (their believe here is that "CD can reconstruct perfect sine wave", "sampling theory said 44.1kHz is enough", or some expert said 192/24 is silly, or some one just told you that you should not hear it because science prove that) instead of reporting what they really hear (either because of illusion or because of real difference in the bio electrical signal their sensory's organ generate)?

If someone picked B for the confirmation bias test I posted earlier, he may have a similar tendency to pick a biased answer when he answers a similar question in the audio world (as they want to pick the "right" answer)

============================================
Do you feel confused or unease? Can't accept that confirmation bias may kick in even without your notice?

The following is a good question to check if you fully understading the definition of confirmation bias:

"Would a well-educated adult be less susceptible to confirmation bias than a 2 year old toddler?"

 

[Quazar]

You're getting really annoying!
You're running in circles...
Ignore is coming.

 

[sunjam]

You became a pain in the backside because you just have to keep hammering away at the same thing incessantly with an unusual manner of communication.

Even if it was something that you were correct on, someone going on and on for a week using the manner of communication that you do will become infuriating. Not because they are proving others to be incorrect like you seem to think you are doing but just because it is painful to witness. This is a car crash and a long way from critical thinking which I imagine the ASR thread became.

On the optical illusion:

In your illusion our visual senses are fooled and we understand and accept that we are being fooled and happily acknowledge the truth. The illusion has a basis in scientific understanding of our vision. Nobody with any common sense is going to dogmatically insist the inner squares have a gradient colour because we can easily prove otherwise and that proof is backed up by science.

In audio we can be just as easily fooled and we can demonstrate that with proper controlled testing to show that you can’t actually differentiate between audio A and audio B with whatever the part of audio we might be comparing. You can provide your own proof that the difference is imagined with proper testing and the science supports that so we can accept the truth. The testing proves one cannot hear a difference and the science supports that, a sensible person will accept the science not question the science and fail to accept appropriately robust testing.

To hear a difference in audio where science says there shouldn’t be one and to insist that the difference is there is analogous to saying the internal squares in your illusion do indeed have a colour gradient because you can see it. Someone would need to be completely lacking critical thinking skills to not understand the optical illusion just as they would need to be to not figure out an audio illusion.

To take the standard audiophile stance of “I hear it so it is real” despite being told that science doesn’t support that position is like blankly staring at your illusion and insisting they are gradients despite having someone tell you about the illusion and describing how to zoom in on the squares to prove the illusion.

I think you are closer to doing what I said in my last sentence than you are genuinely thinking critically about your original premise that you believe you can audibly differentiate between CD and Hi Res. A genuinely critical thinker would robustly test if they can in fact hear a difference as the very first step not immediately delve into the technical aspects of the audio looking for confirmation of their mistaken perception of the audio output.

You have not done truely robust testing to even prove you can hear the difference you assert you can have you ? If you haven’t, wouldn’t a critical thinker realise that makes all the rest of what you theorise about completely irrelevant ?

Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it even I cannot fully agree what you said.

We all know that CD format is not perfect in reconstructing the origianl audio signal.
Hi-Res format is same. It is also not perfect too.

I think @bigshot brought out a very good point, i.e.

According to Nyquist in order to reproduce a frequency PERFECTLY, all you need is two points. You can use a hundred points to do the same thing, but it isn't any better because two points make it PERFECT. 5 kHz is EXACTLY the same in 16/44.1 as it is in 24/96.

In the extreme case, only two sampled points are needed to perfectly reconstruct the input signal. Using 256x more points won't help. I totally agreed what he said but....

However, it is true only under the IDEAL situation.

I think the following is a better statement than the one @bigshot provided above:

"According to Nyquist in order to reproduce a frequency PERFECTLY, all you need is two points. You can use a hundred points to do the same thing, but it isn't any better because two points make it PERFECT. 5 kHz is EXACTLY the same in 16/44.1 as it is in 24/96 under the ideal situation".

Now, under the imperfect reconstruction, would 256x more sampled points help? i.e. would the audio output be better if you use 512 sampled points instead of just only 2 sampled points during the imperfect reconstruction process?

So the idea that Hi-Res is better than CD have a sound technical foundation. In theory, Hi-Res is better than CD under the imperfect reconstruction process.

I believe that this idea (I would call it fact) is not compatible to the people who are hardcore believer of "Hi-Res is useless". Then, you know how the discussion go.

For me, as I said many many times. I don't care who's right and who's wrong. But I do care what's right and what's wrong.

I would imagine that I would be killed or put in jail if I was living in Galileo's time. We all know that what happened to him when his idea was not compatible with the powerful church at his time. I can feel what he suffered. Don't get me wrong. I am nowhere near him. He is one of my role models.

Was Galileo a pain in the backside of the church at his time? I think so. He definitely was a great pain to the church.

Time to go back to listening to Hi-Res music. Cheers

 

[Ryokan]

I would imagine that I would be killed or put in jail if I was living in Galileo's time.

The audio world makes martyr's out of people

 

[BS5711]

Have you proven in robust testing that you can reliably differentiate between CD and Hi Res ?

Answer A = yes I have so I am looking into the science behind it.

Answer B = no, I hear it in normal sighted listening and I consider that adequate evidence for my purposes.


You said the below on your blog, please elaborate with respect to your listening tests during which you really do hear the differences.

 

[bigshot]

This guy is leading everyone around by the nose.

Sound science is a troll farm. We tend to, coddle and nurture disruptive posters that would never be allowed to generate that kind of attack on the community in the other forums of head fi. They pair up and tag team to maintain maximum distraction.

Look at all the posts in the past week. What a tremendous waste of energy and resources. The poster was proven to be completely wrong in the first reply to his nonsense. Sixteen pages in he’s still posting the same circular drivel and continues to ignore and misquote everything said to him in reply. The other one is no different, playing the same game in his thread/soapbox.

This thread is dumb any way you slice it. Fools make everyone look foolish. He should have been thread banned long ago. There’s no community here if stuff like this is allowed to go on unchecked.