Smart people realize that DBT prove absolutely nothing other than the test giver arbitrarily discounts anything they haven't heard themselves.
No. Just no. Double-blind testing is double-blind when neither the subject nor the test giver know which item is which during the test. It only records the data generated by the subject while attempting to eliminate experimenter bias. That's the whole *point* of DBT. For that matter, one would think that "smart people" would actually know what DBT involves...
How can anybody, with a straight face, declare that something can't be heard by another.
"I'm sorry, you didn't hear what you just heard because if you don't hear it often enough to suit my statistical purposes, I'm here to tell you, that you didn't hear what you heard."
There's no attempt to tell you what you did or did not hear, only if you can hear what you claim to hear and tell the difference more frequently than you would while randomly guessing. If you can actually hear what you claim, it's likely that you would be doing better than random guessing.
Or.......
"I'm sorry, you didn't reliably hear it often enough to count, so I'm going personally declare you didn't hear what you say you heard because I know better."
Even the medical field gets a better pass than fifty percent.
"This drug may work only ten percent of the time but using this drug enhances your survival rate from zero percent to ten percent."
... That's not how statistics work. That "50%" is how frequently you'd likely to guess correctly between two options purely by chance. Again, one would think that you'd do better than random chance if you can actually hear a difference. Your comparison is invalid as in that scenario (beyond the fact that it's a downright unrealistic scenario), 0% *is* the frequency prior to treatment, and is comparable to the 50% in the case of two different cables. But again, it's an unrealistic scenario and a poor comparison in the first place, so even that's a bit of a stretch.
I'd like to see one of these anti-cable testers turn this treatment down because it doesn't serve their seventy or eighty percent rule. You really do need to look past the BS of these test givers and once you're on to their BS, it's wisdom, not aversion that stops one from being foolish enough to take a meaningless test designed to ensure fail.
There's no debate here. Why? The dice are loaded in the favor of the house. Who wants to play in this casino?
Unfortunately, this is just going to have to come as an appeal to common sense. In an earlier post, you discuss someone reliably hearing a difference 10% of the time. This is another poor example, but I'll try to work with it. If you're saying that such a person would be able to correctly guess which cable is which only 10% of the time, it's laughable. That would be significantly worse than even random guessing at 50%, and there's no way to really read anything into it other than "Wow, this guy happened to guess really poorly." The only other way I can think to use that 10% is if you mean "10% improvement over chance." in which case you'd have to be just a little over that 50% which you seem to find so unreasonable. Bring that up to 20% or so improvement over the 50% and it starts getting statistically relevant. However, I think we'd also all have to agree that when differences between cables are expressed as "night and day" or "lifting a veil," one would expect just a *little* more than "a little better than random guessing."
And please, make sure that you actually have a well formulated argument before attempting to insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you. One can have a viable argument and disagree with the methodology of a specific test. To claim that all double-blind testing is invalid, however, is nothing more than foolish. And if you do find a valid problem with the methodology of the tests that have been performed, by all means point it out and propose an alternative test. You'll find that the "anti-cablers" you refer to are really just proponents of empirical evidence, and would welcome further testing even if the results don't agree with them.
