@AussieMick
As usual, gregorio is not only horribly insulting, but totally wrong. He misunderstands both the original claim and the substantial body of evidence supporting it. He:
a) misinterprets the claim
The original statement does not argue that perception worsens universally under all forms of pressure. Instead, it highlights that under high-stakes pressure or psychologically taxing conditions, perception and cognitive performance can become fallible due to well-documented psychological and physiological mechanisms.
gregorio oversimplifies the argument by conflating focused effort with pressure-induced stress, which are distinct phenomena. While focused attention often improves task performance, pressure can impair perception and decision-making due to its impact on cognitive and physiological resources.
b) ignores scientific evidence
The critique dismisses the claim as "made-up" or a "myth," despite abundant empirical evidence supporting the effect of pressure on performance. Key findings include:
Choking Under Pressure: Research consistently shows that individuals with high cognitive capacity perform worse in stressful, high-pressure situations (e.g., solving complex math problems) because their working memory becomes overwhelmed by anxiety or self-monitoring. (
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10345073/)
Distraction and Explicit Monitoring Accounts: These theories explain how pressure can disrupt normal cognitive functioning. When individuals are highly aware of being evaluated (e.g., listening critically under pressure), they often overanalyze their performance, leading to errors. (
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10345073/)
Physiological and Psychological Responses to Stress: Changes in cortisol levels, heart rate, and attentional focus under pressure are well-documented and affect perception and performance. (
https://first10em.com/performance-under-pressure/)
Dismissing these findings as "audiophile myths" reflects a lack of familiarity with well-established psychological and neuroscientific research.
c). conflates focus and pressure
gregorio wrongly assumes that careful focus and high-pressure conditions are equivalent. While focusing attention can improve perception, pressure introduces additional psychological stressors, such as:
Cognitive Load: Pressure consumes working memory, reducing the mental resources available for tasks like critical listening or decision-making.
Emotional Interference: Anxiety triggered by high stakes can distract attention from the task.
Tunnel Vision: Stress often narrows focus to immediate, surface-level cues, reducing the ability to process subtler differences.
These factors explain why pressure can impair tasks requiring nuanced perception, even if one is attempting to focus.
d). commits the "Common Sense and Facts" Fallacy
gregorio appeals to "common sense" as if it trumps scientific evidence. This is a logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity—assuming something is false simply because it seems counterintuitive. Scientific evidence often challenges "common sense," as rigorous research uncovers complexities not immediately obvious.
Examples include:
The fact that athletes, musicians, and test-takers can choke under pressure despite extensive preparation.
The well-documented impairments of memory and decision-making under stress.
Relying on "common sense" rather than engaging with evidence undermines the credibility of the critique.
5. Strawman Argument About Focus
gregorio claims that focusing carefully should improve perception and questions why humans evolved the ability to focus if it worsens perception. This is a strawman argument—misrepresenting the original claim to make it easier to attack.
The original argument does not claim that focus is inherently detrimental. Instead, it acknowledges that under pressure, the mechanisms that allow us to focus (e.g., working memory, attention) are disrupted, leading to diminished performance in specific contexts.
gregorio fails because he:
1. Misinterprets the distinction between focus and pressure-induced stress.
2. Ignores a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating how pressure impairs perception and performance.
3. Relies on "common sense" rather than engaging with well-supported research.
4. Constructs a strawman argument, misrepresenting the original claim.
The original statement stands on solid scientific ground. Stress and high-stakes pressure alter cognitive and physiological conditions, often leading to reduced performance in tasks requiring nuanced perception or decision-making.
