[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ldj325 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the essence or principle behind the placebo effect is that you experience what you expect to experience. So if you think about it, if you expect that cables or whatever make no difference then you can "placebo" yourself into this result just as easily as someone going the other way. Folks who use the "placebo effect" as a convenient and lazy way to negate what they cannot explain might do well to think about this form of bias as well.

Hi ldj

Welcome

To illustrate my experience with placebo, I was fiddling around with the foobar equalizer trying to just goose up the bass on the 880s ever so slightly.... when I thought I had it just right, I wanted to save it as a preset, but I had the equalizer just below the level of the save zero- auto level-load-save buttons. I grabbed it with my mouse and dragged it up to press save preset, only to find the equalizer enabled box unchecked.

The same thing also happened with AC97's equalizer. Just when I thought I had my speakers set just right, making very small changes to various frequencies, I went to click save only to find the equalizer was not engaged.

The point here is that there was no doubt in my mind that I heard the changes I was making. But it was all placebo.

Another experience with placebo was counterintuitive and not what I expected. To make a long story short, I wanted to try my Stello DAC with USB. I had been using it with optical and was curious how USB would compare. I had an old USB 1 cable right there so I used it. A few months later I finally got around to hooking it up with one of the many USB 2 cable I have. What a disappointment. Every time I tried one of the USB2 cables, the sound wasn't nearly as clear and "clean" (may not be the right word, but what I heard sure sounded like it was measurable.) as the old USB 1 cable with the ferrite bead. So here is an example of the exact opposite of what I expected. Here are some pics of the set up.

one of the cables I tried

Why is this placebo? 1s and 0s...... I heard it but I don't believe it for a minute.... except that the old gray cable is still on there........

USG

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is it? Placebo is, roughly, characterised by subjectively apparent perceptual phenomena which are instantiated by something other than the subjectively apparent stimulus. Does it really exist? Yes How prevelent is it? Highly. Due to both cognitive biases as well as physiological and psychological factors that greatly impact the reliability of sense data, placebotic effects are something we deal with rather frequently. However, the scope of activities we do in which placebo is something of real concern is relatively narrow, so its relevance is limited with respect to having to actively deal with or be cognisant of it. Have you ever experienced it? Yes. If so, what was it like? (tell us your experience) It was phenomenologically indistinguishable from a non-placebotic experience of the same type. How easy was it to mistake the Placebo effect for reality? It's phenomenologically indistinguishable; that's the point. How sure were you that your heard something? Not absolutely sure. That's why you use methodology intended to introduce a non-subjective, non-strictly phenomenological element to act as a control. Was it affected by your expectations? Expectation bias is part of the spectrum of cognitive biases. They are one of the sources of placebotic effects but not the sole source. Transient physiological (or related psychological) changes can play a major part too.

Hi Filburt

Do you think you're ready to apply this to the interconnect phenomena, the power cable claims, burn in and the 2 (thank you JadeEast) Clark amp studies and Challenge?

Btw, did you ever listen to Ray's switch box? What did you think? Are you sure you heard what you thought you heard? Especially interesting was the Hornet - Raptor comparison. From what I remember only Ray was able to tell the difference reliably. After reading the first Clark study, I think I know why. Clark specifies that the amps must not be driven past their power level into clipping. My understanding is that Ray listens very loudly. There are cues if the amp is driven too hard. That's how he knew the difference.

USG

 

[Filburt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Filburt Do you think you're ready to apply this to the interconnect phenomena, the power cable claims, burn in and the 2 (thank you JadeEast) Clark amp studies and Challenge? Btw, did you ever listen to Ray's switch box? What did you think? Are you sure you heard what you thought you heard? Especially interesting was the Hornet - Raptor comparison. From what I remember only Ray was able to tell the difference reliably. After reading the first Clark study, I think I know why. Clark specifies that the amps must not be driven past their power level into clipping. My understanding is that Ray listens very loudly. There are cues if the amp is driven too hard. That's how he knew the difference. USG

I haven't used Ray's switchbox. I have heard both the Hornet and Raptor, however. I don't recall the Raptor sounding that similar to me but it has been quite a while.

I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind with respect to applying it to interconnect phenomena, though I'm perfectly happy to entertain a test of sorts if you have something in mind, and provided that I can actually perform it

 

[jonathanjong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am sorry, but I'm not "into" addressing the supposed problems of Berkeleyan Idealism. I am also not "into" "standing on the shoulders of giants". I'm also not "into" showing evidence in having read recent work in epistomology. If your "working in the field" consists of doing the above, I am not with you.

Well...then you're just refusing to defend or justify your views. Your epistemology (which is co-extensive with your metaphysics) is essentially Berkeleyan, and a refusal to deal with the problems facing BI is tantamount to asserting your point of view without argument. Surely not a meet thing for a philosopher.

Secondly, refusing to "stand on the shoulders of giants" is just intellectual pride, isn't it? Don't we all have to work from those before us?

Thirdly, "working in the field" refers to doing epistemology for a living. You made interesting epistemological and metaphysical claims, and given that my work in in epistemology, I got interested and was hoping for an exchange of views. I was hoping for a robust defense of your interesting position, but I didn't get one. I suppose this isn't a philosophy forum, eh?

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well...then you're just refusing to defend or justify your views. Your epistemology (which is co-extensive with your metaphysics) is essentially Berkeleyan, and a refusal to deal with the problems facing BI is tantamount to asserting your point of view without argument. Surely not a meet thing for a philosopher.

Not at all.
But I do refuse to have my personal views confused with Berkeleyan Idealism or any other -ism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Secondly, refusing to "stand on the shoulders of giants" is just intellectual pride, isn't it? Don't we all have to work from those before us?

Yes and yes.
But working from those before us is not the same (to me) as identifying me with their views. Or even agreeing with them.
I don't want to stand on the shoulders of giants, I want to stand on my own two feet. I really appreciate their contribution to my views and insights, but I won't adopt them as mine.
Something which is easily (and very often) done by people who then claim to be standing on the shoulders of giants, but are actually hiding behind them.
Your throwing around all of the -isms came across as doing that.
I apologise if I am wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thirdly, "working in the field" refers to doing epistemology for a living. You made interesting epistemological and metaphysical claims, and given that my work in in epistemology, I got interested and was hoping for an exchange of views. I was hoping for a robust defense of your interesting position, but I didn't get one. I suppose this isn't a philosophy forum, eh?

My study dates from more than 30 years ago (I didn't even graduate, but I never stopped studying either). I am not a philosopher or epistemologist for a living, but I would appreciate an exchange of views with someone who is.
However relevant I think this is for the subject in this thread, I suggest though, that we take that discussion somewhere else.
OK?

 

[883dave]

Are "placebo" and "I believe" inter-changeable?

Is placebo one's perception of reality?


Some like certain music, some do not. I have tried to like certain music but can't, does the other person suffer from Placebo because they like it?

Some hear differences in equipment and cables, some do not. Is it Placebo to hear differences, or individuality

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are "placebo" and "I believe" inter-changeable?

More like "I am certain" than "I believe".

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is placebo one's perception of reality?

I think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some like certain music, some do not. I have tried to like certain music but can't, does the other person suffer from Placebo because they like it?

You don't "suffer" from placebo. It is nothing bad.
I think liking something has nothing much to do with it, because that does not depend on an external stimulus. It is an internal proces: the appreciation of your perception. It happens after you perceived something. It may play a role in the placebo effect, but it is not the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some hear differences in equipment and cables, some do not. Is it Placebo to hear differences, or individuality

I think it is a matter of trained ears and a trained experienced brain, that knows what to listen for. It is also important, I think, that you are willing to learn. If you find it important to hear the differences, you can learn to hear them. Or fool yourself into hearing them. The line is very thin.

 

[dvessel]

883dave,

I don't think so. There are connections but "I believe" is a conscious decision while placebos are subconscious effects which can feed your beliefs.

Also, if you're aware and accept your experiences of placebos doesn't that mean you're diluting yourselves? Or do you see this as the equivalent to smoking dope? Self inducing auditory hallucinations –if you can call it that, would be quite a talent since being aware of placebos could possibly kill it.

And self inducing placebos I feel as though it's not really that. More like actively imagining things if there *truly* were no differences.

 

[883dave]

I meant that in this forum, "I believe" is usually used in the same statement as "placebo"

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are "placebo" and "I believe" inter-changeable?

No. A placebo is a pharmacologically inert substance given in a pharmacology experiment as a control to determine if effects seen by a pharmacologically active substance are in fact caused by the action of that substance, rather than through other conditions of the experiment, one of which is the expectation of improvement due to being treated with any substance, as long as one does not know that it is inactive.

The word "placebo" does not apply to audio, unless one is determining the effects of pharmacologically active substances on the listening experience. The sooner that people stop using the "placebo effect" in audio debates, and start talking about "expectancy effects", the sooner it becomes possible to talk using a common language.

 

[dvessel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. A placebo is a pharmacologically inert substance given in a pharmacology experiment as a control to determine if effects seen by a pharmacologically active substance are in fact caused by the action of that substance, rather than through other conditions of the experiment, one of which is the expectation of improvement due to being treated with any substance, as long as one does not know that it is inactive. The word "placebo" does not apply to audio, unless one is determining the effects of pharmacologically active substances on the listening experience. The sooner that people stop using the "placebo effect" in audio debates, and start talking about "expectancy effects", the sooner it becomes possible to talk using a common language.

^^^ Agree.. Placebos have their own baggage that doesn't fully apply to audio. Start digging and it gets confusing.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. A placebo is a pharmacologically inert substance given in a pharmacology experiment as a control to determine if effects seen by a pharmacologically active substance are in fact caused by the action of that substance, rather than through other conditions of the experiment, one of which is the expectation of improvement due to being treated with any substance, as long as one does not know that it is inactive. The word "placebo" does not apply to audio, unless one is determining the effects of pharmacologically active substances on the listening experience. The sooner that people stop using the "placebo effect" in audio debates, and start talking about "expectancy effects", the sooner it becomes possible to talk using a common language.

I disagree.
The placebo effect is more than that. The medical test is only one specific example where the effect is used to determine if a new medicine is at least "better than nothing".

The medical on-line library gives the following definition:
"An effect usually, but not necessarily, beneficial that is attributable to an expectation that the regimen will have an effect, i.e., the effect is due to the power of suggestion."

This seems to me perfectly applicable to other situations. Like audio.

 

[fwojciec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif The word "placebo" does not apply to audio, unless one is determining the effects of pharmacologically active substances on the listening experience. The sooner that people stop using the "placebo effect" in audio debates, and start talking about "expectancy effects", the sooner it becomes possible to talk using a common language.

The word "placebo", as it is applied to audio, is here to stay -- regardless whether it makes sense in definitional terms or not. Language has its own inertia, it's own pragmatics that's quite independent of reason. The word "placebo", when applied to audio, does a particular kind of "work", it is useful as a metaphor.

To give an analogy... We say, for example, that someone "holds" an opinion, which is clearly an absurdity if one is pedantic about the definition of "holding". We nevertheless say it and no argument can prevent it.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif The word "placebo", as it is applied to audio, is here to stay -- regardless whether it makes sense in definitional terms or not. Language has its own inertia, it's own pragmatics that's quite independent of reason. The word "placebo", when applied to audio, does a particular kind of "work", it is useful as a metaphor. To give an analogy... We say, for example, that someone "holds" an opinion, which is clearly an absurdity if one is pedantic about the definition of "holding". We nevertheless say it and no argument can prevent it.

Yes, but it is also necessary to establish a common understanding of the meaning. Otherwise a discussion would be quite confusing I think.

 

[fwojciec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but it is also necessary to establish a common understanding of the meaning. Otherwise a discussion would be quite confusing I think.

If you want to map meaning onto sense with precision then you're basically doing a young Wittgenstein -- he had to later correct himself, started talking about "language-games", and never wrote another book (out of embarrassment?).

I'm not saying that it is wrong to seek consensus with regard to meaning, but I am saying that language, by its very nature, doesn't lend itself to unambiguous interpretation, so it's futile to try to bully people into using it in a particular way. Saying that we can't use the term "placebo" to describe what we're discussing here is like saying that we can't call a computer mouse a "mouse", and that we should call it a "rolling cursor control device" instead.