We hear what we expect to hear
Jan 16, 2021 at 7:11 PM Post #2 of 67
Good post thanks. This is a big problem I have with many reviewers (metal571 on youtube for instance) is that he looks at the charts for each headphone before giving his review of the product. Dont get me wrong his reviews are nice in that they are far more informative than many others however looking at a chart of how something is supposed to sound then giving your opinion on it makes what this article is explaining happen 10 fold.
 
Jan 17, 2021 at 3:03 AM Post #4 of 67
Nothing new here, we all know the brain is doing the main processing. This is why blindtesting is a faulty method.
Sorry but could anyone see things more upside down, inside out, and backwards? This reminds me of a scene from Better Call Saul, "...even on a good day you and logic are <---- pffffff ---->"
 
Jan 17, 2021 at 3:49 PM Post #5 of 67
Nothing new here, we all know the brain is doing the main processing. This is why blindtesting is a faulty method.

Blind testing is a method for REDUCING the effect of bias on decision making. But thank you for the example of bias turning someone's critical thinking upside down.
 
Jan 17, 2021 at 4:42 PM Post #6 of 67
Optical illusion is basically the same thing. For economic purposes, the brain assumes about half of what it perceives. Expectation bias is real, thus many reviewers would like to not know anything about a headphone and simply listen to it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_illusion
 
Last edited:
Jan 17, 2021 at 5:02 PM Post #7 of 67
Good post thanks. This is a big problem I have with many reviewers (metal571 on youtube for instance) is that he looks at the charts for each headphone before giving his review of the product. Dont get me wrong his reviews are nice in that they are far more informative than many others however looking at a chart of how something is supposed to sound then giving your opinion on it makes what this article is explaining happen 10 fold.

I think it definitely could make a difference. So will relying on a reference headphone for direct comparisons, as the person's brain may be adjusted more to that reference.
 
Jan 17, 2021 at 5:14 PM Post #8 of 67
Sorry but could anyone see things more upside down, inside out, and backwards? This reminds me of a scene from Better Call Saul, "...even on a good day you and logic are <---- pffffff ---->"

I agree. I don't get why @magicscreen thinks that way.

Subjectivists will often criticize the DBT or ABX testing process to discount the notion of expectation bias. Now we have direct neurological evidence of the brain adapting to expectations. While this is unlikely to convince diehard subjectivists, it could be very helpful evidence to convince people who are new to the hobby and still on the fence.
 
Last edited:
Jan 17, 2021 at 5:36 PM Post #9 of 67
Maybe accepting objective science would interfere with their bias and make them realize that a lot of the money they've spent has gone to waste on placebo and self validation. As long as they deny reality, that money bought them something.
 
Last edited:
Jan 17, 2021 at 10:36 PM Post #10 of 67
I agree. I don't get why @magicscreen thinks that way.

Subjectivists will often criticize the DBT or ABX testing process to discount the notion of expectation bias. Now we have direct neurological evidence of the brain adapting to expectations. While this is unlikely to convince diehard subjectivists, it could be very helpful evidence to convince people who are new to the hobby and still on the fence.
To be clear that paper suggests the effect spreads into a different area of the brain. "We" have known for a while that it was happening, just not where they checked this time. Which means that for us audiophiles, there is nothing new. But for science and medecine, it's a pretty big deal.
 
Jan 18, 2021 at 12:22 AM Post #11 of 67
To be clear that paper suggests the effect spreads into a different area of the brain. "We" have known for a while that it was happening, just not where they checked this time. Which means that for us audiophiles, there is nothing new. But for science and medecine, it's a pretty big deal.

I disagree.

Predictive coding is a new way of explaining this that I've not heard audiophiles discuss before. Have you?
 
Jan 18, 2021 at 12:57 AM Post #13 of 67
I disagree.

Predictive coding is a new way of explaining this that I've not heard audiophiles discuss before. Have you?
Yes, I remember a discussion about how we don't notice when the wife has a different haircut.

Now if you don't mind, I will escort myself out.
 
Jan 18, 2021 at 2:52 AM Post #14 of 67
With MRI she has documented expectation bias. Nothing new here except maybe the actual location of the perception artifacts. The cool part was her early interest in philosophy. She would be fun to have a conversation with. If in fact her philosophy studies were the basic structured pathway (which they must have been) then entering neurological sciences regarding perception is very cool. Still she is simply repackaging the nomenclature........?

I disagree.

Predictive coding is a new way of explaining this that I've not heard audiophiles discuss before. Have you?
 
Last edited:
Jan 18, 2021 at 2:53 AM Post #15 of 67
Someone should do a study on my ability to sniff out expectation and validation bias in internet forums without even seeing the person! There's a really good example of validation bias over in myths.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top