What actually is placebo? It just doesnt make sense

[gregorio]

You would argue with a can of beans if it could talk back.

So, accused of just making nonsense up, your response is to just get stroppy and make up more nonsense! How does that do anything other than confirm my accusation? If you want to make some sort of silly analogy, then no, I would not argue with a can of beans if it could talk back. However, if it could post false/incorrect assertions on this sound science discussion forum, then I very possibly would refute/argue with those assertions; on the basis that without actually seeing the poster, it’s extremely difficult to differentiate between a talking can of beans and a typically misinformed/deluded audiophile! lol

That's why I don't visit or bath in SS waters........total nonsense here, of about 50%.

If it were “total nonsense here”, wouldn’t that require 100%? Regardless, as you’re the one who posted the nonsense here, then it seems like you’re complaining that there’s only 50% nonsense here and you’d rather bathe in the waters of a forum with a much higher percentage of nonsense, where nonsense is not refuted?

You are completely missing my point, or you are justifying your options based on misunderstanding what I wrote.
Me:
Of course sound to each person in perceived not the same? There are the understood variables of IEMs in that sound is different depending on how they get IEM air-tight fit. ….

Maybe I am missing the point but when you explain the point again and it appears to be exactly the same as how I took it, then either I’m not missing the point or you’re explaining it very poorly, repeatedly.

If I take your point as you’ve explained it, then you are making the common audiophile error of confusing the physical properties/performance of something, say a DAC, amp or in this case sound itself, with the human perception of it. Responding to your first assertion of the “Me:” section: Yes, each person can perceive the (same) sound differently but of course that’s a function of their perception, not of the sound itself, the sound does not have a “personality” and obviously does not change according to who is perceiving it. Likewise in the second sentence, that’s not necessarily a “variable of IEMs” that’s a variable of the user’s ear and how the user fits/wears them. And you continue:

These variations included what is thought of being the correct bass, the correct treble levels and the correct midrange levels. This idea goes on and on and could pertain to imaging inside the stage being close knit or spread-out, the variations of each IEM having different technicalities in regards to reverberations and staging.....and on and on.

“Correct bass, mid and treble” are subjective preferences (of the human brain), IEMs and other audio gear have neither human brains nor subjective preferences. Likewise “imaging inside the stage”, sound stage is a human perception and again, IEMs do not have human perception. So, “the stage being close knit or spread out” is NOT “variations of each IEM”, it is variations of the perception of who’s listening to them. And again:

So yes, there is both a perceived sound personality from the equipment and a receiver personality …

Obviously this cannot be correct; equipment cannot perceive sound, in fact most of it isn’t even producing sound (except the transducers), let alone able to perceive it and again, sound does not have a personality, it has frequency/amplitude variations over time, that’s it, no personality, no anything else! Of course, a listener can have personality, different perceptions, different preferences, etc., but that’s the listener, not the equipment!

G

 

[gregorio]

Did you read post #16 of his autism thread ?
It explains a lot and I am not sure amusing is the right description here.

No, I hadn’t seen that thread. I’m not sure how much it really explains, beyond his propensity to read something on the internet and then jump to a whole bunch of assumptions with no real evidence, which we already knew. The only interesting, but as you say not amusing, part was that even he thinks there’s something wrong with him.

G

 

[bigshot]

Being open minded about baseless claims and ignorance isn’t a good thing.

 

[bigshot]

No, I hadn’t seen that thread. I’m not sure how much it really explains, beyond his propensity to read something on the internet and then jump to a whole bunch of assumptions with no real evidence, which we already knew.

It explains the problem.

 

[Ghoostknight]

It explains the problem.

Yea, that is: i wanna know the truth, not just " yea, 99% of what you are listening to comes from your subjective expierence "

im not sure what its but do feel "objectivists" better in their science cacoon "explaining everything in measurements" "and there is no more" ?

i mean like, really the best example here is brainwave entertainment, i would say science figured this one even out as it is "known" to do something, yet nobody talks about it, either because they dont expierence it subjectively or "dont wanna hear that **** "

imo there are more variables as BE that can explain your subjective audio expierence BESIDE measurements, which is like the first thing that (for me) makes really sense in the whole "objective vs subjective debate"

Maybe its also a whole personal thing how much you "learned" to account to your subjective expierence

While for engineering, i get it, its nice to have some quantifiable data .... but you cant rip that easly while listening to music your objective and subjective expierence/knowledge apart like that, im actually surprised not more people came to this conclusions... but i dont know.... just guessing guys...

 

[2leftears]

i mean like, really the best example here is brainwave entertainment

I think you meant to type brainwave entrainment, not brainwave entertainment...

 

[castleofargh]

...i wanna know the truth...

What could possibly remain, in ways of establishing facts, that you haven't tried to discredit? This entire thread is an ignorant attack against placebo, the most recognized, most useful control method when running a subjective experiment. Before it was blind testing, and we've seen how easily you push measurements aside if they don't find what you want them to find.
You attack and try to discredit the very means of finding the truth. The truth is the last thing you want to find, stop lying!

 

[bigshot]

He isn't lying. He has cognitive and social deficits. I think a lot of the problems in this forum have their roots in this sort of thing. I think he is incapable of participating as a peer. From his very first post he has proved that. In my opinion, the best way to deal with that is to give him short time outs. If he is allowed to post over and over, it builds up compulsively and spirals out of control. A 12 or 24 hour break when he starts to become disruptive would nip it in the bud before there are 40 posts of arguments. Just a suggestion. Making someone take a short break a few times a week isn't draconian and would go a long way to making this forum more productive and pleasant.

 

[IanB52]

He isn't lying. He has cognitive and social deficits. I think a lot of the problems in this forum have their roots in this sort of thing. I think he is incapable of participating as a peer. From his very first post he has proved that. In my opinion, the best way to deal with that is to give him short time outs. If he is allowed to post over and over, it builds up compulsively and spirals out of control. A 24 hour break when he becomes most disruptive would nip it in the bud before there are 40 posts of arguments. Just a suggestion.

More "science" at work.

 

[bigshot]

It isn't science, it's moderation in every sense of the word.

 

[Ghoostknight]

What could possibly remain, in ways of establishing facts, that you haven't tried to discredit? This entire thread is an ignorant attack against placebo, the most recognized, most useful control method when running a subjective experiment. Before it was blind testing, and we've seen how easily you push measurements aside if they don't find what you want them to find.
You attack and try to discredit the very means of finding the truth. The truth is the last thing you want to find, stop lying!

its a nice control method to exclude everything that your brain can do on its own, imo with some external influences involved

i dont say its a bad control method, i guess it has its place but it feels largely misused because people dont seem to think of it as a potential beneficial thing depending on what "external influences" you involve but a completely random "delusional made up" thing

while i still question DBT in their "absolute-ness" i think looking at things from such perspective has its benefits too, tho making it the "non plus ultra method" comes with its own flaws


Tho, i actually kind a get it now .... i disrupt your little "reliable facts club"

there is honestly no logic at all for me involved going from
- "knowing how different music can sound, pretty reliable different depending on the song"
and going to
- "yea 95% of stuff is made up by your own brain *randomly*"

but i guess its what its

 

[FunkyBassMan]

There is no cognitive dissonance in science, if there were, it wouldn’t be science!

Wow, we have a new record. "Pianos don't have seperate strings" and "audio processing isn’t to improve audio" were bad enough, but this latest nonsense really takes the cake.

the statement "there is no cognitive dissonance in science; if there were, it wouldn’t be science." is absolute idiocy and shows a shocking lack of understanding about both cognitive dissonance and how science actually works. Cognitive dissonance—first defined by psychologist Leon Festinger if you're curious—is tension we feel when we hold contradictory beliefs or ideas. And in science, this tension isn’t just present; it’s essential to the whole thing. It’s the very force that drives scientific discovery forward

Why? well... just imagine: a scientist observes something that their current theory can’t explain. That clash, that mental discomfort? That’s literally cognitive dissonance in action. It’s what pushes scientists to dig deeper, to question, to investigate, and finally to break new ground with better theories. Without that dissonance, science would grind to a halt.

Think about copernicus. When he suggested that the earth revolves around the sun, it threw centuries of accepted "truth" into chaos. The entire geocentric model was backed by both scientists and the church. That created serious cognitive dissonance but instead of ignoring it, this tension fueled a total paradigm shift in astronomy.

or take einstien’s theory of relativity—it didn’t just raise a few eyebrows, it completely shattered the comfortable framework of Newtonian mechanics. that clash forced scientists to rethink everything they thought they knew about space and time. The cognitive dissonance here wasn’t an obstacle; it was absolutely crucial for science to move forward.

And don't even start on quantum physics. When the bizarro counterintuitive findings in quantum mechanics contradicted classical physics, scientists didn’t throw in the towel. They felt huge discomfort (still do! See feynman), wrestled with it, and emerged with a totally new understanding of the subatomic world.
saying that science has no place for cognitive dissonance is basically saying science has no place for questions. Without the discomfort of clashing ideas, we’d be left with a stagnant pool of unquestioned assumptions (gee, why does that idea feel familiar here??). Science literally demands skepticism, constant testing, and relentless drive to confront and resolve contradictions. without cognitive dissonance, motivation to challenge the status quo disappears


This is proven science: psychology research shows us that scientists themselves experience cognitive dissonance when new data contradicts their expectations… this discomfort often leads them to rethink their ideas or revise their theories—exactly what keeps science moving forward.

Another example—think of all the lives lost before the medical community accepted germ theory. Cognitive dissonance slowed down the acceptance of sterilization practices, but eventually, overwhelming evidence broke through that resistance… or look at climate change—cognitive dissonance is at the heeart of why some still deny the science, but acknowledging this dissonance is crucial to addressing biases and making informed decisions.

to say cognitive dissonance has no place in science is not just wrong...it’s profoundly ignorant of the very mechanisms that make science what it is. Cognitive dissonance literally drives the questioning, the refining, and the innovation that make science powerful. Denying this is gregorian nonsense on a scale it’s hard to even contemplate.

 

[gregorio]

i wanna know the truth, not just " yea, 99% of what you are listening to comes from your subjective expierence "

What’s so impressive is that you manage to completely contradict yourself even before you finish your sentence! You “wanna know the truth” and then you immediately follow that with BS that you just made-up! Where did that 99% come from? Demonstrate you didn’t just make that up?! Surely “what you are listening to” is the sound waves that reach your ears and how does any of that “come from your subjective experience”, let alone 99% of it? You think your subjective experience can telepathically create sound waves now can you? Maybe you meant “what you perceive when listening to sound waves” but how would that not be 100% subjective experience? What do you think happens to your remaining 1%, you think maybe you can listen to something that’s bypassing your brain?

im not sure what its but do feel "objectivists" better in their science cacoon "explaining everything in measurements" "and there is no more" ?

Why are you asking us that? Maybe there are some deluded objectivists who believe “explaining everything in measurements” and feel better in that fallacious “cocoon” but I’m certainly not one of them, I’ve never met one AFAIK and I’m not even sure there are any. And in addition, your supposed cocoon would NOT be a “science cocoon”, it would be the opposite, an anti-science cocoon, because science does not explain everything in measurements and does not claim to! How is your question anything other than more made-up BS and/or a strawman fallacy?

imo there are more variables as BE that can explain your subjective audio expierence BESIDE measurements

What measurements of “subjective audio experience” are you referring to? Off the top of my head, I can only think of one measurement of subjective audio experience that we have, it only deals with one very specific aspect of subjective audio experience, it has quite strict conditions, is very limited and we don’t mention it here very often any way. The measurements we discuss the vast majority of the time are NOT measurements of subjective audio experience, they’re measurements of actual physical phenomena, such as acoustic sound waves and analogue signals or of digital data. We’re talking about measurements of the performance of DACs, transducers, amps, cables and other audio equipment, we’re OBVIOUSLY NOT talking about measurements of peoples’ subjective audio experience because with hardly any exceptions, we (science) don’t have any measurements of subjective audio experience and don’t even know how to measure it! So how on earth do you think we’re trying to “explain your subjective audio experience” with measurements that do not exist? It’s just more BS!!

i dont say its a bad control method, i guess it has its place

Why do you have to guess? If you’re going to argue about a scientific testing methodology, especially in a science discussion forum of all places, then you need to actually know what it is, what it does and therefore “its place”. If you don’t know and are just guessing then you’re arguing from ignorance!

Tho, i actually kind a get it now .... i disrupt your little "reliable facts club"

How do you think that you posting, in this forum, your own made-up BS, arguing from ignorance and employing strawman fallacies is going to have even the slightest effect on, let alone disrupt, the science (“reliable facts club”)? That’s just completely deluded and the opposite of “getting it now”!

The only question remaining is either you’re so inconceivably deluded that you actually believe “the truth” consists of made-up BS, ignorance and fallacies or, as castleofargh stated, you’re lying. So which is it?

the statement "there is no cognitive dissonance in science; if there were, it wouldn’t be science." is absolute idiocy and shows a shocking lack of understanding about both cognitive dissonance and how science actually works. …

Normally with threads based almost entirely on made-up BS and fallacies you join in and add to the BS much sooner, where have you been?! I thought maybe you’d tired of EVERY SINGLE TIME you accuse “idiocy” and ignorance it’s demonstrated to be YOURS but apparently you’re not tired yet, maybe you’ve just been too busy contributing BS elsewhere? lol. Yet again, surprise, surprise, the “absolute idiocy” and “shocking lack of understanding” this time is yet again YOURS! You apparently don’t even know what science is, and therefore don’t know the difference between science and scientists. Although, based on pretty much every one of your previous responses to me, your lack of understanding and idiocy isn’t so shocking anymore! And, are you really going to bring up the piano note thing again, where even the video you yourself posted proved you were wrong and again that the “idiocy” was entirely yours? And not only that but also your ignorance of audio processing during mixing/mastering. You really are an exceptional “glutton for punishment”, pretty much anyone else would be too embarrassed to bring up their humiliation repeatedly!

G

 

[Redcarmoose]

So, accused of just making nonsense up, your response is to just get stroppy and make up more nonsense! How does that do anything other than confirm my accusation? If you want to make some sort of silly analogy, then no, I would not argue with a can of beans if it could talk back. However, if it could post false/incorrect assertions on this sound science discussion forum, then I very possibly would refute/argue with those assertions; on the basis that without actually seeing the poster, it’s extremely difficult to differentiate between a talking can of beans and a typically misinformed/deluded audiophile! lol

If it were “total nonsense here”, wouldn’t that require 100%? Regardless, as you’re the one who posted the nonsense here, then it seems like you’re complaining that there’s only 50% nonsense here and you’d rather bathe in the waters of a forum with a much higher percentage of nonsense, where nonsense is not refuted?

Maybe I am missing the point but when you explain the point again and it appears to be exactly the same as how I took it, then either I’m not missing the point or you’re explaining it very poorly, repeatedly.

If I take your point as you’ve explained it, then you are making the common audiophile error of confusing the physical properties/performance of something, say a DAC, amp or in this case sound itself, with the human perception of it. Responding to your first assertion of the “Me:” section: Yes, each person can perceive the (same) sound differently but of course that’s a function of their perception, not of the sound itself, the sound does not have a “personality” and obviously does not change according to who is perceiving it. Likewise in the second sentence, that’s not necessarily a “variable of IEMs” that’s a variable of the user’s ear and how the user fits/wears them. And you continue:

“Correct bass, mid and treble” are subjective preferences (of the human brain), IEMs and other audio gear have neither human brains nor subjective preferences. Likewise “imaging inside the stage”, sound stage is a human perception and again, IEMs do not have human perception. So, “the stage being close knit or spread out” is NOT “variations of each IEM”, it is variations of the perception of who’s listening to them. And again:

Obviously this cannot be correct; equipment cannot perceive sound, in fact most of it isn’t even producing sound (except the transducers), let alone able to perceive it and again, sound does not have a personality, it has frequency/amplitude variations over time, that’s it, no personality, no anything else! Of course, a listener can have personality, different perceptions, different preferences, etc., but that’s the listener, not the equipment!

G

So everyone perceives every DAP, DAC, Cable and Headphone/IEM the exact same way? Hmm. That sounds crazy?

 

[The Jester]

A small percentage of the population is tone deaf, a small percentage has perfect pitch, the rest of us fall somewhere in between, possibly the “average” is midway between the two, where is the difference, ears, auditory cortex, perception in the brain itself ?