beeman458
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Posts
- 988
- Likes
- 22
QRomo wrote:
There's no "seventy percent requirement" that I'm aware of.
And then you write.....
This works out to 70-80% for a smallish number of trials, but goes down as you increase the number of trials.
Which is the case of cable DBT tests, limited number of participants, small numbers of trials.
...you can expect to score 50% on average by just flipping a coin, so right away the threshold will be greater than 50%.
Yes, I'm "painfully" aware of the above point. The pain is because the example you and others give is so patently inaccurate on it's face, yet "science," out of convenience (self-serving,) has embraced this inaccurate standard so thoroughly that it's become unassailably dogmatic in nature. First, the human sensory system is an analogue system that's "fatigable." What this means is that as background noise increases, the human sensory system will detect, accurately, at a declining rate, for many rational reasons, to the point of fail. What this means is that the human sensory system can "reliably" detect at say the ten, twenty or thirty percent rate and still be considered properly functioning. Yet despite this agreed upon point, the anti-cable crowd has turned the human sensory system into a digital, on/off system with the coin flip analogy, which by it's nature, totally mischaracterizes the analogue nature of the human sensory system for the purpose of solidifying their thesis. Ya gotta love dogma.
In fact, one could argue that by telling the subject that each cable is different from each other that you create a minor expectation bias that could influence how the subject evaluates each cable.
That's the audio mirage I write of in that if you tell someone there's a difference, when there isn't a difference, the test subject is going be looking for a difference, even if a difference doesn't exist; mirage. All of this comes under the heading of trickery or skulduggery. Being dishonest is easy. That's why there's so much of it. Being open, truthful and fair is difficult, that's why it's in such limited supply.
I doubt this alters your stance at all, but I thought I'd point out that the "seventy percent requirement" is not some arbitrary number chosen to guarantee a fail.
I don't see it as an arbitrary number in the sense of grabbing numbers out of thin air, but I do see it's inclusion as a deceptive qualifier that will most assuredly, assure fail. Why? If our senses are by genetic design, created to be dependable down to the lower percentage ranges (including consideration for fatigue factors) and the survival of our species was dependent for hundreds of thousands of years on the analogue nature of our sensory system, despite these lower percentages of accuracy, then any evaluation, must fully take this point, into consideration. Sans doing this makes the data evaluation protocol blatantly bias in nature and any conclusions derived are invalid on their face.
The short of the long story above, yes, I know it "appears" that I'm trying to sweep water uphill with a downhill wind.
However, it doesn't follow that any attempt to explore the subject matter is some sort of ego trip.
Considering the level of vitriol, you can bet your last dollar that ego is the motive behind the scenes. Now if the vitriol were removed, or was nonexistent from the beginning and was simply a question of intellectual curiosity, I might be inclined to agree but far too much energy is continually being put forth by others to prove that cables guys are just a bunch of mirage loving, placebo filled, psycho junkies for this to be anything less than an ego play.
Anytime a large number of people's expectations differ significantly from scientific expectation I'm interested to know why. There's usually a lot to be learned from both sides while trying to figure it all out.
Hopefully my above has aided this quest of yours.
FWIW, I can't do many elongated tit-for-tat exchanges. Yes, they better convey ideas, but yes, I'm also limited in the amount of time I can give to responses of this kind. And agreed, limiting doesn't do the conversation any good as I do like to give thoughtful responses to help expand on ideas. Yes, I know I'm flying in the face of convention. Yes, I know I'm in conflict with entrenched dogma. No, I have neither will or resources to move this debate forward other than to thoughtfully try and expand on what I'm trying to share. So in the end, considering the conundrum, I've got to go with the admittedly weak position of buy the cables, don't buy the cables and let people make their own decisions based upon what works for them.
There's no "seventy percent requirement" that I'm aware of.
And then you write.....
This works out to 70-80% for a smallish number of trials, but goes down as you increase the number of trials.
Which is the case of cable DBT tests, limited number of participants, small numbers of trials.
...you can expect to score 50% on average by just flipping a coin, so right away the threshold will be greater than 50%.
Yes, I'm "painfully" aware of the above point. The pain is because the example you and others give is so patently inaccurate on it's face, yet "science," out of convenience (self-serving,) has embraced this inaccurate standard so thoroughly that it's become unassailably dogmatic in nature. First, the human sensory system is an analogue system that's "fatigable." What this means is that as background noise increases, the human sensory system will detect, accurately, at a declining rate, for many rational reasons, to the point of fail. What this means is that the human sensory system can "reliably" detect at say the ten, twenty or thirty percent rate and still be considered properly functioning. Yet despite this agreed upon point, the anti-cable crowd has turned the human sensory system into a digital, on/off system with the coin flip analogy, which by it's nature, totally mischaracterizes the analogue nature of the human sensory system for the purpose of solidifying their thesis. Ya gotta love dogma.
In fact, one could argue that by telling the subject that each cable is different from each other that you create a minor expectation bias that could influence how the subject evaluates each cable.
That's the audio mirage I write of in that if you tell someone there's a difference, when there isn't a difference, the test subject is going be looking for a difference, even if a difference doesn't exist; mirage. All of this comes under the heading of trickery or skulduggery. Being dishonest is easy. That's why there's so much of it. Being open, truthful and fair is difficult, that's why it's in such limited supply.
I doubt this alters your stance at all, but I thought I'd point out that the "seventy percent requirement" is not some arbitrary number chosen to guarantee a fail.
I don't see it as an arbitrary number in the sense of grabbing numbers out of thin air, but I do see it's inclusion as a deceptive qualifier that will most assuredly, assure fail. Why? If our senses are by genetic design, created to be dependable down to the lower percentage ranges (including consideration for fatigue factors) and the survival of our species was dependent for hundreds of thousands of years on the analogue nature of our sensory system, despite these lower percentages of accuracy, then any evaluation, must fully take this point, into consideration. Sans doing this makes the data evaluation protocol blatantly bias in nature and any conclusions derived are invalid on their face.
The short of the long story above, yes, I know it "appears" that I'm trying to sweep water uphill with a downhill wind.
However, it doesn't follow that any attempt to explore the subject matter is some sort of ego trip.
Considering the level of vitriol, you can bet your last dollar that ego is the motive behind the scenes. Now if the vitriol were removed, or was nonexistent from the beginning and was simply a question of intellectual curiosity, I might be inclined to agree but far too much energy is continually being put forth by others to prove that cables guys are just a bunch of mirage loving, placebo filled, psycho junkies for this to be anything less than an ego play.
Anytime a large number of people's expectations differ significantly from scientific expectation I'm interested to know why. There's usually a lot to be learned from both sides while trying to figure it all out.
Hopefully my above has aided this quest of yours.
FWIW, I can't do many elongated tit-for-tat exchanges. Yes, they better convey ideas, but yes, I'm also limited in the amount of time I can give to responses of this kind. And agreed, limiting doesn't do the conversation any good as I do like to give thoughtful responses to help expand on ideas. Yes, I know I'm flying in the face of convention. Yes, I know I'm in conflict with entrenched dogma. No, I have neither will or resources to move this debate forward other than to thoughtfully try and expand on what I'm trying to share. So in the end, considering the conundrum, I've got to go with the admittedly weak position of buy the cables, don't buy the cables and let people make their own decisions based upon what works for them.
