Introspection and hyperbole control

[Billy Shears]

So what did he say? I think the link given is wrong, perhaps you can post the right one, thanks.

EDIT: Thanks, Bill, I just saw your post. The link has a […] in the middle, that's why it does not work. I suppose it's copied from a post here, not from the site itself.

Its from the site, i can only copy whats there:

http://avshowroomsforums.com/showthread.php?525-PFO-Brutus-Awards&highlight=brutus

 

[Al M.]

Its from the site, i can only copy whats there:

http://avshowroomsforums.com/showthread.php?525-PFO-Brutus-Awards&highlight=brutus

O.k., thanks, now it's clearer to me.

 

[microstrip]

Thanks to each of your for your thoughts and support. I truly appreciate it!

If Myles Astor (whom I like, both personally and professionally) and Peter Breuninger disagree with something in my critique of Peter's video review of the Kronos turntable (post # 222 hereof http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18367-Introspection-and-hyperbole-control/page23 ) why doesn't one of them simply write a post and challenge me in the marketplace of ideas, rather than vindictively banning me from his forum (Peter) or publishing a facetious remark (Myles)?

I stand firmly by every word I wrote in my critique. I truly believe my logic is unassailable. Very simply, if one is comparing a turntable to only two others, one should report that one's favorite is the best of the three, not the best turntable "available in the market today."

From my experience it is impossible to debate something with someone who claims "I truly believe my logic is unassailable" and reduces the other perspective to a short biased summary. Happily we friendly are on opposite sides of you introspection and hyperbole control. IMHO it is mainly a question of semantics. Do you really think that a formal "I doubt" changes all of it in the following sentence?

"Every person's audio continuum has its own superlative, that summum bonum that I mentioned at the beginning of this essay. On the question of fine turntables, the question has been answered for me. The Walker Audio Proscenium Gold Signature turntable system, with all the ancillary Walker Audio gear listed below, is absolutely the very best vinyl playback system that I've ever heard, without qualification. I doubt that there is a better turntable on the planet

(...)

You can do the same. If you have the means, and are looking for the very finest turntable, one that will give you everything your grooves are trying to bring to you, for better or worse, look no further than the Walker Audio Proscenium Gold Signature system—I think this is it."

 

[Ron Resnick]

From my experience it is impossible to debate something with someone who claims "I truly believe my logic is unassailable"

Not so, Sir! I have no hesitation to admit I am wrong -- if my argument is proved to be defective.

 

[microstrip]

Not so, Sir! I have no hesitation to admit I am wrong -- if my argument is proved to be defective.

I should also have added :

From my experience it is also impossible to debate something with someone who does not read sentences in full and quotes cut parts of the sentence when replying.

The sentence should be understood as an whole - trying to understand the opponent view and looking at the subject from his perspective is an important part of a good debate. We are not debating mathematical theorems!

 

[amirm]

I should also have added :

From my experience it is also impossible to debate something with someone who does not read sentences in full and quotes cut parts of the sentence when replying.

That may be a sensitivity you have developed but it is uncool in forums to quote full posts when all the person wants to do is address a part of it. If you feel the next sentence substantially modifies what you said that is being quoted, it is best to write in such a way where this doesn't happen. You made a strong assertion against Ron and he is entitled to quote and respond to it without dragging the rest of your post. If the stand-alone sentence is not your view, you should express that to him rather than telling him how to debate his "opponent."

 

[microstrip]

That may be a sensitivity you have developed but it is uncool in forums to quote full posts when all the person wants to do is address a part of it. If you feel the next sentence substantially modifies what you said that is being quoted, it is best to write in such a way where this doesn't happen. You made a strong assertion against Ron and he is entitled to quote and respond to it without dragging the rest of your post. If the stand-alone sentence is not your view, you should express that to him rather than telling him how to debate his "opponent."

No one is asking to quote full posts, just not to cut a small sentence in half distorting his sense. I am sure Ron did not had such intention, but although not important I decided I should clarify the issue. Nothing else.

I could expect that you would have this opinion, suggesting in a condescending way it is a "sensitivity you developed" and referring "it is uncool in forums". But sorry, no, IMHO IT IS NOT if the cutting changes the sense of the whole text. YMMV.

 

[amirm]

No one is asking to quote full posts, just not to cut a small sentence in half distorting his sense. I am sure Ron did not had such intention, but although not important I decided I should clarify the issue. Nothing else.

As I said, it is his option to quote whatever portion of your statement which he finds concerning. If you think you were misunderstood in that manner, then you can say so in your post. After saying something very negative to him, now you are telling him how should answer you.

If the above is the impression you wanted to leave with him, then you are good. If not, this is your chance to clarify that he is not your opponent and that you have kinder feelings for him than what you have expressed.

 

[rockitman]

No one is asking to quote full posts, just not to cut a small sentence in half distorting his sense.

That happens all the time in our mass media....take a sound bite, word bite ect...and take it out of context to the detriment of the other party.

 

[DaveyF]

I'm new to this thread....but I can see that the 'king' of all audio fools ( sorry, I meant 'philes) is at it again, LOL.
I'm now going to see if I can join the AVS forum...after all King Peter needs to let at least one pleb into the fold!
I will return soon with his answer...

 

[caesar]

I'm late to his thread .Allow me to introduce a term. I call it the "Plateau Effect." When we are first exposed to something we like our interest level spikes. If we plot a graph of time vs level of interest We would see a spike and either a dramatic or gradual tapering off(plateau) of interest over time. Indeed we may actually observe interest spikes a few times before tit tapers off. I think it's Sade who sings ,"Never as Good as the First Time."

...

Gregadd,

This phenomena is actually scientifically proven and has a real name in both psychology and economics. The technical term from psychology is “hedonic adaptation” and in economics it is called "declining marginal utility".

By being exposed to something over a period of time, we get used to it. For the majority in Hawaii, the rainbows and the sunsets are just not as special as to the honeymooning tourist. Humans quickly adapt and get less and less pleasure every time an experience is repeated. After several months in Hawaii, those phenomena are no longer a big deal to the tourist either. Additionally, as we are getting used to something, after a while, our brain expects to see or hear thing a certain way just because we are used to them. If you are used to listening in one hall or jazz club, another venue may feel strange for a short while until we get used to it.

 

[caesar]

CONGRATULATIONS TO DAVID ROBINSON FOR INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND HYPERBOLE CONTROL

In Robinson’s Brutus Awards for 2015, Part 1, David Robinson published his awards for the "best stuff [h]e heard this year.”

In the introduction to the awards, David states: “The products that we recommend in these awards . . . represent our take on "the best we've heard in our own listening rooms this year." (emphasis added)

I am delighted that David is not claiming that the products he is recognizing are the best in the world or the best available in the marketplace today or some other illogical and factually inaccurate statement. I applaud David for confining his statements to the facts of his research and, in so doing, exemplifying intellectual honesty and avoiding hyperbole.

Hey Ron,

Just to play some devil's advocate with you, why do you think people need to preface anything in high end audio with "in my opinion"? It is a subjective hobby after all, so it's all opinion, isn't it?

(In the end, most in this hobby already intellectually understand that what people are chasing in high end audio is "an illusion", "something known to false yet felt to be true". And which with every improvement, small and large, further intensifies our desire toward the feeling the real thing gives us... Yet what most are missing is that the feeling may be true to us, but false (or even grating) to others. Their brains imagine and perceive things a bit differently. Like many here, I also have listened to many, many people's systems, and while many are excellent, most to me are less than sublime, while many guys who have assembled them over the years think they have reached nirvana. Ditto for many long-established dealers. Reality is that a lot of this hobby is not about what is right or wrong scientifically, but is relative to one's prior experience and how one's references have actually been formed...and ultimately is what is imagined and perceived by their brains.)

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hey Ron,

Just to play some devil's advocate with you, why do you think people need to preface anything in high end audio with "in my opinion"? It is a subjective hobby after all, so it's all opinion, isn't it?

This is an excellent, fundamental question which goes to the core of this thread. I agree with you that if a member posts a subjective statement then "I think" or "In my opinion" is implied and is unnecessary to be stated. I do not think everything needs to be prefaced with "I think" or "in my opinion" -- only those statements which are stated as objective facts which at least theoretically -- logically -- could be correct, and not offered as subjective opinions.

For example, if a member writes: "I just listened to speaker A, speaker B and speaker C, and speaker B is fantastic!" we know that that writer is expressing his personal, subjective opinion. "I think" or "in my opinion" is implied.

But if a member writes: "I just listened to speaker A, speaker B and speaker C, and speaker B is the best speaker available in the marketplace today!" the writer is making an objective statement which is manifestly illogical, and wrong, on the facts presented. There is no intellectually principled, logical basis for declaring speaker B the best speaker in the world when the writer has compared it only to speaker A and speaker C, and not to all of or even most of the most highly-regarded speakers available in the marketplace today. It simply is logically defective to declare speaker B the best in the world if he has not auditioned the set of speakers (i.e., all of or most of the most highly-regarded speakers in the marketplace) to which he is implicitly applying his comment.

This faulty logic was the objective defect of Peter Breuninger's video review of the Kronos turntable. The subjective defect of his review, in my opinion, is that he sounds in the video like a paid infomercial.

Of course even if the writer has auditioned every single speaker in the marketplace there still is no true objectivity in the sense that he necessarily will arrive at the correct answer as to which is the best speaker in the world, because that is a subjective determination, but at least his statement would not be illogical and wrong on its face.

I am asking only for introspection and carefulness, and not hyperbole and exaggeration, when we make statements. Statements should not be logically defective on their face. Subjective statements do not have to be supported with any semblance of evidence, but we should try to be careful not to cloak our subjective statements with a false and misleading pretense of objectiveness.

 

[DaveyF]

This is an excellent, fundamental question which goes to the core of this thread. I agree with you that if a member posts a subjective statement then "I think" or "In my opinion" is implied and is unnecessary to be stated. I do not think everything needs to be prefaced with "I think" or "in my opinion" -- only those statements which are stated as objective facts which at least theoretically -- logically -- could be correct, and not offered as subjective opinions.

For example, if a member writes: "I just listened to speaker A, speaker B and speaker C, and speaker B is fantastic!" we know that that writer is expressing his personal, subjective opinion. "I think" or "in my opinion" is implied.

But if a member writes: "I just listened to speaker A, speaker B and speaker C, and speaker B is the best speaker available in the marketplace today!" the writer is making an objective statement which is manifestly illogical, and wrong, on the facts presented. There is no intellectually principled, logical basis for declaring speaker B the best speaker in the world when the writer has compared it only to speaker A and speaker C, and not to all of or even most of the most highly-regarded speakers available in the marketplace today. It simply is logically defective to declare speaker B the best in the world if he has not auditioned the set of speakers (i.e., all of or most of the most highly-regarded speakers in the marketplace) to which he is implicitly applying his comment.

This faulty logic was the objective defect of Peter Breuninger's video review of the Kronos turntable. The subjective defect of his review, in my opinion, is that he sounds in the video like a paid infomercial.

Of course even if the writer has auditioned every single speaker in the marketplace there still is no true objectivity in the sense that he necessarily will arrive at the correct answer as to which is the best speaker in the world, because that is a subjective determination, but at least his statement would not be illogical and wrong on its face.

I am asking only for introspection and carefulness, and not hyperbole and exaggeration, when we make statements. Statements should not be logically defective on their face. Subjective statements do not have to be supported with any semblance of evidence, but we should try to be careful not to cloak our subjective statements with a false and misleading pretense of objectiveness.

+1 great post Ron.

BTW, I received this reply to my AVS inquiry:
"Dear peasant, surely you jest, this forum is not available to the chaff"....

 

[Joe Whip]

Can't believe you even tried! . I knew not to even bother!

 

[spiritofmusic]

+1 great post Ron.

BTW, I received this reply to my AVS inquiry:
"Dear peasant, surely you jest, this forum is not available to the chaff"....

I know y'r kind of joking, but w/Peter "Wanker" B., and Myles "Hyperbole Nazi" B. Astor in charge, part of me wouldn't be surprised if you did.

 

[Ron Resnick]

+1 great post Ron. BTW, I received this reply to my AVS inquiry:
"Dear peasant, surely you jest, this forum is not available to the chaff"....

Thank you.

I would take it as a compliment!

 

[PeterA]

You guys are too much and very funny. Though I have not joined that forum nor even tried, I do read the music on vinyl and analog threads on occasion. And those threads seem to stay on topic and not get corrupted by unsolicited graphs and measurements for the sake of proving things to those who would rather discuss listening impressions.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Oh dear, don't tell Ron.
D'ato Danon Han of Mono And Stereo has been listening to the Kronos Ltd Edition tt against a couple of others and is tentatively proclaiming it the best tt in the world, not just the best tt in that company.
Has the phantom spirit of Peter "Wanker" B invaded this guy, like a nasty form of Being John Malkovich? Over to you Ron.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Though I have not joined that forum nor even tried, I do read the music on vinyl and analog threads on occasion. And those threads seem to stay on topic and not get corrupted by unsolicited graphs and measurements for the sake of proving things to those who would rather discuss listening impressions.

Prior to the time Peter B kicked me off I did notice that threads did not have objectivist grenades tossed into subjectivist discussions. But I also noticed that much of the forum was Peter B and Myles talking to my friend Greg Beron.