Beware the audio guru


There are a few contributors to these forums who apparently see themselves as gurus. They speak in absolutes, using words such as "always" and "never." They make pronouncements about products or techniques they’ve never heard or experienced, justifying their conclusions because contrary claims are "impossible" or "snake oil." Those who disagree are accused of being "deluded," or suffering some insurmountable bias, or attempting to further some commercial agenda. On occasion, they have taunted detractors with an appeal that they engage in a wager - one guy wanted $25,000 cash up front and an agreement drafted by lawyers. Another offered 5-to-1 odds.

I am not going to tell you who to believe. But for anyone who might be uncertain about sorting out conflicting claims here, I suggest they consider the behavior of experts in other fields. No good doctor offers a 100 percent guarantee on any treatment or surgical procedure, even if medical science suggests success. No good attorney will tell you that you have a case that positively can’t be lost, even if the law appears to be on your side. No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.

A doctor conducts his own tests. An engineer makes his own measurements. Neither will insist the burden of documentation falls upon you.

These might be details to consider as you sift through the many conflicting claims made on Audiogon. In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.
Ag insider logo xs@2xcleeds
Everybody gots themselves a little tiny Dunning-Kruger inside.

All it needs is the right stimulus to get it up an’ a’ goin’.

When we each reach our limit on a given thing, we move from safe ground to unknowns, or not fully fleshed out stuff..where ’facts’ and ’suppositions’, or things inferred, begin to mix..and then that moves over to the level of full unknowns as we get further off our knowledge base.

Where exactly that occurs in the given mind, is individual. We tend to play all things safe, it’s a life and being alive thing.

Fear first. It’s how the body works.

Survival first and foremost and all others things are ’allowed’ to ’be’ after fear is satisfied. No heartbeat, no body, and the rest means nothing. Fear first. Fear wants assurances and facts, otherwise it upsets the body and then the whole edifice is messed up, chemically and otherwise. We are wired for this as our primary filter in thought, ego, body, and so on. Love is in the mix, of course, but fear and desire are the primary filters for the body and the hindbrain. Everything runs through them first, foremost, always, in every heartbeat. When they are settled, reason can emerge.

Except for the point that the reason and logic centers were never meant to run all the time, it’s too energy taxing so they were designed to come up, solve a problem and then go back to sleep. The danger of first answer found, which can easily and often is, incorrect. The brain is half in - half out, half conscious, half subconscious instinctual automaton. importantly, it is run by the unconscious and that unconscious is more potent and intelligent than the conscious mind but - is driven quite differently.

Be conscious of the design and don’t make the first answer found mistake that we are literally wired for. If you look at politics and Machiavellian manipulations in all areas of the world, this is what you see. The manipulation of this fundamental hindbrain phenomena. So all those logic and reasoning suppositions and projections become paramount in the body’s constant scan for survival.

It is estimated that 97% of the population live in this mental state as primary function and 3% are not of such wiring. That the 3% are more mentally aware and awake more of the time.

It’s a complex subject, but we can see that when we get into even the slightest aspect of a subject that is multifaceted. Argument ---is the norm.

It can be no other way.

This is the danger of science and engineering that touches the edges of our collective and individual reality frameworks, it is rife with insistence in facts, when it is, in reality... [reality is] fundamentally all theories that are subject to change.

The less a person knows in this [given] area the more the fundamental of the human body insists on the projection of knowing. To get it right, the person has to be more aware of the vehicle they occupy, and this is a very weak area in scientific engineering. Lack of awareness of the bottle the being is in ...and how deeply it affects the drive, projections... and outcomes. Ie, bad facts, bad projections, that temporarily work, but end up circular and in a blocked corner.

Good science, by aware people, can sweep the blocking false end points away. They end up fighting with those who insist on the blocked end point, as it is 'safe' and a 'known' thing. this mentality...it can't project into the complex new.. so the new must be false. The cry of the weak position, about charlatans and whatnot.

Eg, in case you did not know, Einstein received death threats from other scientists, when his original relativity works were proposed. It's not the science, it's the humans in the science.

Post removed 
I have an old former surfer friend (he was a friend in to 60s, and not since) who's an "actual" guru in Hawaii. Lots of followers, and it's been interesting to see his strange guru path..smart guy, formerly great surfer...it's all too weird. 

You can learn from other people by the way, and to dismiss that fact is odd, but experience and some logic can often make you less susceptible to hyperbole and agenda based falsehood.
wolf_garcia
I have an old former surfer friend (he was a friend in to 60s, and not since) who’s an "actual" guru in Hawaii. Lots of followers, and it’s been interesting to see his strange guru path..smart guy, formerly great surfer...it’s all too weird.

>>>>>Dude! It wasn’t Uncle Stu, was it? Uncle Stu (RIP) posted over on AA mostly Tweakers Asylum for many years.

You can learn from other people by the way, and to dismiss that fact is odd, but experience and some logic can often make you less susceptible to hyperbole and agenda based falsehood.

>>>>Yes, people can learn, if they they are capable of learning, which I find many people actually aren’t. I guess that’s the way the cookie crumbles. 🍪

Only quote facts. - old audio expression
"There are a few contributors to these forums who apparently see themselves as gurus. They speak in absolutes, using words such as "always" and "never." They make pronouncements about products or techniques they’ve never heard or experienced, justifying their conclusions because contrary claims are "impossible" or "snake oil.""


Hmmm...I smell the whiff of a strawman, so I hope you could give some more detail because of course I could be wrong.

I’ve read, and been involved in, a number of threads in which some people are voicing skepticism against other people defending some high end audio claim.

But I don’t recall many...or even any...people speaking in the absolutist terms you are writing about. (Certainly that wouldn’t apply to me even when I’m being skeptical).

Admittedly I may have missed such posters, or perhaps forgotten someone making such absolute negative claims. But I’d like to actually see an example or two. (These days I don’t just take someone’s word on what a skeptic may have argued, because I see skeptical arguments, mine very often, continually depicted inaccurately on this forum...)

No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.


I couldn’t agree more strongly!

And that of course goes for anyone who is seen as, or presents himself/herself as a "guru" making claims for a product, tweak, or just dispensing high end audio "wisdom." Generally speaking: beware gurus!

In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.


Absolutely. But on the other hand, don’t go overboard with that attitude to another form of close-mindedness: "nobody can tell me anything, I have my own opinions!" We want to remain open to information or arguments others may make, so we can modify our beliefs if warranted. Agreed?

*(And, again, I don’t know that I’ve actually seen anyone here telling other people "how to think, or listen.")