It’s entirely possible to double blind test something that’s 100% provable to anyone and come out with a 50% chance of certainty.
The test itself introduces many levels of uncertainty even before it starts. That’s why I’ve always referred to it as a cheap parlor trick. Comparing it to medicinal tests is a red herring, since all the subjects have the ailment in a medical study and not all the subjects in a listening test will have the same hearing acuity. It’s a different kettle of fish.
As to the mind and how it perceives betterment from a medication is not analogous to how someone can hear an improvement. The sick person will remain sick though one can hope enough to skew a momentary improvement, only to succumb to the ailment and get worse. The person who hears better will always hear better but can be tricked, in the short term and upon an extended listening period with their own, familiar system, can tell the difference. I’d even go so far as to say that one who is intimately familiar with their own system can tell if something is off within a shorter period of time. They may not be able to put their finger on it but they’ll know. I say this from my own experience.
In fact, there are those on these forums who’ve done better than average on double blind tests already and for some reason, are overlooked.
The fault that lies in unsighted testing is the simple fact that you’re removing an essential, sensory aspect to what completes an observation. Run your finger over a map and speak the name of the area you’re trying to remember and you’ll drastically increase the ability to remember it, and recognize it, later on. It’s how we’re designed; it’s in our DNA. Eliminate or curtail that process that we’re accustomed to using and you interject a form of chaos into our ability to discern. It’s no wonder how one can take a certainty and reduce it to simple chance by tying one’s arm (or a sense) behind one’s back and then say, ’lets see how well you do it now."
All the best,
Nonoise
