Thank you, Bill. In my 20's, I did a PhD in philosophy, a discipline that rivals the law in the use of arguments.
Congrats on retirement and happy listening.
Bryon
Congrats on retirement and happy listening.
Bryon
why do we argue?
I suppose it's human nature?
Not everyone can get along,at least all of the time.
Squablles occur in the best of families,sometimes over big issues, sometimes over small ones.
So why should the audio "family" be any different?
Some forums have gone to great pains to cleanse their sites and free them from confrontations between audiophiles who can't see eye to eye, or perhaps we should say, ear to ear.
But where's the harm in all that squabbling? Really?
If someone finds it offensive, then why continue to read it, like a moth drawn to the flame,if you think it's going to harm you, don't enter.
No one is making you.
Then if you feel you have to post your objections to objectional comments(who made you the boss?)then you are not the solution ,you're just adding to the problem.
Like bringing gasoline to put out the fire.
You're going to be on one side or the other,or perhaps you are the "let's kiss and make up type" "can't we all be friends?"audiophile who has only everyone's best wishes at heart.
There's always a "mom" to come between two fighting brothers isn't there,and you know she can't take sides,calling a truce is her job.
But until the real issues have been addressed, the argument is never over.
It's always there under the surface,just waiting to boil over given half the chance.Power cords one day, fuses the next, and demagging lp's? Please!
It usually starts in audio forums when some chump posts that a piece of something that cost more than it should, made an improvement that someone who wasn't there to hear it says it didn't.
Get the gist?
I did it, I heard it, I was there,who are you to tell me I didn't hear it, and how dare you call me dillusional?That's the response to the first response from the folks who know it just can't be real.
Surely if I am half a man, I'll have to make some sort of reply.And reply to the reply and on and on again and again.
I'll have to try to proove that I heard what I heard, but you need scientific proof.
Obviously I can't provide any, I am a chump, not a scientist, I bought the snake oil didn't I?
So on and on it goes and intensifies until enough is enough and two or more members of the family are banished from the fold.
The community all the better for it, or so it tells itself.
But is it?
If everything in this hobby is scrutinized to the point that if there isn't a scientific white paper to back up the claims, how much of what we take for granted today would be lost to the audio community at large?
Zip cord,stock giveaway cords of all srtipe would be all that we would have.There'd be no equipment stands or various footers, no isolation devices of the electrical and mechanical persuasion,no spikes,no fancy metals,in short there would be no aftermarket anything.
It would be a 100% snake free world,a totalitarian utopia for the less than feeble minded audiophiles that there are so many of. Those foolish folks who thrive on fairy dust need to be saved from their own foolish and wasteful ways.
At least that's the way I've seen it from my perspective.
I know it's too late to save me.Salvation passed me by decades ago.
Not everyone can get along,at least all of the time.
Squablles occur in the best of families,sometimes over big issues, sometimes over small ones.
So why should the audio "family" be any different?
Some forums have gone to great pains to cleanse their sites and free them from confrontations between audiophiles who can't see eye to eye, or perhaps we should say, ear to ear.
But where's the harm in all that squabbling? Really?
If someone finds it offensive, then why continue to read it, like a moth drawn to the flame,if you think it's going to harm you, don't enter.
No one is making you.
Then if you feel you have to post your objections to objectional comments(who made you the boss?)then you are not the solution ,you're just adding to the problem.
Like bringing gasoline to put out the fire.
You're going to be on one side or the other,or perhaps you are the "let's kiss and make up type" "can't we all be friends?"audiophile who has only everyone's best wishes at heart.
There's always a "mom" to come between two fighting brothers isn't there,and you know she can't take sides,calling a truce is her job.
But until the real issues have been addressed, the argument is never over.
It's always there under the surface,just waiting to boil over given half the chance.Power cords one day, fuses the next, and demagging lp's? Please!
It usually starts in audio forums when some chump posts that a piece of something that cost more than it should, made an improvement that someone who wasn't there to hear it says it didn't.
Get the gist?
I did it, I heard it, I was there,who are you to tell me I didn't hear it, and how dare you call me dillusional?That's the response to the first response from the folks who know it just can't be real.
Surely if I am half a man, I'll have to make some sort of reply.And reply to the reply and on and on again and again.
I'll have to try to proove that I heard what I heard, but you need scientific proof.
Obviously I can't provide any, I am a chump, not a scientist, I bought the snake oil didn't I?
So on and on it goes and intensifies until enough is enough and two or more members of the family are banished from the fold.
The community all the better for it, or so it tells itself.
But is it?
If everything in this hobby is scrutinized to the point that if there isn't a scientific white paper to back up the claims, how much of what we take for granted today would be lost to the audio community at large?
Zip cord,stock giveaway cords of all srtipe would be all that we would have.There'd be no equipment stands or various footers, no isolation devices of the electrical and mechanical persuasion,no spikes,no fancy metals,in short there would be no aftermarket anything.
It would be a 100% snake free world,a totalitarian utopia for the less than feeble minded audiophiles that there are so many of. Those foolish folks who thrive on fairy dust need to be saved from their own foolish and wasteful ways.
At least that's the way I've seen it from my perspective.
I know it's too late to save me.Salvation passed me by decades ago.
Showing 15 responses by bryoncunningham
As should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me, I have a different perspective on arguments. I would like to share it, and hopefully you will forgive me if it sounds like an... well, like you-know-what. 1. Not all arguments are the same. There is no answer to the question Why do we argue? because the number of reasons is literally infinite. Heres a list of people with whom you might argue: your business partner, your wife, your insurance company, your mother, your neighbor, your neighbors kid, your own kid, your teacher, your student, your You get the point. Arguments are as variable as the people who participate in them. 2. Not all arguments are destructive. Two obvious examples are legal arguments and scientific arguments. Here is a list of court cases pivotal to Civil Rights in America. Every one of those cases was won or lost on the basis of an argument. Scientists argue with each other all the time. In fact, their arguments are absolutely essential to the vitality, integrity, and progress of science. And science is one of the most culturally constructive forces in existence. 3. Not all arguments are argumentative. Heres what I said about this in another thread "It may sound odd, but the great majority of the time, I don't intend arguments to be argumentative. Non-argumentative arguments are an effective way to explore an idea in depth, and I very much enjoy exploring ideas in depth, even when I turn out to be wrong. I'm aware that arguments, argumentative or not, put some people off, so I usually try to soften them with a dose of humility or humor." As another poster said, we can disagree without being disagreeable. I have had many arguments like that on Audiogon. 4. Not all arguments are an exercise in vanity. Admittedly, a great many are. But a considerable fraction of arguments are made for good reasons, like the ones for Civil Rights. And a considerable number of the people who made those arguments risked life and limb to do so. The same could be said for scientific arguments in the face of religious or political persecution, like the famous case of Galileo. Those were not exercises in vanity. They were exercises in integrity. 5. Not all arguments can be supplanted by turning the other cheek. IME, turning the other cheek, while an admirable philosophy, can only accomplish so much. Turning the other cheek cannot exonerate innocent people in prison, it cannot debunk pseudo-science, it cannot uncover the people behind the criminally negligent behavior of the recent financial crisis. Turning the other cheek rarely even stops a bully on a playground. IMO, while turning the other cheek is a great force for tolerance, it is not a great force for progress. So if you believe in the need for social, economical, or political change, you must also avail yourself of other methods. 6. People have the right to argue, especially in response to aggression or deception. I am now referring to Audiogon. Many of Audiogons participants are kind, generous, honest people. But Audiogon sees its fair share of questionable characters bullies, pedants, hucksters the list is long. While I respect any members decision to avoid confrontations with these people, I believe they should respect my decision not to, particularly when the argument is in response to aggressive or deceptive behavior. When conducted with thoughtfulness, sincerity, and good reason, arguments are not a thing to be shunned. They are a way of standing up for yourself, for other people, and for the things you believe in. Like the argument I just made. Bryon |
06-12-12: Photon46I completely agree with this, Photon. I expressed the same thing a different way in the Verificationism thread, where I said... Verificationism is a major ideological division on Audiogon, particularly on topics relating to cables, power accessories, and miscellaneous tweaks. Verificationists argue that, if a statement about cable x, power outlet y, or tweak z cannot be verified, then the statement is not valid. Anti-verificationists argue that, if they themselves hear a difference between item x and item y, then that is sufficient to make statements about those items valid.What I called 'Verificationism' you are calling Objectivism, but our meanings are very close. 06-12-12: Photon46Again, completely agree. A good illustration is the Neutrality thread, which has 396 posts of passionate debate between Objectivists and Subjectivists. After a few dozen posts, it became clear that the dividing lines of the debate went much deeper than audio. The conflicting viewpoints reflected two fundamentally different ways of looking at truth and knowledge. And you're exactly right that accepting the validity of other people's point of view requires great humility. Bryon |
Lacee - I see that you're asking the question sincerely, but I don't think the question has an answer. Or it doesn't have a SINGLE answer. Motives for arguments are as diverse as the circumstances that create them and the people who participate in them. Asking "Why do we argue?" is like asking "Why do we get married?" The answer might be: love, companionship, attachment, emotional security, financial security, to have children, to fulfill cultural expectations, to individuate from your parents, to reenact the relationships of childhood, to obtain citizenship, to avoid the draft, because she got pregnant... The same thing is true of the question "Why do we argue?" It's a question with a thousand answers. And many of those answers are elusive, because people's motives for arguing are largely unconscious, just like people's motives for getting married. Having said that, I believe that there are some COMMON reasons why people argue, both on Audiogon and in the real world. Here are some of them... 1. Rivalry 2. Narcissism 3. Truth RE (1): Rivalry. We are animals that evolved under conditions of scarcity. Access to scarce resources, particularly reproductive resources, is determined by dominance. Dominance is established either through violence or through SURROGATES for violence. IMO, many arguments are surrogates for violence. That is reflected in the principal metaphor people use when talking about arguments, namely that ARGUMENTS ARE WAR, as in He ATTACKED my position. I DEFENDED my point of view. I SHOT DOWN his ideas. I WON the argument. etc. Arguments replace physical conflict with verbal conflict. As surrogates for violence, arguments are a way of establishing dominance without killing each other. The struggle for dominance, whether violent or non-violent, is synonymous with rivalry. Because of the scarcity of resources over the course of human evolutionary history, rivalry is written into our DNA. Literally. RE (2): Narcissism. We are all, to some extent or other, narcissistic. Narcissism has been a character flaw since there was such a thing as character flaws, as evidenced by myths about narcissism, fairy tales about narcissism, biblical passages about narcissism, literature about narcissism, psychological theories about narcissism, movies about narcissism. Narcissism is, among other things, an excess of pride and a shortage of humility. IMO, the denial of ones own shortcomings and mistakes tends to make people argumentative, since the only way to maintain the idea that you're perfect is to attack people who can see that you're not. Narcissism is easy enough to find here on Audiogon or in the real world. Having said that, it does not follow, nor do I believe, that ALL arguments are a consequence of narcissism. And that brings me to RE (3): Truth. A great number of arguments are about WHAT IS TRUE. A smaller but still significant number of arguments are about HOW WE KNOW what is true. In both cases, people have an investment in the truth. The investment can be emotional, ideological, financial, religious... any number of things. The investment people feel in the truth applies not only to important things, like whether climate change is real, but also to trivial things, like whether fuse direction is audible. IMO, theres nothing wrong with being invested in the truth. And theres nothing wrong with arguing about the truth. The problem arises, IMO, when you are so invested in your beliefs being true that you cannot argue about the truth without behaving badly. Put another way, the problem is Dogmatism. Dogmatism can be a consequence of vanity, ignorance, indoctrination... the list is long. So long as people are dogmatic, arguments will go badly. And so long as they go badly, arguments will get a bad rap. But the problem isnt the argument. Its the person doing the arguing. IMO, IME, etc. Bryon |
06-20-12: Dan_edI see, Dan. I should lighten up. I shouldn't take things so seriously. My apologies. I didnt realize there was a moratorium on serious questions and serious answers. Until further notice, Ill make sure my posts are cavalier, ironic, and glib. Like this one. Was that better? Bryon |
06-20-12: Dan_edSorry to argue the point, Dan, but that's not what happened. In fact, that's the OPPOSITE of what happened. Here's what happened... 1. Lacee asked a serious and philosophical question in the OP on 6/10. 2. I gave a serious and philosophical answer on 6/11, and another one on 6/18. 3. On 6/19, you asked, "Why do people want to get philosophical in a hobby forum?" 4. Today, you said, "It is funny to watch how some get so serious, and others don't." Those comments amount to saying, "I don't like posts that are serious or philosophical." So the person telling other people how they should react is, in fact, you. I've read a lot of your posts, Dan, and you seem like a well informed and reasonable guy. I would invite you to consider that some people enjoy being philosophical from time to time, and maybe that's not such a bad thing. To my mind, the world could use more reflection, not less. Bryon |
As Al has already pointed out, Goodwins article is a transparent case of strawmanning, i.e. misrepresenting your opponent and then attacking that misrepresentation. Goodwins Objectivist is a gross distortion of the views of actual Objectivists, both in the world of audio and in the real world. Goodwins characterization of Objectivism also reveals a nearly complete lack of understanding of the use of that term in both philosophy and science, which is this 1. An Objectivist about X believes in OBJECTIVE FACTS about X. where 2. An objective fact is a fact that is INDEPENDENT OF PERSONS. So, for example, an Objectivist about chemistry believes that the facts of chemistry are independent of persons. An Objectivist about biology believes that the facts of biology are independent of persons. And so on. In this sense, nearly ALL scientists are Objectivists. The one significant exception are physicists who question Objectivism on the grounds of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle. But even the breakdown of Objectivism at the lowest levels of microphysics does not cast doubt on the validity of Objectivism at higher levels of science, i.e. macrophysics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, neuroscience, etc.. Objectivism is not only the prevailing view of scientific facts, it is arguably the SINE QUA NON of science. The contrast to all this is Subjectivism 3. A Subjectivist about X does NOT believe in objective facts about X. So, for example, a Subjectivist about morality does not believe in objective facts about morality. A Subjectivist about art does not believe in objective facts about art. IMO, the difference between Objectivism and Subjectivism in the world of audio is very similar 4. An Objectivist about audio topic X believes in objective facts about topic X. 5. A Subjectivist about audio topic X does not believe in objective facts about topic X. With that in mind, nearly all audiophiles are BOTH Objectivist and Subjectivists, as Mapman pointed out. If the topic is How much harmonic distortion does this amplifier have? then nearly all audiophiles are Objectivists. That is, they believe that there is an objective fact about the quantity of an amplifiers harmonic distortion. If, on the other hand, the topic is Who is the best blues musician of all time? then nearly all audiophiles are Subjectivists. That is, they do NOT believe that there is an objective fact about who is the best blues musician. Audiophiles split into Objectivists and Subjectivists when the topic is one where it's unclear whether there are objective facts, e.g. Can an AC outlet affect sound quality? For topics like those, the debate between Objectivism and Subjectivism tends to turn into a debate between two opposing views of knowledge 6. The Objectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there are objective facts about how, facts that are DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE. 7. The Subjectivist believes that if outlets affect sound quality, then there need not be objective facts about how, and hence whatever facts exist NEED NOT BE DISCOVERABLE BY SCIENCE. In other words, for topics for which there are no definitive answers, audiophiles tend to split along the lines of HOW MUCH CAN BE KNOWN BY SCIENCE. The opposing views are then labelled Objectivism and Subjectivism. One last thing... As Goodwin's article illustrates, Objectivism is often falsely equated with other views: 8. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Skepticism, i.e. a default ATTITUDE OF DOUBT. Some Objectivists are Skeptics, some are not. 9. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Verificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is CONFIRMED BY SCIENCE. Some Objectivists are Verificationists, some are not. 10. Objectivism is NOT the same thing as Justificationism, i.e. the view that nothing can be said to be true until it is PROVEN WITH CERTAINTY. Some Objectivists are Justificationists, some are not. As I hope is obvious by now, Goodwins depiction of Objectivism is not only uncharitable, it is reductionistic, naïve, and facile. Objectivism is a view of far greater complexity, depth, and nuance than she presents, and probably than she understands. Bryon |
07-04-12: LaceeWhile there are certainly Objectivists who fit this description, I will point out that I am an Objectivist about the majority of audio topics, and here is a list of tweaks I've tried... Custom crossovers (Mundorf caps, Mills resistors, etc.) Custom power supplies Custom internal wiring Custom internal shielding Cryo'd Romex SS impedance buffer Tube impedance buffer Ultra low noise op amps Reclocker Interconnects costing more than $2K 4 different power conditioners (2 Shunyata, 2 PS Audio) 4 different AC outlets (Shunyata, Synergistic, Maestro, PS Audio) 3 different outlet covers (nylon, aluminum, non-magnetic steel) WBT Nextgen connectors 2 Audiocom Superclocks TI Shield RCA/XLR caps ERS cloth AC noise harvesters Ferrites Various viscoelastic damping compounds Outriggers Anti-diffraction felt surrounds 3 different audiophiles fuses (Hifi Tuning, Isoclean, Furutech) Sand traps Maple platforms Gingko platforms Black Diamond Racing platforms Brass damping weights Brass cones, spikes EVS Ground enhancers Progold Ayre Acoustics glide tone Copper sleeves for power cords ...and that's off the top of my head. So there are at least some Objectivists who are willing to experiment with tweaks, even highly controversial ones. I mean, 3 different outlet covers? That should demonstrate my willingness to try nearly ANYTHING. As I mentioned at the end of my last post, being an Objectivist doesn't necessarily mean that you're a Skeptic. It's true that many Skeptics attempt to JUSTIFY their skepticism on the basis of Objectivism. That may give the impression that Objectivism and Skepticism are the same thing, but they are not. If you want an example of an audiophile who is an Objectivist but not a Skeptic, I am it. If you want an example of a real person who is an Objectivist but not a Skeptic, then Nonoise has already provided it: Scientists working at the frontiers of scientific research. Scientists are almost universally Objectivists, but the pioneering scientists are almost never Skeptics. If pioneering scientists were Skeptics, they would not labor for 10 years to build a 27 kilometer tunnel designed to search for an elusive particle that remained undiscovered for over 40 years after its initial prediction. If they were Skeptics, they would have long ago said, "To Hell with it, Higgs was an idiot, and we have plenty of bosons as it is." Some scientists did say that, and it now appears they were wrong. Thankfully for us, there were more Believers than Skeptics. Bryon |
07-04-12: AlmargThis is a point worth expanding upon. The difference between "discovered" and "discoverable" reflects two different views of science. The first view is that science is... 1. Static. 2. Reductionistic. 3. Dogmatic. The second view is that science is... 1. Revisable. 2. Expansible. 3. Provisional. There is truth in both views, insofar as older scientists tend to be more entrenched in their views than younger ones, a point made famously in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The entrenchment of *some* scientists can give the impression that science is static, reductionistic, and dogmatic. But when you look at science as a whole over a long period of time, it becomes clear that, however entrenched some scientists may be, their ideas will ALWAYS be revised, elaborated, or altogether displaced by future science. This is evident throughout the history of physics, which was repeatedly transformed from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg to the host of scientists working on Unified Field Theory. This is just one of many examples of how science is revisable, expansible, and provisional. The revisability, expansibility, and provisionality of science is relevant to debates between Objectivists and Subjectivists. Subjectivists sometimes misrepresent Objectivists as being uniformly rigid, reductionistic, or dogmatic. No doubt there are some Objectivists who behave that way, but that behavior isn't a result of their Objectivism. It's a result of their entrenchment. And that's something that can happen to anybody, Objectivist or not. Bryon |
07-05-12: AlmargI agree. A certain amount of skepticism is healthy. But so is a certain amount of open-mindedness. The trick is to balance the two, which isnt easy. I will say, Al, you always strike me as achieving a good balance between the skepticism and open-mindedness. I tend to oscillate between the two extremes. As a result, I experiment with a lot of tweaks, only to conclude that many of them don't do much of anything. Which brings me to my perception has been that there is a tendency for those who experiment extensively with tweaks, fuses, cables, power cords, etc. to disproportionately focus their experiments on choices that are at the upper end of the price range they can afford. Their experiments will result in a choice that works well for them, and that experience will be reported. That will in turn inspire others to try out the same or similar products, with good results in many cases. The end result being that a self-reinforcing belief system evolves.This is a fair comment, IMO. Looking back at my list of tweaks, I would say that there is very little correlation between price and performance, at least in my system. Ive been starting to sense that for some time, which is why I no longer buy $2K interconnects or $1K power cables. And lately Ive been having fun experimenting with DIY tweaks, some of which have a fantastic price/performance ratio, like these --DIY anti-diffraction felt surrounds for tweeters --DIY shielding, both internal and external --DIY crossovers The materials for felt surrounds is dirt cheap, around $25. The materials for DIY shielding can be a bit more expensive than that, but still nowhere near the cost of some of the tweaks sold by manufacturers. And although crossover parts can be very expensive, you dont have to spend a fortune to get a big improvement in SQ. The point is that I agree with you, Al, that some people (myself included) spend too much on tweaks, and that the money could be used to buy better equipment, DIY alternatives, or dinner with your wife. As far as the self-reinforcing belief system surrounding the world of tweaks, I like to imagine that my periodic fits of skepticism purge my brain of hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo, chicanery, and other forms of nonsense. But that itself may be a self-reinforcing belief system. :-) Bryon |