amg56, glupson and others.
To the question "Why keep engaging MG and his followers on this thread?" my response is: because I think it’s an important subject.
And while many think "why bother, you won’t change anyone’s mind" that is often not the case. We may not change the mind of the person we are engaging (though that can happen - and my mind can be changed), but many others read public forums and they can weigh both sides, and minds can be changed.
Why change anyone’s mind?
Because, as I’ve argued, the nature of Michael Green’s - and many of his follower’s - posts exhibit features that are inherently dysfunctional for honest discourse between people who may have different views. And they actually exemplify a very common problem in public forums, and certainly in high end audio.
The issue is that anyone can act with good will in conversation with people who agree; but we need to act with good will, a major component being Intellectual Honesty, with people who don’t agree with us, or who bring a different perspective.
But it’s really hard to get this to happen because people are not good at getting underneath their own bias.
So let me use a dramatic example, just to make a point: consider being a minority among a racist majority community. To the majority, everything is just swell, because there is enough people agreeing with them and supporting their view that the boat isn’t being rocked.
But the minority person notices how differently he is treated, how attitudes change, the hospitable and welcoming, open nature of the majority suddenly seems to drain away. The minority is rejected not on what he has to say, but on other factors that make the majority uncomfortable: different look, skin color, even different perspective.
Now, to pull that back from the drama of racism and how it relates to my point: I have often found myself among a "minority" in the high end audio hobby. High End Audio is rife with the supposition that subjectivity rules the day, and is the indisputable bedrock for evaluating audio.
Some of us feel much more cautious about this, and recognize that this is far shakier ground than many audiophiles believe. But this is generally unwelcome by the majority.
So what happens is that, when the talk turns to the tweakier side in any way - cables, "tuning," etc - if you go along with the prevailing sentiment that "everything makes a difference" your comments will tend to be greeted warmly as welcome input. But if you offer a different view "Well, here’s why I don’t go along with that, and I’d like to see better evidence in the way of X or Y..." then suddenly the Good Will tends to dry up.
What happens, a lot, is that the actual substance and argument present is not addressed - or if so barely substantially - and instead the replies turn to attacking the skeptic’s character. The person who isn’t just accepting the claim or status quo is depicted as "negative" or "argumentative" or "angry" or "trolling" etc. And these comments on the CHARACTER of the skeptic’s post - usually based on strawmen ideas about the person’s motivations and arguments - are used to dismiss and not bother interacting with the arguments.
This is such a prevalent fallacy and phenomenon that it has a name:
Tone Trolling.
And much of what Michael and his followers have posted here are in exactly this mode of discourse. From the very first reply, Michael dismissed the content of my argument, to make negative implications about my character as an excuse not to answer my questions and concerns. This has continued this whole thread. (Whereas I have done my best to understand, ask for clarification, and address what I can infer to be the content of Michael’s claims and arguments).
And as I said, as this is emblematic of a wider problem in such discourse.
One of the things cults are known for (and other fringe belief systems) is isolating their beliefs - creating a "safe space" where the beliefs will only find support, and discouraging dissenting opinions by appeals to the sinful motivations of those who would dissent.
But that of course isn’t going to work when you have to present your case to the wider world. In fact, it is an inherently dysfunctional mode of thinking, a bad bias to have, when you export it to public discussion where you will absolutely be dealing with some people who disagree, or who bring different perspectives and arguments. Then...all you have is either your actual arguments and evidence....or you retreat back to Tone Trolling "you’re a meanie so I’m not going to answer your arguments" strategies. And then...even going back to the safe space. (Hello Tuneland!)
So, again, in a nutshell, it’s my aim to highlight this pernicious, inherently dysfunctional mode of discourse where people are "open" to ideas and friendly discourse - but only insofar as it supports their own beliefs.
Whereas they will react to challenges to what they have said by turning to character assessments and trolling "why you so angry?" "why are you so dogmatic?" etc replies. And then wondering why they are engendering acrimony.
It would be so much better if we can just address each other’s points, and ask for clarification if needed, provide clarification, really try understanding and addressing arguments. Even if someone has presented a case, and you have taken their emotional state to be "angry," it’s still a sign of intellectual honesty to not avoid a question or point if it’s pertinent. Or even clarify one’s position "no, this is what I meant." I don’t give a darn for instance when Geoff K makes another angry sounding rant about my arguments. Whatever. But if he ever makes an interesting point, or yet again misrepresents my view, I’ve responded to make my position as clear as possible.
BTW, the difference from mere tone trolling/evasion of the type I’ve talked about and, say, my first post in the thread is this: I did indeed point to the problematic nature of Michael’s post - it’s negativity. But I did this in order to INCREASE the possibility of honest discussion - explaining why the content of his post was likely to cause more heat then light, and I went on to ask him to explain his position more clearly, and I gave my own thoughts on the subject. So far from dismissing Michael’s post, I did my very best to engage it! Further, I have remained supportive that the idea some of his techniques and products may be excellent, and open to other claims pending actual good answers to my questions.
Cheers,
