cleeds,
Thanks for your answer.
Here are some thoughts that come to mind when I read it.
That would be reasonable advice only insofar as someone has been using ’proven effective’ techniques to begin with. Obviously a great many people fall for deceit, propaganda, scams and a huge number of other errors. You don’t want to say "keep using the same technique" to them. So it seems we would need to refine this advice to discern "effective" (or reliable, more reasonable) techniques of inquiry vs ineffective/unreliable.
I admit I don’t get this reference to "fear." If we were talking about the hobby of cliff climbing, well then yeah. But I can’t remember the last time I felt "fear" related to my high end audio hobby (except perhaps fearing dropping my speakers when transporting them). Would you like to elaborate on what role you think "fear" plays in high end audio?
Generally speaking, an illusion is a mistaken prima facie inference from a misleading sense stimulus.
A delusion is a mistaken belief held despite what should be motivating evidence to the contrary.
Being aware of one does not protect against the other. You can be deluded and experience illusions. You can understand some things to be illusions, but be deluded simply by an error-strewn thought process that leads you to a conclusion you will not give up. On the other hand, one can fall for any number of illusions, but so long as one is open to error-correction, this will not amount to delusions based on those illusions.
But I take what I infer to be an implied point: that being fooled by an illusion is not the same as being deluded. I would certainly endorse that! It’s one of the mistaken assumptions I have to keep battling. Suggesting someone may be falling for a perceptual mistake doesn’t suggest they are "deluded" or "deluding themselves." They just don’t mean the same thing. However, IF someone persists in a belief derived from a perceptual mistake, and that belief is incorrigible in the face of any counter evidence, then it can cross into a form of self-delusion.
Which, again, suggests the relevance of having an error-correction technique.
Agreed. That all makes sense. Though, as before, it also needs the context of what constitutes "good research," "reliable testing methods" etc. After all, Flat Earthers would endorse every word of what you just wrote as well, as they question expert views, think about it themselves, do their own tests etc. The problem is, they are operating on various faulty assumptions, and poor methodology.
Hopefully we would want to avoid that in the realm of high end audio.
But it often seems like this is not the case.
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply!
Thanks for your answer.
Here are some thoughts that come to mind when I read it.
The best approach is to use the same techniques that have proven effective in the rest of your life. After all, deceit and propaganda are everywhere.
That would be reasonable advice only insofar as someone has been using ’proven effective’ techniques to begin with. Obviously a great many people fall for deceit, propaganda, scams and a huge number of other errors. You don’t want to say "keep using the same technique" to them. So it seems we would need to refine this advice to discern "effective" (or reliable, more reasonable) techniques of inquiry vs ineffective/unreliable.
First, ditch the fear. It’s a negative emotion that can cloud your judgment.
I admit I don’t get this reference to "fear." If we were talking about the hobby of cliff climbing, well then yeah. But I can’t remember the last time I felt "fear" related to my high end audio hobby (except perhaps fearing dropping my speakers when transporting them). Would you like to elaborate on what role you think "fear" plays in high end audio?
understand the subtle distinction between illusion and delusion. If you can avoid being fooled by illusion, then you are not much at risk for delusion.
Generally speaking, an illusion is a mistaken prima facie inference from a misleading sense stimulus.
A delusion is a mistaken belief held despite what should be motivating evidence to the contrary.
Being aware of one does not protect against the other. You can be deluded and experience illusions. You can understand some things to be illusions, but be deluded simply by an error-strewn thought process that leads you to a conclusion you will not give up. On the other hand, one can fall for any number of illusions, but so long as one is open to error-correction, this will not amount to delusions based on those illusions.
But I take what I infer to be an implied point: that being fooled by an illusion is not the same as being deluded. I would certainly endorse that! It’s one of the mistaken assumptions I have to keep battling. Suggesting someone may be falling for a perceptual mistake doesn’t suggest they are "deluded" or "deluding themselves." They just don’t mean the same thing. However, IF someone persists in a belief derived from a perceptual mistake, and that belief is incorrigible in the face of any counter evidence, then it can cross into a form of self-delusion.
Which, again, suggests the relevance of having an error-correction technique.
Avoid snap judgments and evaluate "expert" advice carefully. Do at least some of your own research. That means not simply reading the opinions of others, but diving deep enough to conduct your own analysis. In audio, that means you are going to have to do some of your own, first-hand testing.
Agreed. That all makes sense. Though, as before, it also needs the context of what constitutes "good research," "reliable testing methods" etc. After all, Flat Earthers would endorse every word of what you just wrote as well, as they question expert views, think about it themselves, do their own tests etc. The problem is, they are operating on various faulty assumptions, and poor methodology.
Hopefully we would want to avoid that in the realm of high end audio.
But it often seems like this is not the case.
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply!