The science of opinion ...

They may conclude independently whether a benefit was there or not. They may conclude there was a benefit when in fact there was no perceptible change at all. When they go online and see others doing it, it reinforces their perception. This happens often in many areas and people are 100% convinced even though what they believe is impossible.

This forum allows anonymity which can encourage less sheepleness, if not publicly in the forums, at least privately. Some protest a lot, but you see seeds of doubt or understanding every once in a while.  Also remember the majority rarely or never post, they just come to read for opinions.

atdavid OP
They may conclude independently whether a benefit was there or not. They may conclude there was a benefit when in fact there was no perceptible change at all. When they go online and see others doing it, it reinforces their perception. This happens often in many areas and people are 100% convinced even though what they believe is impossible.

>>>>Or they may conclude independently there was NO benefit when there in fact was a perceptible change. Or they may conclude there was NO benefit but their system and/or their ears failed. That’s why double blind testing is a scam.

I am starting to suspect someobody’s been following the wrong.....you know,
🐑 🐑 🐑 🐑. 🚶🏻‍♂️

👍

I am not starting to suspect, I know someone does not understand double blind testing ... well pretty much at all.

With a large group, double blind testing removes individual bias, and performance issues, especially since you can look at group data to determine if any individual performs significantly above average suggesting further investigation is warranted.


On an individual level, if your system or ears are not good enough  ... well then double blind will prevent you from spending with your eyes on audio equipment, which is a fools path unless done knowingly, except for really cool looking turntables (which are art). You are not a fool are you geoff?

Thank you, map man!