Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

This is an intriguing topic for me, not least because of a recent incidence. A couple of weeks ago I was selling over head-fi my Grado RS2i headphone, a much sought after item, to a gentleman in Sweden. On my way to the post office I got a vague hunch that I should cancel the transaction, but because the Swedish gentleman has already paid then I did not heed my intuition and went ahead and shipped the parcel to Sweden. Not long thereafter I received an email from the buyer that he received the parcel but was forced to pay heavy custom duties because I have specified the value of the phone on the accompanying shipping documents. I wasn’t conscious of the issues because I shipped like these from my country to the US many times without problem. To pacify the Swedish gentleman I made a refund to him, so that the net price was such that I would never have sold the phones at such low price. I told the Swedish gentleman what happened, and that the refund was my tuition fees for not listening to that fleeting inner voice. He wrote me back “you should always listen to your intuition”.

Now this incidence seemingly has no bearing to the OP’s question of why do intelligent people deny audio differences, but I do see a correlation. I guess sooner or later one would come across people who insist only upon the measurable, logical, the calculated way that everything that cannot comes to terms within which framework are literally banished, repressed, push away, much like the OP’s brother holding a Masters Degree in Education would not acknowledge perceivable audio differences, when everyone else could hear it. The reason this person would not acknowledge perceivable audio differences is akin to the mistake I made when my conscious reasoning mind is not willing to acknowledge the vague feeling that something is wrong, because logically I could not sensibly discern a reason thereof. In the same way the OP's brother could not hear audio differences with cables because the frequency spectrum should scientifically be all the same.

I don’t know who taught DaVinci about physics, but I asked what makes his Mona Lisa such work of art. One could, of course, says that she has a mysterious smile or that there is something elusive about her, etc., but truth be told our reasoning minds are not able to explain that very thing that makes this painting a masterpiece. That which speak to the heart do so in a language not comprehend by the logical mind. The conscious mind plan, solves problem, etc., the unconscious mind transcend.

IMHO there exists vast difference between intelligent and wise, one of which being the latter acknowledge there is only so much that the mind could comprehend, and requires a healthy dose of humbleness.

hi tbg:

our senses do not provide certainty or knowledge.

anecdotal information regarding differences in sound are purely opinions not facts.

audiophiles disagree as to differences in sound or whether differences exist. its just a matter of differences in physiology and perhaps, prejudice, bias, or pre-conceived notions before listening that can explain denial of differences.

Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

Perhaps it is for the same reasons that only the stupid can not see the emperor's glorious new clothes?

As people mature they develop a world view, or ideology, about how the world "works". It doesn't really matter whether the ideology is true, factual, provable or even shared by others, but these factors do come into play. When confronted with something that doesn't conform to their world view people don't alter their ideology, they deny the facts. A few examples:

The world view -- President Obama isn't a natural born citizen. The facts -- there's a birth certificate attested to by the state of Hawaii. The denial -- it's not a birth certificate, it's Photoshoped, the typing fonts are suspect, etc. A recent poll shows roughly 50% of voters of identify themselves as Republican still have doubts about President Obama's citizenship.

The world view -- the End of Times and the Rapture were supposed to happen this past weekend. The facts -- it didn't. The denial -- God has given us more time to atone, who cannot truly understand how the deity works, a fallible human misunderstood God's message and the end time is now coming in 20XX, etc. Sociological studies have concluded that people who believe in apocalyptic scenarios actually increase their spiritual commitment after the apocalypse date has passed.

Now are these ideological driven people non-intelligent? Of course not. Whether the topic is climate change, capital punishment, gun ownership, recreational drug use, evolution, capitalism and democracy, vegetarianism or religion, intelligent people seem to have widely diverging and frequently polar opposite opinions.

In the audiophile world it plays out along these line:

The world view -- if it measures well, it will sound good. The facts -- some well speced products sound like shit, some poorly speced products sound real good. The denial -- You're not measuring the right parameters, you don't know what accurate sound is/you like the sound of distortion, your measurement techniques are faulty, etc.

The world view -- I only trust my ears. The facts -- standard scientific tests have repeatedly demonstrated how variable and how easily fooled human senses are. The denial -- science doesn't know everything, I hear a difference, your system isn't revealing enough to show the difference, double blind tests don't work, etc.

We all need a world view/ideology to make sense of what would otherwise be a bewildering, indecipherable series of unrelated events. At the same time that world view blind us and prevents us front looking at information in an unbiased manner.

Mrtennis, I think we start testing hypotheses from birth, and we use our senses. In my methods courses, I would pick a member of the Corp (those in the ROTC) and ask him to stand in the small room and then to turn in a direction where there was a wall after about 20 feet. I told him to walk slowly. He would stop short of the wall, and I would ask why he stopped. He would say because there is a wall. I said I didn't understand, and he would say because I cannot walk through a wall. I would then say why not? He would look at me as though I was crazy. I would then ask him to come forward and turn so as to walk into the door. I would again ask him to walk and to continue until I said stop. He did and opened the door. I would ask why did you do that, and he would reply that is the only way he could continue to walk.

Obviously, kids learn all of this early plus more and do so by hypothesis testing, including walking into space at a stairway, if parents aren't cautious.

Obviously, observations are not convincing to others but are most convincing to the person experiencing them.

The real question in all of these questions about intersubjectively transmittable data is whether one with the experiences gives a damn whether others are convinced. In science, obviously we have to convince others, but is buying audio components a science? Is it even a science for manufacturers. Even were they to have the best "evidence" that their speaker is the best, if buyers didn't like what they heard, he would go out of business.