I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.
I just can't clear my head of this. I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep.
Idolatry of science is not science, but technology cult, see Bill Gates who want to treat viruses in biology in his last book like virus in computer... Shutting all them down at once!... Stupidity is not opposed in the same person to a I.Q. over 120 it seems... 😁😊 Objectivistic zealots are more limited than subjectivist fetichist in the audio arena ? Why? Because in psycho-acoustic the EARS are king and queen...The objective installation and numbers are only the 7 working dwarves... |
I proved for myself that a great audiophile experience can be reach AT LOW COST... Modulo minimal control over mechanical,electrical and acoustical working domensions.. Price tag means something only in design not in sound.. The correlation between price tag and sound is MEDIATED completely by the three working domensions controls...
|
It took me about 5 minutes to find other academics to call out Peterson on his limited interpretations of creativity not to mention method errors in assuming even for simple creativity tests that test subjects are levelled in their existing abilities. I will leave it to you to look up what that means. I will give you a hint it is related to cultural influences on IQ tests.
However, it is best to simply use Jordan’s own words at 3:31 in this video, "The CAQ is also potently predicted by IQ as expected". CAQ is a creativity score.
Jordan is well known and I even agree with many things he says including the need for creative people to have some other grounding. This is often an issue with high academic performers in physics, chemistry and engineering due to the creativity of their divergent thinking having the potential to make multiple focuses challenging. He is well known but his ideas are not all universally accepted. Previous to his gender stance he was a known but not exceptional academic.
|
Says "the guy" typing that on his cell phone or computer , developed using hard core science, communicated over the Internet (also hard core science), probability with some RF and optical thrown in (also hard core science). And what does it all have in common? All developed by people who couldn't give a care to philosophy that tries to answer questions that most people could not care less about and even if a philosopher comes up with an "answer" 10 other will disagree and 10000 people totally unaware someone was even thinking about it will still go about moving the world forward. Even philosophers debate the death of philosophy and whether it has any meaning let alone value in a world where life's mysteries are one by one decoded and demystified. One thing is true, philosophers don't seem to have intended philosophy to be weaponized as a justification for willful ignorance nor as an excuse for a lack of personal enlightenment and certainly not as a shield to avoid the harsh reality of knowledge.
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-death-of-philosophy/9780231147781
|
