Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
Thank you for your efforts to cut through the BS claims of so much unnecessarily expensive gear in audioland... particularly your efforts with cables and such. I will point out though that I got pretty thoroughly mocked on your site when I explained that I like the sound of the Heresy IV, even though they "resonate." On the other hand, the etiquette on THIS site is generally no better, as you are experiencing. |
Ok, cool. Nobody is forcing audiophiles to become more educated. But it's great that Amir is testing manufacturer's claims so that knowledge is available for the many audiophiles who actually do care (but who don't have the equipment or technical know-now to vet those claims themselves).
|
i take this from Wikipedia...The book is free on the internet...it is the best book ever written on this "delicate" and deep subject... Cipolla add to this matter of definition a clarity nobody can negate...
«This second essay, "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" ("Le leggi fondamentali della stupidità umana", 1976),[3][4][5] by Cipolla , an italian economist, explores the controversial subject of stupidity. Stupid people are seen as a group, more powerful by far than major organizations such as the Mafia and the military-industrial complex, which without regulations, leaders, or manifesto nonetheless manages to operate to great effect and with incredible coordination.[citation needed] These are Cipolla’s five fundamental laws of stupidity:
Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager. 
By creating a graph of Cipolla’s two factors, we obtain four groups of people.
Helpless people contribute to society but are taken advantage of by it; Intelligent people contribute to society and leverage their contributions into personal benefits; Stupid people are counterproductive to both their and others’ interests; Bandits pursue their own self-interest even when this poses a net detriment to societal welfare. An additional category of ineffectual people either exists in its own right or can be considered to be in the center of the graph. As is evident from the third law, Cipolla identifies two factors to consider when exploring human behavior:
Cipolla further refines his definition of "bandits" and "naïve people" by noting that members of these groups can either add to or detract from the general welfare, depending on the relative gains (or losses) that they cause themselves and society. A bandit may enrich himself more or less than he impoverishes society, and a naïve person may enrich society more or less than he impoverishes himself and/or allows himself to be impoverished. Graphically, this idea is represented by a line of slope -1, which bisects the second and fourth quadrants and intersects the y-axis at the origin. The naive people to the left of this line are thus "semi-stupid" because their conduct creates/allows a net drain of societal welfare; some bandits may fit this description as well, although many bandits such as sociopaths, psychopaths, and non-pathological "jerks" and amoralists may act with full knowledge of the net negative consequences to a society that they neither identify with nor care about.»
«Non-stupid people are an imperfect and inconsistent group. Sometimes we act intelligently, sometimes we are abused, or selfish villains… And sometimes we are a bit of both. The stupid, in comparison, are models of consistency, acting at all times with unwavering idiocy. However, constant stupidity is the only thing constant about stupidity. That’s what makes stupid people so dangerous. Explains Cipolla. Essentially stupid people are dangerous and harmful because reasonable people find it difficult to imagine and understand unreasonable behavior. An intelligent person can understand the logic of a bandit. The actions of the bandit follow a pattern of rationality: a wicked rationality indeed, but always rational. The bandit wants an advantage for his account. Since he is not smart enough to find ways to get the plus as well as provide you with a plus, he will produce his plus by making a minus appear on your account. It’s all bad, but it’s rational and if you’re rational, you can predict it. You can predict the actions of a bandit, his evil maneuvers and therefore you can build your defenses. With a stupid person, all this is absolutely impossible, as the third fundamental law explains. The stupid person will harass you without any reason, without any advantage, without any plan, at the most improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if, when, where, how and why he or she will attack you. Facing a stupid individual, you are completely at his mercy.»
https://bonpote.com/en/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/ |
