@wesheadley You seem to be conflating three distinct points. First, unconventional tweaks or other system components not grounded in scientific theory or results are likely bogus. I disagree on two counts. First, the world is a mysterious place and science understands very little of it. Second, much scientific theory is stimulated by anomalous empirical discoveries, and we may soon find scientific studies exploring and confirming some of the observations we make as devotees of our hobby.
Your second point is that my experiences with group listening sessions is contaminated by group bias or group think. I can’t deny that completely. Peer pressure is real and it is potent! What’s worse is it becomes more important as the conversation progresses. Inevitably, opinions tend to blend. But, we are not a mob; we are a group of informed and interested individuals with our own expectations and opinions. There always is a variety of observations and conclusions. The group bias is not nearly as powerful as you envision.
Your third point, that the costs of some improvements in product categories are overpriced by the companies that offer them in the market, is noncontroversial to me; though, i’m sympathetic and somewhat receptive to the argument that those costs often go into research and development that benefits the entire audiophile community in the long run. I’m making no accusations here, but I feel compelled to add that I don’t see the value in denigrating someone who chooses to spend their money for marginal improvements in their sound. I feel such criticism is both crass and disrespectful.