"11-18-14: Lewm
Zd542, The idea of observer (in this case "listener") bias is much older than this discussion. It has long been taken as a given in the design of any study that involves opinion or human judgement of any kind and that purports to be "scientific". When you then add the fact that one has paid for the device under scrutiny, the bias factor is only compounded. We are all guilty of it; one cannot divorce one's judgement from subconscious bias. Thus you could say I disagree with your premise that listener bias is not a big factor in the formulation of opinions put forth in this and many other forums. That said, please note that it was not I who claimed that my quote was the quote of the year. Quote of the year was not my goal, but thanks for that, Phil."
Reading my post again, I think I could have done a better job explaining my point. I'm not saying that listening bias doesn't happen, I just don't think it can be applied in the manner that you suggest. Look at this once more.
'Listener bias is huge, once one has paid good money for a tweak.'
What type of bias? Lets say 2 people that are financially equal (they make about the same money), buy the same expensive tweak. One person can have an attitude like "For $xxx amount of money, this new tweak should really make my system sound great", while the next person may say "$xxx is an awful lot of money, I hope this damn tweak works.". Both are legitimate examples of how listening bias may be a factor in ones judgement of a particular tweak, but they're practically opposite views. Since we don't have any idea of an individual's personality traits, I don't see how any accurate and responsible judgement/recommendation can be made. We don't have any where near enough info, and even if we did, are we qualified to make assessments of this nature? So, my position in all this is to just not go there. To me, it seems like you can do just as much harm, as good, by bringing psychology into all this.
"That said, please note that it was not I who claimed that my quote was the quote of the year. Quote of the year was not my goal, but thanks for that, Phil."
OK. I do note that you didn't ask for quote of the year. Fair enough. But I also note that you thank Phil for calling it quote of the year. This is interesting. Phil's comment may bias your future posts. The question I have, is will this positive reinforcement effect your accuracy? Maybe you'll just guess more often because you subconsciously judge yourself more knowledgeable, or maybe you'll do more research before answering posts due to the new burden placed on you in winning quote of the year. Phil, I'm hoping you keep track of his progress and give us some updates on which direction he's headed. Its all up to you now.
