The Power of Assumptions


A few weeks ago I was in some leadership classes at work that were taught by an PhD Industrial Psychologist. It was very interesting and I learned a lot. He was very knowledgeable about what is going on inside the brain during different actions and thought processes. One example was that the act of throwing a ball to someone on the move (i.e. playing catch) uses the same pathways in your brain that all delayed gratification decisions do. You are holding the ball while visualizing where the ball and person will meet at a point in the future. This is why it is very important to play arch with your kids. It trains their brains to use these pathways and help them develop the skills necessary to delay gratification.

How does this relate to audio? Another thing he takes about was the power of assumptions. When we believe/assume that something is true the way our brain reacts to it chemically and electrically is identical rather it is in fact true or not. The secondary effect that happens is that we then become supremely aware of every little thing that supports our assumption and we blindly ignor anything contradictory. He said that this is why it is so difficult to get someone to change their opinion of you. His point was that we needed to be aware of this involuntary response and be willing to ask ourselves if there was any other way to look at a given situation.

It made me think about how this directly relates to audio. What we assume can actually have a stronger impact our experience than the objective facts. For example, if I assume that solid state amplifiers are inferior it will be extremely difficult for me to have a positive experience with one because my brain will be working overtime to find a way to support my assumption. It might take hearing a solid state amplifier while believing it to be a tube amplifier to force my to be objective and at least consider that a solid state amplifier might sound great.
mceljo
AND- I suppose if one believes(and consistently reinforces their assumptions) that all amplifiers sound alike, improved cabling makes no audible differences, and so on: THEIR brain will, "chemically and electrically" adjust itself to make those things true(for them), as well. The fact may be that a vast number are weak-minded enough, to allow their hopes, assumptions and preconceived notions cloud their ability to objectively or accurately judge what they hear. But certainly; not everyone is handicapped thus.
@ the OP - forgetting about audio for a moment, how did that speech relate to "leadership"?
Charro - The information was related to being aware of how we naturally react to the world based on our assumptions so that information can be used to learn to be more open to our assumptions being wrong. Knowledge is powerful.

Rodman99999 - The irony is that you assume someone is "weak minded" because they don't hear the differences that you do. They would probably assume the opposite. The point is that it doesn't matter if you are really hearing or a difference or have just convinced yourself that you do, your reaction to people with different opinions will be the same.

It isn't about being right or wrong in your assumptions, it's about understanding your natural reaction that results from your assumptions.
Here is another way to think about this. Suppose you are in a group of 10 people and told that it was known that 9 out of the 10 people in the group held an incorrect assumption on a given topic. Everyone would assume they were correct and it was someone else that was wrong. We simply choose to believe that we are right even with the odds stacked against us. People agree with generalities as long as they don't consider themselves in the group being generalized about, once it gets personal almost everyone will object and assume that they are the exception.
That brings up the play/movie "12 Angry Men". Only, Fonda's character was right all along. :-)

Mceljo, did your instructor bring up the role of semantics in detecting B.S. (deliberate or not) as it occurs instead of going back and sifting through the carnage of the argument to find the crucible of it all?

Or, is it conventional wisdom to assume that both sides have a point (another semantic error) and that it doesn't matter how poorly they present it?

I only ask as some points are so obviously in error but the meme of the moment is that all sides have a point and are valid and nothing is settled matter. Those types of assumptions only help to derail any hope of forward momentum or resolution.

All the best,
Nonoise