2. tech-talk
  3. 1339342082

why do we argue?

I suppose it's human nature?

Not everyone can get along,at least all of the time.

Squablles occur in the best of families,sometimes over big issues, sometimes over small ones.

So why should the audio "family" be any different?

Some forums have gone to great pains to cleanse their sites and free them from confrontations between audiophiles who can't see eye to eye, or perhaps we should say, ear to ear.

But where's the harm in all that squabbling? Really?

If someone finds it offensive, then why continue to read it, like a moth drawn to the flame,if you think it's going to harm you, don't enter.

No one is making you.

Then if you feel you have to post your objections to objectional comments(who made you the boss?)then you are not the solution ,you're just adding to the problem.

Like bringing gasoline to put out the fire.

You're going to be on one side or the other,or perhaps you are the "let's kiss and make up type" "can't we all be friends?"audiophile who has only everyone's best wishes at heart.

There's always a "mom" to come between two fighting brothers isn't there,and you know she can't take sides,calling a truce is her job.

But until the real issues have been addressed, the argument is never over.

It's always there under the surface,just waiting to boil over given half the chance.Power cords one day, fuses the next, and demagging lp's? Please!

It usually starts in audio forums when some chump posts that a piece of something that cost more than it should, made an improvement that someone who wasn't there to hear it says it didn't.

Get the gist?

I did it, I heard it, I was there,who are you to tell me I didn't hear it, and how dare you call me dillusional?That's the response to the first response from the folks who know it just can't be real.

Surely if I am half a man, I'll have to make some sort of reply.And reply to the reply and on and on again and again.

I'll have to try to proove that I heard what I heard, but you need scientific proof.

Obviously I can't provide any, I am a chump, not a scientist, I bought the snake oil didn't I?

So on and on it goes and intensifies until enough is enough and two or more members of the family are banished from the fold.

The community all the better for it, or so it tells itself.

But is it?

If everything in this hobby is scrutinized to the point that if there isn't a scientific white paper to back up the claims, how much of what we take for granted today would be lost to the audio community at large?

Zip cord,stock giveaway cords of all srtipe would be all that we would have.There'd be no equipment stands or various footers, no isolation devices of the electrical and mechanical persuasion,no spikes,no fancy metals,in short there would be no aftermarket anything.

It would be a 100% snake free world,a totalitarian utopia for the less than feeble minded audiophiles that there are so many of. Those foolish folks who thrive on fairy dust need to be saved from their own foolish and wasteful ways.

At least that's the way I've seen it from my perspective.

I know it's too late to save me.Salvation passed me by decades ago.
lacee
whart's avatar
whart
3,081 posts
 
Just like any group of people, with diverse perspectives, experience and objectives, you will get disagreements. How those disagreements are handled may reveal more about the person than the merit of whatever it is that they are arguing about. Today, for some reason, I thought about Enid Lumley. Remember her? She used to write a column for the Absolute Sound back in the 80's, i think it was, and some of her ideas at the time, seemed pretty wacky. (She was obsessed with AC polarity, a controversial issue, but not something that was completely crazy, and some of her ideas about tweaking had merit). (Sadly, she passed away a few years ago).
I've learned a hell of alot here, when I've asked questions about electrical issues, experience in component matching and sound, etc.
There is no doubt ego at work here for all of us- who doesn't think, after doing this, right or wrong, for however many years, that they know something?
But, i'm always learning, and always willing to contribute. And I think the majority of people here are well-intentioned, even when they are entirely misguided. :)
tpreaves's avatar
tpreaves
2,687 posts
 
I thought I was wrong once but, I was just mistaken.
ngjockey
1,042 posts
 
What a load of *%$#!
ngjockey
1,042 posts
 
Just kidding.
bryoncunningham
890 posts
 
As should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me, I have a different perspective on arguments. I would like to share it, and hopefully you will forgive me if it sounds like an... well, like you-know-what.

1. Not all arguments are the same.

There is no answer to the question “Why do we argue?” because the number of reasons is literally infinite. Here’s a list of people with whom you might argue: your business partner, your wife, your insurance company, your mother, your neighbor, your neighbor’s kid, your own kid, your teacher, your student, your… You get the point. Arguments are as variable as the people who participate in them.

2. Not all arguments are destructive.

Two obvious examples are legal arguments and scientific arguments. Here is a list of court cases pivotal to Civil Rights in America. Every one of those cases was won or lost on the basis of an argument.

Scientists argue with each other all the time. In fact, their arguments are absolutely essential to the vitality, integrity, and progress of science. And science is one of the most culturally constructive forces in existence.

3. Not all arguments are argumentative.

Here’s what I said about this in another thread… "It may sound odd, but the great majority of the time, I don't intend arguments to be argumentative. Non-argumentative arguments are an effective way to explore an idea in depth, and I very much enjoy exploring ideas in depth, even when I turn out to be wrong. I'm aware that arguments, argumentative or not, put some people off, so I usually try to soften them with a dose of humility or humor."

As another poster said, we can disagree without being disagreeable. I have had many “arguments” like that on Audiogon.

4. Not all arguments are an exercise in vanity.

Admittedly, a great many are. But a considerable fraction of arguments are made for good reasons, like the ones for Civil Rights. And a considerable number of the people who made those arguments risked life and limb to do so. The same could be said for scientific arguments in the face of religious or political persecution, like the famous case of Galileo. Those were not exercises in vanity. They were exercises in integrity.

5. Not all arguments can be supplanted by turning the other cheek.

IME, turning the other cheek, while an admirable philosophy, can only accomplish so much. Turning the other cheek cannot exonerate innocent people in prison, it cannot debunk pseudo-science, it cannot uncover the people behind the criminally negligent behavior of the recent financial crisis. Turning the other cheek rarely even stops a bully on a playground.

IMO, while turning the other cheek is a great force for tolerance, it is not a great force for progress. So if you believe in the need for social, economical, or political change, you must also avail yourself of other methods.

6. People have the right to argue, especially in response to aggression or deception.

I am now referring to Audiogon. Many of Audiogon’s participants are kind, generous, honest people. But Audiogon sees its fair share of questionable characters… bullies, pedants, hucksters… the list is long. While I respect any members’ decision to avoid confrontations with these people, I believe they should respect my decision not to, particularly when the argument is in response to aggressive or deceptive behavior.

When conducted with thoughtfulness, sincerity, and good reason, arguments are not a thing to be shunned. They are a way of standing up for yourself, for other people, and for the things you believe in.

Like the argument I just made.

Bryon
More to discover