Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews1
From: s888wh...@aol.com (S888Wheel)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: DBT and Penn and Teller's histerical "water test"
Date: 27 Jun 2003 14:25:37 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 106
Approved: davidba...@bigfoot.com
Message-ID: <bdhk510c5h@enews1.newsguy.com>
References: <bdf2c702qp0@enews1.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-517.newsdawg.com
X-Original-Date: 27 Jun 2003 04:52:52 GMT
X-Original-Message-ID: <20030627005252.07717.00001012@mb-m24.aol.com>

>> I said
>
>>>
>>>> An entertaining show definitely. But the folks who don't fall for the gag
>>>don't
>>>> make the final edit. They don't proove the point. They aren't as
>>>entertaining.
>>>> ironically different waters do taste different in blind tests.

>
>> Steve said
>
>>>
>>>
>>>I doubt that the point was that *everyone* 'falls for the gag'.  The point
>>>was that people *can* 'fall for' such gags, because perception is often
>>>influenced by suggestion. 
>

I said

>
>> I am confident that the point if the show is to entertain skeptics and slap
>> believers in the face. It is sort of the antithesis of shows like "In
>search
>> of"

Steven said

>
>Being a skeptic in a credulous world 
>is a thankless task.  We deserve a bit of entertainment now and then.

Don't get me wrong. I like the show. I am a big fan of Penn and Teller. I hated
"In search of".

I said

>
>> So... it is something to remember when they made their point. Yeah some
>people
>> are very suseptable to suggestion. Knowing that is impowering and it is
>great
>> of them to point that out. They didn't prove anything about the water
>though.
>

Steven said

>
>I dont't think the point was to prove anythign about the water.  The water
>was already *the water*.  The 'more expensive' stuff wasn't different
>from the 'cheap' stuff.   Yet when people reported difference, they 
>said the 'pricy' stuff tasted better.  Gee, what does that mean?
>That the 'pricey' stuff really was not only different, but better?  

Yeah, the people they showed liked the expensive stuff. My point is you cannot
draw global conclusions on selected evidence and don't think for one moment the
material you see on this show isn't selected.

I said

>
>> Hey, an old commercial used to catch people at expensive restaurants
>accepting
>> reeze dried coffee as the good stuff. Did they prove that the freeze dried
>> coffee was that good or that you don't have to look very far to find an
>idiot?
>> One doesn't know after the editing.

Steven said

>
>It proves that perception of  'good' can be very tied up in 'expectation'.
>This simple, well-worn concept makes lots of audiophiles nervous and
>defensive.
>

It proves you can fool some of the people some of the time and with editing you
can make your crap coffee look better than it really is at the expense of a
sucker.

>
>> Steven said
>
>>> The crux
>>>of the Penn and Teller joke was that the *same* water was reported to have
>>>tasted very differen, depending on what the drinkers were told about it 
>>>beforehand.  Sound familiar?
>

I said

>
>> I think the crux was that some people are easily fooled. I don't think they
>> were showing everyone is easily fooled.

Steven said

>
>I trust you can make the obvious analogy to audiophilia yourself at this
>point.
>

Yes, and many many other things as well. Hey, most people still believe it is
dangerous to swim right after a meal.