This was one of their "Bullsh*t" programs on Showtime. It did show
how suggestible people can be. A waiter presented a "water list" of
all of the "premium bottled water" they had and encouraged the
customers to try them. The customers tried several different ones and
went on how much better this one was than that one while each and
every one had been filled with the same tap water.
Another good one was when they put up a booth in a mall to allow
people to try a new skin treatment of putting live snails on people's
faces and letting them crawl around. The victims then described how
much better their skin felt after the "treatment".
> This was one of their "Bullsh*t" programs on Showtime. It did show
> how suggestible people can be. A waiter presented a "water list" of
> all of the "premium bottled water" they had and encouraged the
> customers to try them. The customers tried several different ones and
> went on how much better this one was than that one while each and
> every one had been filled with the same tap water.
Sadly, the audiophile response would be: "Maybe the water *was* different
in some way we can't measure! You don't know for sure! Science doesn't
know everything! I trust my tongue,
thank you! And even my wife thought it tasted better!"
--
-S.
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.
> 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.
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. They certainly do prove that point. The humor
in it is demonstrating such human fallibility, a perennial in comedy.
As for different waters tasting different in blind tests...so? 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?
--
-S.
>
>> 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 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
> They certainly do prove that point.
I disagree. they often illustrate their points with a heavy hand but they don't
prove anything nor do they really try to. They are making points but not really
proving them IMO.
Steven said
> The humor
>in it is demonstrating such human fallibility, a perennial in comedy.
I think the humor is their style. It is also why the show sells on HBO IMO.
Penn and Teller are very opinionated and very in your face. It is entertaining
IMO.
Steven said
>
>As for different waters tasting different in blind tests...so?
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.
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
> 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 think the crux was that some people are easily fooled. I don't think they
were showing everyone is easily fooled.
I understand the point being made and the illustration is pretty
funny. However, consider the following:
1) Was each sample of water presented in the same cup or a
different one? The human tongue can be very sensitive to soap
residue, etc.
2) Was each sample of the water at the same temperature? Cold
water tends to taste significantly better since you can't taste
impurities in it as well as in warm water.
3) Since all the water was coming out of the same tap, each
sample would not necessarily be the same. Water that first came
out could have a higher tin/lead/copper content than later for
example (that's why were are told to let the water run some
before getting a drink).
4) How many samples (and how large were they) did each person
take. Any water tastes better to me when I'm thirsty. When I'm
full of water, more water doesn't taste as appetizing :-)
My point is that there may well have been very subtle differences
that were detectable only because the recipients were told to
watch for them. Normally these differences might be slight enough
to go unnoticed. And yet here again the issue of ridicule seems
to be "water is water" -- sort of like the "wire is wire"
concept. Someone is observed as detecting a difference when
"common sense says there obviously is no difference", and they
become the subject of a joke because someone played a mind game
on them.
It may very well have been that it was all psychological. On the
other hand, it appears that no effort was made to allow true
comparisons to be accurately made (e.g., all water was taken from
a large, constantly stirred tank that had stabilized at the same
temperature, using the same cup, etc., etc.). Since the human
tongue is very sensitive and can vary from time to time (sorta
like the human ear you know...), isn't it just possible that
there might have been a real detectable difference there mixed in
with all that *assumed* psychological stuff? Could there have
been a small amount of "taste reality" (whatever that is) mixed
in with the so-called power of suggestion?
Einstien said that every problem should be reduced to it's most
simple form--but NOT simpler. Man seems to have a great need to
oversimplify everything so that he can always be an expert.
All this IMHO, of course :-)
- Jeff
Each was presented in a bottle with an appropritely expensive
sounding name and label.
> 2) Was each sample of the water at the same temperature? Cold
> water tends to taste significantly better since you can't taste
> impurities in it as well as in warm water.
Not sure, but they were probably room temp since they were prepared
ahead of time and so were likely the same temp anyway.
> 3) Since all the water was coming out of the same tap, each
> sample would not necessarily be the same. Water that first came
> out could have a higher tin/lead/copper content than later for
> example (that's why were are told to let the water run some
> before getting a drink).
OK.
> 4) How many samples (and how large were they) did each person
> take. Any water tastes better to me when I'm thirsty. When I'm
> full of water, more water doesn't taste as appetizing :-)
Ther wer presented as wine is presented, each was listed in a menu and
had varying prices, and of course the more expensive "tasted bettter".
> My point is that there may well have been very subtle differences
> that were detectable only because the recipients were told to
> watch for them. Normally these differences might be slight enough
> to go unnoticed. And yet here again the issue of ridicule seems
> to be "water is water" -- sort of like the "wire is wire"
> concept. Someone is observed as detecting a difference when
> "common sense says there obviously is no difference", and they
> become the subject of a joke because someone played a mind game
> on them.
Again, the pricer ones were reported as better tasting, and the menus
description of the taste was fong to be true "Yes, it is more...".
> It may very well have been that it was all psychological. On the
> other hand, it appears that no effort was made to allow true
> comparisons to be accurately made (e.g., all water was taken from
> a large, constantly stirred tank that had stabilized at the same
> temperature, using the same cup, etc., etc.). Since the human
> tongue is very sensitive and can vary from time to time (sorta
> like the human ear you know...), isn't it just possible that
> there might have been a real detectable difference there mixed in
> with all that *assumed* psychological stuff? Could there have
> been a small amount of "taste reality" (whatever that is) mixed
> in with the so-called power of suggestion?
Sure, but the differences were described as very noticable.
> Einstien said that every problem should be reduced to it's most
> simple form--but NOT simpler. Man seems to have a great need to
> oversimplify everything so that he can always be an expert.
>
> All this IMHO, of course :-)
OK, and IMHO it again showed the power of suggestion and the tendency
to report differences when none exist.
And how is one to be sure they are not one of those who can be easily
fooled?
I know that I have made a change in my system and remarked to myself
how much different it sounded only to realize I forgot to flip the
switch to actually use the changed path. And I like to think I am not
easily fooled as much as the next guy, but got the proof of it
slammed right in my face.
>>
>>> 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 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"
Being a skeptic in a credulous world
is a thankless task. We deserve a bit of entertainment now and then.
> 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.
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?
> 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.
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.
> 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 think the crux was that some people are easily fooled. I don't think they
> were showing everyone is easily fooled.
I trust you can make the obvious analogy to audiophilia yourself at this point.
--
-S.
> I know that I have made a change in my system and remarked to myself
> how much different it sounded only to realize I forgot to flip the
> switch to actually use the changed path. And I like to think I am not
> easily fooled as much as the next guy, but got the proof of it
> slammed right in my face.
Thanks for being honest. It's funny how "subjectivists" often accuse
"objectivists" of being "soulless droids" or whatever. But it's really
the objectivists who accept the fact that humans are emotional beings
who can perceive the same thing differently depending on our moods
and emotions, and the subjectivists who insist we are all perfect
spectrum analyzers (or at least the "golden ears" are, anyway).
- Gary Rosen
Was it analog water or digital water? Analog water is much smoother, of
course.
- Gary Rosen
I said
>
>> I think the crux was that some people are easily fooled. I don't think they
>> were showing everyone is easily fooled.
>
Audioguy said
>
>And how is one to be sure they are not one of those who can be easily
>fooled?
Fair question and I confess my claim was a bit broad. It depends on the
circumstance and issue at hand. experience helps along with an awarness that
people can be fooled. Once one has been fooled and knows the trick, if he or
she is smart enough they know what to look for the next time.
Audioguy said
>
>I know that I have made a change in my system and remarked to myself
>how much different it sounded only to realize I forgot to flip the
>switch to actually use the changed path. And I like to think I am not
>easily fooled as much as the next guy, but got the proof of it
>slammed right in my face.
Did you learn anything? Are you as easily fooled still?
Good points all. But then again, maybe water is water.
> My point is that there may well have been very subtle differences
> that were detectable only because the recipients were told to
> watch for them. Normally these differences might be slight enough
> to go unnoticed. And yet here again the issue of ridicule seems
> to be "water is water" -- sort of like the "wire is wire"
> concept. Someone is observed as detecting a difference when
> "common sense says there obviously is no difference", and they
> become the subject of a joke because someone played a mind game
> on them.
'Wire is wire' is a bad analogy -- because wire *is* wire, unless you've
mismatched two pieces to a degree likely to produce audible
difference. Such wires will also measure quite differently.
> It may very well have been that it was all psychological. On the
> other hand, it appears that no effort was made to allow true
> comparisons to be accurately made (e.g., all water was taken from
> a large, constantly stirred tank that had stabilized at the same
> temperature, using the same cup, etc., etc.). Since the human
> tongue is very sensitive and can vary from time to time (sorta
> like the human ear you know...), isn't it just possible that
> there might have been a real detectable difference there mixed in
> with all that *assumed* psychological stuff? Could there have
> been a small amount of "taste reality" (whatever that is) mixed
> in with the so-called power of suggestion?
Could have been. But don't you agree that the power of suggestion
is strong enough to produce false positives?
The existence of *any* illustrates why controls for suggestion
are necessary.
--
-S.
> 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.
Heh. Some of us, though, have moved beyond that and use the knowledge
to begin to get much better objectivity in listening. :)
Ie:
All equipment is just a box. Q: what sounds better considering it is
all made in the same 3rd world factories?
>SNIP:
> OK, and IMHO it again showed the power of suggestion and the tendency
> to report differences when none exist.
The answer of course is: "So what else is new?"
In case this sounds glib- it is- but lack of reverence often throws
light
into dark corners.
Placebo effect is what brands (cars, cosmetics, fashions, audio and
what not thrive on.)
The problem is high-up in the brain cortex and the synapses- in fact
what
makes humanity human.
Good luck abolishing it. I suggest science fiction for sourcing.
Ludovic Mirabel
But can they ever br sure taht they cannot be fooled?
> Audioguy said
>
>>
>>I know that I have made a change in my system and remarked to myself
>>how much different it sounded only to realize I forgot to flip the
>>switch to actually use the changed path. And I like to think I am not
>>easily fooled as much as the next guy, but got the proof of it
>>slammed right in my face.
>
> Did you learn anything? Are you as easily fooled still?
I learned that although at the time I was sure I couldn't be fooled,
I learned that one can never be sure, and so controls are necessary
if one wants to be as sure as possible. A lesson that points out that
all who too think that they think that they can mentally keep out
biases need to reconsider such thoughts. It just reaffirms a lesson
that I was taught in high school and college psychology classes, but
thought at the time that I was above being fooled, that unconscious
biases are just that: unconscious and so cannot be consciously
controlled.
Especially if it poured through a tube...
It cannot be abolished, but must be controlled if one wants to know
whether it affected a choice. That assumes one wants to know whether
or not it affected the choice, if one doesn't then no need for the
controls.
The fact that some people fall for the gag makes the point that sighted
evaluations are very prone to false positives.
You tell me how to rid sighted evaluations of false positives to the degree
that DBTs do, and I'll stop criticizing sighed evaluations!
> Fair question and I confess my claim was a bit broad. It depends on
> the circumstance and issue at hand. experience helps along with an
> awarness that people can be fooled. Once one has been fooled and
> knows the trick, if he or she is smart enough they know what to look
> for the next time.
The scientific literature covers that as well. When people have been fooled
and know the trick, they tend to overlook differences that they would
otherwise notice.
In a DBT you can forget about the trick and just try to hear differences as
well as you can.
>>SNIP:
>
>> OK, and IMHO it again showed the power of suggestion and the tendency
>> to report differences when none exist.
> The answer of course is: "So what else is new?"
Indeed. You'd think audiophiles would have absorbed the lesson by
now, and that audiophile journals would acknowledge it by incorporating
proper controls in their product comparisons.
--
-S.
Another thing recently that I saw-can't remember if it was 60 minutes
or one of those types of shows was an interview with a psychologist
who now was making megabucks as an advisor to the major car
manufacturers on how to market. He talked about all the reasons people
say they buy SUV'S but the advertising was not aimed at those reasons.
The advertising was aimed at a "power image"-one of dominance. No
matter what people say, he argued the real reason people buy SUV'S is
far from what they say they buy them for. Very interesting. It is
very interesting to me how it is so easy for us to lie to ourself.
Here we have Penn and Teller's people filling water glasses from a
hose in the back room and people are talking about big differences in
taste. Now common sense (and a world of money spent on advertising in
this country) tells me people are very suggestible-not some people but
most people and yet we delude ourself into thinking it is the other
guy (or girl) not me. Amazing.
> Here we have Penn and Teller's people filling water glasses from a
> hose in the back room and people are talking about big differences in
> taste. Now common sense (and a world of money spent on advertising in
> this country) tells me people are very suggestible-not some people but
> most people and yet we delude ourself into thinking it is the other
> guy (or girl) not me. Amazing.
Exactly. Now - applying this to audio...
(dons asbestos undies)
Yes, I agree completely and I believe that there is a lot of
power there as you've said. I've seen it in my own life where I
could almost tell that I was fooling myself into believing things
that I really wanted to believe a certain way. But being aware
that you are suceptable to this can sometimes help you discern
when you are being fooled.
My point is that when many folks detect differences--especially
if there seems to be any correlation between different people
having similar "detections"--I believe that it is unwise to just
blow it off as a bunch of dumb slobs that have been duped. By
always allowing a small bit of room for possible unknowns,
occasionally significant discoveries can be made. Once upon a
time everyone knew by "common sense" that the world was flat.
Columbus chose to explore what he thought was an exception to
that common sense.
- Jeff
>
>> I said
>>
>>>
>>>> I think the crux was that some people are easily fooled. I don't think
>they
>>>> were showing everyone is easily fooled.
>>>
>>
>> Audioguy said
>>
>>>
>>>And how is one to be sure they are not one of those who can be easily
>>>fooled?
I said
>
>> Fair question and I confess my claim was a bit broad. It depends on the
>> circumstance and issue at hand. experience helps along with an awarness
>that
>> people can be fooled. Once one has been fooled and knows the trick, if he
>or
>> she is smart enough they know what to look for the next time.
Audioguy said
>
>But can they ever br sure taht they cannot be fooled?
>
"Sure" is usually a matter of degree. No one can be absolutely sure of it. OTOH
if I were attempting to fool someone I would prefer a person who pays for
psychics to The Amazing Randi. Know what I mean?
>
>> Audioguy said
>>
>>>
>>>I know that I have made a change in my system and remarked to myself
>>>how much different it sounded only to realize I forgot to flip the
>>>switch to actually use the changed path. And I like to think I am not
>>>easily fooled as much as the next guy, but got the proof of it
>>>slammed right in my face.
I said
>
>> Did you learn anything? Are you as easily fooled still?
Audioguy said
>
>I learned that although at the time I was sure I couldn't be fooled,
>I learned that one can never be sure, and so controls are necessary
>if one wants to be as sure as possible. A lesson that points out that
>all who too think that they think that they can mentally keep out
>biases need to reconsider such thoughts. It just reaffirms a lesson
>that I was taught in high school and college psychology classes, but
>thought at the time that I was above being fooled, that unconscious
>biases are just that: unconscious and so cannot be consciously
>controlled.
Then you did learn something.
Absolutely. "Proper controls" are needed.
Controls that could be taken out of the wallet in a car-dealers office
and stop everyone from buying bigger ie SUV, or faster ie practically
anything that claims to pass anyone else on the road.. Or in a
rag-shop to stop the ladies
from trusting fashion. Or.... you can sing the rest yourself.
But we in the audio are the fortunate exception. We already have
"proper controls" that allow everyone to abolish bias.
So far whenever we tried the "proper controls" there were huge
differences in performance between individuals. A few heard
differences, most heard zilch.
They may have replaced their sighted biases with a "being tested"
bias-predisposing them towards "no difference". May be not.
Experimental evidence is not available. Speculations abound.
All that is being ironed out though, no doubt, and after 13 years
complete silence we'll soon have rigorously applied "proper controls"
reports and we'll all know for sure what to buy. Scientifically.
Ludovic Mirabel
>
>> 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.
>"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:wWlKa.17850$Ab2.38351@sccrnsc01
>>> This was one of their "Bullsh*t" programs on Showtime. It did show
>>> how suggestible people can be. A waiter presented a "water list" of
>>> all of the "premium bottled water" they had and encouraged the
>>> customers to try them. The customers tried several different ones and
>>> went on how much better this one was than that one while each and
>>> every one had been filled with the same tap water.
>>>
>>> Another good one was when they put up a booth in a mall to allow
>>> people to try a new skin treatment of putting live snails on people's
>>> faces and letting them crawl around. The victims then described how
>>> much better their skin felt after the "treatment".
>
>> 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.
Different waters certainly do taste different, since what you're
tasting is the different minerals dissolved in them. The point of the
test however was that the *same* water tastes 'different' if you
expect it to.................
>The fact that some people fall for the gag makes the point that sighted
>evaluations are very prone to false positives.
Indeed they are, and you can play the same trick with a 'false
sighted' AA test in audio, where the audience is told that it's an AB
test. The scales fell from my own eyes when I got all excited about
the wonderfully smooth treble of a new amplifier - but when I checked,
the old one was still connected!
>You tell me how to rid sighted evaluations of false positives to the degree
>that DBTs do, and I'll stop criticizing sighed evaluations!
Quite so.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>>> Audioguy said
>>>
>>>>
>>>>And how is one to be sure they are not one of those who can be easily
>>>>fooled?
>
> I said
>
>>
>>> Fair question and I confess my claim was a bit broad. It depends on the
>>> circumstance and issue at hand. experience helps along with an awarness
>>that
>>> people can be fooled. Once one has been fooled and knows the trick, if he
>>or
>>> she is smart enough they know what to look for the next time.
>
> Audioguy said
>
>>
>>But can they ever br sure taht they cannot be fooled?
>>
>
> "Sure" is usually a matter of degree. No one can be absolutely sure of it. OTOH
> if I were attempting to fool someone I would prefer a person who pays for
> psychics to The Amazing Randi. Know what I mean?
So asking more succinctly this time, how do you know whether or not you
yourself are not being fooled or that a perception is real or not.
>>
>>> Audioguy said
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I know that I have made a change in my system and remarked to myself
>>>>how much different it sounded only to realize I forgot to flip the
>>>>switch to actually use the changed path. And I like to think I am not
>>>>easily fooled as much as the next guy, but got the proof of it
>>>>slammed right in my face.
>
> I said
>
>>
>>> Did you learn anything? Are you as easily fooled still?
>
> Audioguy said
>
>>
>>I learned that although at the time I was sure I couldn't be fooled,
>>I learned that one can never be sure, and so controls are necessary
>>if one wants to be as sure as possible. A lesson that points out that
>>all who too think that they think that they can mentally keep out
>>biases need to reconsider such thoughts. It just reaffirms a lesson
>>that I was taught in high school and college psychology classes, but
>>thought at the time that I was above being fooled, that unconscious
>>biases are just that: unconscious and so cannot be consciously
>>controlled.
>
> Then you did learn something.
But do you feel you have learned the same thing yourself, or are you
sure that you can mentally control for biases in all cases?
>
>> 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.
>
Arny said
>
>The fact that some people fall for the gag makes the point that sighted
>evaluations are very prone to false positives.
>
>You tell me how to rid sighted evaluations of false positives to the degree
>that DBTs do, and I'll stop criticizing sighed evaluations!
>
In the case of food critics and wine critics blind tests would often mean
literal blind tests. This is a bad idea. Part of how we evaluate food and drink
is by looks. Certianly it's a good idea to take the label off when using
inexperienced taste testors in evaluations of drinking water. Believe it or not
many people actually often prefer products in the food industry that costs
less. They didn't figure it out with a blind fold in most cases.Most people
form opinions about quality with no intent of making scientifically valid
claims. Should I do extensive DBT taste tests before telling people where I
think the best Mexican food in town is?
> Absolutely. "Proper controls" are needed.
> Controls that could be taken out of the wallet in a car-dealers office
> and stop everyone from buying bigger ie SUV, or faster ie practically
> anything that claims to pass anyone else on the road.. Or in a
> rag-shop to stop the ladies
> from trusting fashion. Or.... you can sing the rest yourself.
Wouldn't dream of it. Now, if you want to be instructed on what the term
'proper controls' really means...*again*... let me know.
> But we in the audio are the fortunate exception. We already have
> "proper controls" that allow everyone to abolish bias.
No, you don't.
> So far whenever we tried the "proper controls" there were huge
> differences in performance between individuals. A few heard
> differences, most heard zilch.
Ah, you are now admitting that some hear differences in DBT/ABX tests.
At last we move forward. Let's put this in the Ludovic Mirabel FAQ before
you sing a different tune.
Variations between individuals is no more a handicap for statistical
evaluation of component DBTs (or claims made therefrom) than it is for
statistical evualtion of clinical trial DBTs.
Individual results from DBTs can tell you confidently how likely that
individual is to hear a difference. A sample of one person is not a good
basis for making statements about a population, though. Pooled results
from larger samples can tell you how likely a population is to hear a
difference.
If it turns out that *you* can't hear a difference using DBT, but someone
else can, it simply means that for *you* the difference can be safely
ignored as a criterion for choosing one or the other. Isn't that a useful
thing to know?
> They may have replaced their sighted biases with a "being tested"
> bias-predisposing them towards "no difference".
That possibility, too, can be tested with proper controls. A 'no
difference' bias can be detected.
> May be not.
> Experimental evidence is not available. Speculations abound.
Experimental evidence is available and has been supplie to you,
repeatedly. You refuse to believe it.
> All that is being ironed out though, no doubt, and after 13 years
> complete silence we'll soon have rigorously applied "proper controls"
> reports and we'll all know for sure what to buy. Scientifically.
Rationally.
--
-S.
> 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.
Granted, it's a *show*, not a scientific trial. I dont' see anyone here
drawing a global conclusion about expectation bias from *just that show*.
>>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.
<sigh> I should have use the world 'illustrates' or 'exemplifies' rather
than 'proves'. And so should you.
--
-S.
> Yes, I agree completely and I believe that there is a lot of
> power there as you've said. I've seen it in my own life where I
> could almost tell that I was fooling myself into believing things
> that I really wanted to believe a certain way. But being aware
> that you are suceptable to this can sometimes help you discern
> when you are being fooled.
I have had expereinces like that recounted elsewhere, where I *know* I
fooled myself -- didn't throw that switch or make that connection I
thought I'd made. What it makes me aware of is that I *can* be fooled.
In other words, it instills skepticism. I don't think skepticism will
make you perform better on a sighted comparison, though, except in cases
where the inherent likelihood is that there is no difference -- when the
presence of perceptable difference would flout known phsyical laws, for
example.
> My point is that when many folks detect differences--especially
> if there seems to be any correlation between different people
> having similar "detections"--I believe that it is unwise to just
> blow it off as a bunch of dumb slobs that have been duped.
But this stands the scientific consensus on its head -- what we see over
and over again is that the reason many folks detect difference because
*people naturally tend to overdetect difference* -- *not* because there's
a correlation between detection and reality.
Therefore the wisest course is skepticism; the 'correlations' we
see in audiophilia are highly suspect since we rarely know how independent
the observations are. Even a case where different reviewers read the same
promotional hype about a component in material supplied by the
manufacterer, could be a source of 'sighted' bias. And if you buy
something called a 'Bedini CD Clarifier' and , by gum, you hear your CDs
sounding *more clear* after using it, you still have to rule out bias.
> By
> always allowing a small bit of room for possible unknowns,
> occasionally significant discoveries can be made. Once upon a
> time everyone knew by "common sense" that the world was flat.
> Columbus chose to explore what he thought was an exception to
> that common sense.
I don't think it constitutes 'blowing off' the believers, to ask that
they provide better proof that the 'possibly unknown' is real.
*That's* how discoveries become significant.
--
-S.
> Indeed they are, and you can play the same trick with a 'false
> sighted' AA test in audio, where the audience is told that it's an AB
> test. The scales fell from my own eyes when I got all excited about
> the wonderfully smooth treble of a new amplifier - but when I checked,
> the old one was still connected!
Heh.
If you look at the insides of a piece of electornics/audio equipment,
you'll see that ALL of the new stuff, ranging from $100 amplifiers
to $5000+ amplifiers all use components made in the same dozen o
so offshore companies. Rare exceptions exist, but the buttons,
remote control IR units, the capacitors, and so on are all from
the same dozen or so (mostly third-world)sources. All as cheaply
as possible.
The circuitboards are also usually made in simmilar factories.
So are the cases.
In reality, all you are doing is getting bigger or different versions
of the same crud components with most consumer-grade electronics.
So? My point?
It all ties in - if the bits that make up the units are all from the
same source(s), the sound should be very simmilar(unfortunately, too
often - all simmilar sounding budget crud).
That label is moot, as are expectations as it is all the same
stuff remarketed and assembled a bit differently.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
> Arny said
>>
>>The fact that some people fall for the gag makes the point that sighted
>>evaluations are very prone to false positives.
>>
>>You tell me how to rid sighted evaluations of false positives to the degree
>>that DBTs do, and I'll stop criticizing sighed evaluations!
>>
> In the case of food critics and wine critics blind tests would often mean
> literal blind tests. This is a bad idea. Part of how we evaluate food and drink
> is by looks.
What you're saying is that *preference* for food is influenced by things
other than taste. So? Preference for audio components is influenced by
things other than sound, as well. The question is, what do you do if you
wnat to determine whether two things *taste different*?
> Certianly it's a good idea to take the label off when using
> inexperienced taste testors in evaluations of drinking water.
It's a good idea to take the lable off when using experienced wine tasters
in evaluation of wine.
> Believe it or not > many people actually often prefer products in the
food industry that costs > less. They didn't figure it out with a blind
fold in most cases. Most people > form opinions about quality with no
intent of making scientifically valid > claims. Should I do extensive DBT
taste tests before telling people where I > think the best Mexican food in
town is?
No, since it's purely a subjective opinion. And it's be irrational to
think that Mexican food in different restaurants *didn't* taste
differently.
--
-S.
> Controls that could be taken out of the wallet in a car-dealers office
> and stop everyone from buying bigger ie SUV, or faster ie practically
> anything that claims to pass anyone else on the road.. Or in a
> rag-shop to stop the ladies > from trusting fashion. Or.... you can sing
the rest yourself.
A very jaundiced narrow view of controls.
Controls are also the difference between polluted lake water and drinkable
water, for example.
> But we in the audio are the fortunate exception. We already have
> "proper controls" that allow everyone to abolish bias.
Not so. The controls we have allow us to balance bass and treble, set volume
levels to suit, etc.
> So far whenever we tried the "proper controls" there were huge
> differences in performance between individuals. A few heard
> differences, most heard zilch.
Is this the good news or bad news?
What do you call a race where everybody wins? Why, it's no race at all!
We know that people are subject to natural variations in talents, abilities,
accomplishments, preferences.
Why not different levels of sensitivity in listening tests?
> They may have replaced their sighted biases with a "being tested"
> bias-predisposing them towards "no difference".
They may have done many things, but what *really* happened?
> May be not.
Interesting that there are probably a very large number of explanations for
what we observe, since we observe many different things. Why is it that
certain people always seem to come back to just this one? Is it that they
have a bias towards believing the worst about a listening test that doesn't
tell them what they want to hear?
> Experimental evidence is not available.
Simply not true.
>Speculations abound.
Positive results abound. There's no doubt that one key to doing a listening
test that is positive for audible differences is to have an audible
difference to hear.
> All that is being ironed out though, no doubt, and after 13 years
> complete silence we'll soon have rigorously applied "proper controls"
> reports and we'll all know for sure what to buy.
Meaning exactly what?
Here is an interesting development in the area of eyewitness reports
for those of us who know what we see.
http://www6.law.com/lawcom/displayid.cfm?statename=NY&docnum=170820&table=news&flag=full
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> Indeed they are, and you can play the same trick with a 'false
>> sighted' AA test in audio, where the audience is told that it's an AB
>> test. The scales fell from my own eyes when I got all excited about
>> the wonderfully smooth treble of a new amplifier - but when I checked,
>> the old one was still connected!
>
>Heh.
>
>If you look at the insides of a piece of electornics/audio equipment,
>you'll see that ALL of the new stuff, ranging from $100 amplifiers
>to $5000+ amplifiers all use components made in the same dozen o
>so offshore companies.
No, they aren't.
> Rare exceptions exist, but the buttons,
>remote control IR units, the capacitors, and so on are all from
>the same dozen or so (mostly third-world)sources. All as cheaply
>as possible.
No, they aren't.
>The circuitboards are also usually made in simmilar factories.
>
>So are the cases.
No, they aren't.
>In reality, all you are doing is getting bigger or different versions
>of the same crud components with most consumer-grade electronics.
>
>So? My point?
Would that be that you have no knowledge of how and where most
good-quality audio equipment is manufactured?
>It all ties in - if the bits that make up the units are all from the
>same source(s), the sound should be very simmilar(unfortunately, too
>often - all simmilar sounding budget crud).
That might be true, if your initial premise were true. However, it's
not.
>That label is moot, as are expectations as it is all the same
>stuff remarketed and assembled a bit differently.
No, it isn't. Please look more closely, before making such sweeping
statements. Not everyone is so cynical as Mark Levinson............
> claims. Should I do extensive DBT taste tests before telling people where I
> think the best Mexican food in town is?
Depends on what information you want to convey. If you want to tell
them where the best overall dining experience is, no. If you want to
tell them specifically whose food you prefer, then yes, you might
reach a different conclusion if you did a blind testing. In most
cases, however, the first is really what you (and they) are more
interested in, precisely because they won't be eating blindfolded.
The obligatory parallel to audio: If you just want to decide which
component you prefer, you can compare any old way. But if you want to
decide which you prefer based solely on sound, blind comparisons are
more reliable.
bob
>>
>> I said
>>
>>>
>>>> Fair question and I confess my claim was a bit broad. It depends on the
>>>> circumstance and issue at hand. experience helps along with an awarness
>>>that
>>>> people can be fooled. Once one has been fooled and knows the trick, if he
>>>or
>>>> she is smart enough they know what to look for the next time.
>>
>
>> Audioguy said
>>
>>>
>>>But can they ever br sure taht they cannot be fooled?
I said
>
>> "Sure" is usually a matter of degree. No one can be absolutely sure of it.
>OTOH
>> if I were attempting to fool someone I would prefer a person who pays for
>> psychics to The Amazing Randi. Know what I mean?
>
Audioguy said
>
>So asking more succinctly this time, how do you know whether or not you
>yourself are not being fooled or that a perception is real or not.
You asked the question well enough the first time. If certainty is what you
seek then either you will be delluded into a psuedoscientific sense that some
things are completely certain and others are completely uncertain based on
blindness used as a bias control or you will learn to live with the fact that
you can never be absolutely certain and it is all matters of degree of
certainty. Even the Amazing Randi can be fooled by a great magician with a new
and clever trick, even people who believe in everything can be right about the
water they are drinking. It is all a matter of probability. Even blind tests
can yield results that aren't true. I certainly agree that sighted bias is
noise in perceptual tests and removal of sighted bias makes the test better.
Better is not an absolute. You still have uncertainty
>
>>>> Audioguy said
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I know that I have made a change in my system and remarked to myself
>>>>>how much different it sounded only to realize I forgot to flip the
>>>>>switch to actually use the changed path. And I like to think I am not
>>>>>easily fooled as much as the next guy, but got the proof of it
>>>>>slammed right in my face.
>>
>> I said
>>
>>>
>>>> Did you learn anything? Are you as easily fooled still?
>>
>> Audioguy said
>>
>>>
>>>I learned that although at the time I was sure I couldn't be fooled,
>>>I learned that one can never be sure, and so controls are necessary
>>>if one wants to be as sure as possible. A lesson that points out that
>>>all who too think that they think that they can mentally keep out
>>>biases need to reconsider such thoughts. It just reaffirms a lesson
>>>that I was taught in high school and college psychology classes, but
>>>thought at the time that I was above being fooled, that unconscious
>>>biases are just that: unconscious and so cannot be consciously
>>>controlled.
>>
I said
>> Then you did learn something.
>
Audioguy said
>But do you feel you have learned the same thing yourself, or are you
>sure that you can mentally control for biases in all cases?
>
I don't know that we have learned the same lessons. I don't think one can
manage the effects of uncontroled biases all of the time. I do think one can
get better at it. I don't think all people are equaly gullable. I think the
lesson I have learned is that in the real world when one thinks they have found
a good tasting water or the best Mexican restaurant in town one can either
learn to live with the fact that their opinion is subject to uncertianty or get
caught up in it and challenge every perceptual claim as scientifically invalid
if it didn't involve bias controls. We experience most things without bias
controls. I think it is better to live with the uncertainty than be obsessed
with it. The uncertainty is only reduced with sighted bias controls anyways, it
is not eliminated. I think those who see the issue as a black and white one are
quite mistaken.
>
>> claims. Should I do extensive DBT taste tests before telling people where I
>> think the best Mexican food in town is?
>
Bob said
>
>Depends on what information you want to convey. If you want to tell
>them where the best overall dining experience is, no. If you want to
>tell them specifically whose food you prefer, then yes, you might
>reach a different conclusion if you did a blind testing. In most
>cases, however, the first is really what you (and they) are more
>interested in, precisely because they won't be eating blindfolded.
And if you do eat with the blind fold you probably won't even be able to
identify what you are eating and you will be far less sensitive to the nuances
of fine cuisine.You choose between the affects of sighted bias and the affects
of sensory deprevation. They both have an affect. Covering the labels works in
taste tests, covering the eyes doesn't.
Bob said
>
>The obligatory parallel to audio: If you just want to decide which
>component you prefer, you can compare any old way. But if you want to
>decide which you prefer based solely on sound, blind comparisons are
>more reliable.
I think it is a mistake to make to many parrallels to audio and food. I am
confident that listening in the dark does not diminish listening sensitivity.
> I think the
> lesson I have learned is that in the real world when one thinks they have
found
> a good tasting water or the best Mexican restaurant in town one can either
> learn to live with the fact that their opinion is subject to uncertianty
or get
> caught up in it and challenge every perceptual claim as scientifically
invalid
> if it didn't involve bias controls.
This is the common mistake. You are confusing "opinion" with "perceptual
claim", i. e. a claim that a certain type of difference actually exists
*independent*
of the person's bias. Bias is a somewhat charged word, so let's just
say independent of the person's moods, emotions, previous experiences - all
the things that go into how we perceive the world.
- Gary Rosen
>
>> I think the
>> lesson I have learned is that in the real world when one thinks they have
>found
>> a good tasting water or the best Mexican restaurant in town one can either
>> learn to live with the fact that their opinion is subject to uncertianty
>or get
>> caught up in it and challenge every perceptual claim as scientifically
>invalid
>> if it didn't involve bias controls.
Gary said
>
>This is the common mistake. You are confusing "opinion" with "perceptual
>claim", i. e. a claim that a certain type of difference actually exists
>*independent*
>of the person's bias. Bias is a somewhat charged word, so let's just
>say independent of the person's moods, emotions, previous experiences - all
>the things that go into how we perceive the world.
>
How can one have the opinion without first having the perception? There are no
perceptions or opinions based on perceptions that are truly independent of a
person's moods, emotions or previous experiences. That is part of the
uncertainty we have to either live with or deny.
True, and I didn't mean to suggest that you would want to do taste
tests blind. I meant that someone looking for a restaurant
recommendation is probably interested in more than just the taste of
the food. They'll care about the ambience, and therefore they won't
mind a bit that your recommendation is based partly on that.
>
> Bob said
>
> >
> >The obligatory parallel to audio: If you just want to decide which
> >component you prefer, you can compare any old way. But if you want to
> >decide which you prefer based solely on sound, blind comparisons are
> >more reliable.
>
> I think it is a mistake to make to many parrallels to audio and food. I am
> confident that listening in the dark does not diminish listening sensitivity.
Who said anything about "listening in the dark"? Blind refers to not
knowing the identity of the restaurant/product, as you surely know.
bob
>
>> Bob said
>>
>> >
>> >Depends on what information you want to convey. If you want to tell
>> >them where the best overall dining experience is, no. If you want to
>> >tell them specifically whose food you prefer, then yes, you might
>> >reach a different conclusion if you did a blind testing. In most
>> >cases, however, the first is really what you (and they) are more
>> >interested in, precisely because they won't be eating blindfolded.
I said
>
>> And if you do eat with the blind fold you probably won't even be able to
>> identify what you are eating and you will be far less sensitive to the
>nuances
>> of fine cuisine.You choose between the affects of sighted bias and the
>affects
>> of sensory deprevation. They both have an affect. Covering the labels works
>in
>> taste tests, covering the eyes doesn't.
>
Bob said
>
>True, and I didn't mean to suggest that you would want to do taste
>tests blind. I meant that someone looking for a restaurant
>recommendation is probably interested in more than just the taste of
>the food. They'll care about the ambience, and therefore they won't
>mind a bit that your recommendation is based partly on that.
Yes but when I make such recomendations I often talk specifically about my
opinion of the food independently from the ambience.
>
>> Bob said
>>
>> >
>> >The obligatory parallel to audio: If you just want to decide which
>> >component you prefer, you can compare any old way. But if you want to
>> >decide which you prefer based solely on sound, blind comparisons are
>> >more reliable.
>>
I said
>
>> I think it is a mistake to make to many parrallels to audio and food. I am
>> confident that listening in the dark does not diminish listening
>sensitivity.
>
Bob said
>
>Who said anything about "listening in the dark"?
I did.
Bob said
> Blind refers to not
>knowing the identity of the restaurant/product, as you surely know.
Which is an entirely different problem when dealing with food. One usually sees
what one is eating if one is not literally blindfolded. This makes blind taste
testing a little bit different. Also listening in literal blindness is, as far
as I know, not a handicap in sensitivity as it is in taste tests. That is why I
suggest we tread carefully in making parallels between the two.
> Bob said
>
> >
> >True, and I didn't mean to suggest that you would want to do taste
> >tests blind. I meant that someone looking for a restaurant
> >recommendation is probably interested in more than just the taste of
> >the food. They'll care about the ambience, and therefore they won't
> >mind a bit that your recommendation is based partly on that.
>
> Yes but when I make such recomendations I often talk specifically about my
> opinion of the food independently from the ambience.
>
Sure, so do I: "Well, the ambience is nothing to write home about, but
the food is great."
The question is, can you really separate the two, or does the fact
that you're sitting in a hole-in-the-wall color your opinion of the
food itself? (Possibly in either direction--some people might think
Mexican tastes more authentic in a hole-in-the-wall.)
You seem to think that there are ways to overcome or compensate for
this. I am much less sanguine about that. Just as, I suspect, I am
less sanguine than you about the ability of audiophiles to judge
equipment solely on the basis of sound when they also have other,
non-sonic information available to them.
bob
I said
>
>> Yes but when I make such recomendations I often talk specifically about my
>> opinion of the food independently from the ambience.
Bob said
>
>Sure, so do I: "Well, the ambience is nothing to write home about, but
>the food is great."
>
>The question is, can you really separate the two,
I can.
Bob said
> or does the fact
>that you're sitting in a hole-in-the-wall color your opinion of the
>food itself?
Not at all.
Bob said
> (Possibly in either direction--some people might think
>Mexican tastes more authentic in a hole-in-the-wall.)
>
Those of us in the know on Mexican food know that authentisity isn't a major
issue. If it tastes good it tatses good IMO.
Bob said
>
>You seem to think that there are ways to overcome or compensate for
>this. I am much less sanguine about that. Just as, I suspect, I am
>less sanguine than you about the ability of audiophiles to judge
>equipment solely on the basis of sound when they also have other,
>non-sonic information available to them.
I don't think it is a black and white issue that pivots only on sighted biases.
I think some are better at managing biases than others and I think one can get
better at it. All else being equal, the elimination of sighted bias will make
for better tests. I don't think it is an all or nothing proposition however. I
also think that one can learn to live with the uncertainty that any given
experience carries with it and simply keep that uncertainty in perspective
rather than throwing out all experience that isn't double blind.
Several years ago I received 2, at that time, high priced stereo receivers for
evaluation. One had an American brand name. all-black cosmetics, with push
button switches and tough-guy rack handles. The other, european brand name, was
champagne with, leaf switches. Both had a bright display and required a remote
control for set-up.
I unpacked both the them, broke out the owners manuals and began set-up with
the champagne finished one. Things went along swimmingly well until I realized
that I was accidentally using the remote control and the manual from the Black
one.
Stunned I investigated more carefully by bringing in the Black one and placing
directly atop the first unit. Now it was farily obvious that the switches and
display were in the same locations. Not only that but the back panels were not
just 'similar'; they were identical right down to the "Made in Japan"
stickers.
So we had competing products from the Netherlands and the USA that were both
manufactured in the same Japanese factory by a manufacturer who had similar
(identical?) products in the market using their own brand name.
Now it is true that the first two units were not 100% identical, one of them
had a special tuning circuit along with a small extra circuit board in it. But
otherwise they looked completely identical with the case off.
It should surprise no one that they sounded exactly alike either.
>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> Jeff Wiseman <wise...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > It may very well have been that it was all psychological. On the
>> > other hand, it appears that no effort was made to allow true
>> > comparisons to be accurately made (e.g., all water was taken from
>> > a large, constantly stirred tank that had stabilized at the same
>> > temperature, using the same cup, etc., etc.). Since the human
>> > tongue is very sensitive and can vary from time to time (sorta
>> > like the human ear you know...), isn't it just possible that
>> > there might have been a real detectable difference there mixed in
>> > with all that *assumed* psychological stuff? Could there have
>> > been a small amount of "taste reality" (whatever that is) mixed
>> > in with the so-called power of suggestion?
>>
>> Could have been. But don't you agree that the power of suggestion
>> is strong enough to produce false positives?
>
>Yes, I agree completely and I believe that there is a lot of
>power there as you've said. I've seen it in my own life where I
>could almost tell that I was fooling myself into believing things
>that I really wanted to believe a certain way. But being aware
>that you are suceptable to this can sometimes help you discern
>when you are being fooled.
>
>My point is that when many folks detect differences--especially
>if there seems to be any correlation between different people
>having similar "detections"--I believe that it is unwise to just
>blow it off as a bunch of dumb slobs that have been duped. By
>always allowing a small bit of room for possible unknowns,
>occasionally significant discoveries can be made. Once upon a
>time everyone knew by "common sense" that the world was flat.
>Columbus chose to explore what he thought was an exception to
>that common sense.
>
>- Jeff
Fair enough but when it comes to wire the Columbus clan has had plenty of time
to make a convincing case that wire isn't wire (after all, Columbus was
verified under far more difficult conditions) with a single, repeatable bias
controlled listening experiment that shows it isn't true.
On the other hand, even "allowing" possibility of the reports it may be unwise
to devote significant resources, time or energy to anecdotal reports that the
proponents (makers, sellers and reviewers) of 'wire sound' haven't bothered to
corroborate with credible evidence, don't you think?
But even if it did it would be easy to get people to say that it doesn't.
Actually that's one of the hallmarks of QC and process control and why
hamburgers at any McDonald's taste the same as the one you bought yesterday or
in Chicago.
But the burgers at Wendy's taste (and look) different from Mickey-Ds as well.
BUT no one knows how to make a copper conducter of nominal electrical
competency for the job at hand sound different from any other of similar
competency.
Or if they do, none of them has had the fortitude to show this under bias
controlled conditions.
>
>Jeff Wiseman <wise...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>> 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. They certainly do prove that point. The humor
>>> in it is demonstrating such human fallibility, a perennial in comedy.
>>>
>>> As for different waters tasting different in blind tests...so? 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 understand the point being made and the illustration is pretty
>> funny. However, consider the following:
>
>> 1) Was each sample of water presented in the same cup or a
>> different one? The human tongue can be very sensitive to soap
>> residue, etc.
>
>> 2) Was each sample of the water at the same temperature? Cold
>> water tends to taste significantly better since you can't taste
>> impurities in it as well as in warm water.
>
>> 3) Since all the water was coming out of the same tap, each
>> sample would not necessarily be the same. Water that first came
>> out could have a higher tin/lead/copper content than later for
>> example (that's why were are told to let the water run some
>> before getting a drink).
>
>> 4) How many samples (and how large were they) did each person
>> take. Any water tastes better to me when I'm thirsty. When I'm
>> full of water, more water doesn't taste as appetizing :-)
>
>Good points all. But then again, maybe water is water.
>
>> My point is that there may well have been very subtle differences
>> that were detectable only because the recipients were told to
>> watch for them. Normally these differences might be slight enough
>> to go unnoticed. And yet here again the issue of ridicule seems
>> to be "water is water" -- sort of like the "wire is wire"
>> concept. Someone is observed as detecting a difference when
>> "common sense says there obviously is no difference", and they
>> become the subject of a joke because someone played a mind game
>> on them.
>
>'Wire is wire' is a bad analogy -- because wire *is* wire, unless you've
>mismatched two pieces to a degree likely to produce audible
>difference. Such wires will also measure quite differently.
>
>> It may very well have been that it was all psychological. On the
>> other hand, it appears that no effort was made to allow true
>> comparisons to be accurately made (e.g., all water was taken from
>> a large, constantly stirred tank that had stabilized at the same
>> temperature, using the same cup, etc., etc.). Since the human
>> tongue is very sensitive and can vary from time to time (sorta
>> like the human ear you know...), isn't it just possible that
>> there might have been a real detectable difference there mixed in
>> with all that *assumed* psychological stuff? Could there have
>> been a small amount of "taste reality" (whatever that is) mixed
>> in with the so-called power of suggestion?
>
>Could have been. But don't you agree that the power of suggestion
>is strong enough to produce false positives?
>
>The existence of *any* illustrates why controls for suggestion
>are necessary.
>
>--
>-S.
Yes, it does. But here's another good example. In a Candid Camera piece the
'tester' filled some wine glasses from the same bottle. Then he placed a
different open bottle of wine next to each glass. Then he asked "subjects" to
evaluate and rank the wines by taste and quality.
Remembering that every glass came fromthe same bottle; it was interesting when
subjects made strong statements about the differing tastes of the wine in each
glass.
Of course, as some have suggested, it is possible that the show was edited to
show only most outrageous commentary. But the point is made: bias, inadvertant
or intended is incredibly easy to insert in an open comparison and often even
the most rudimentary controls break the 'spell' of 'obvious' differences.
I think the original post where a listener tricked himself with a forgotten
switch position is telling. Every enthusiast has had this very thing happen to
him/her and exactly this experience took me down the path of listener bias
controlled experiments and listening research.
I don't think anyone who is truly honest with himself can let such a challenge
go unpassed, although it seems plainly evident that many do and do so over a
long history.
>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> Jeff Wiseman <wise...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > It may very well have been that it was all psychological. On the
>> > other hand, it appears that no effort was made to allow true
>> > comparisons to be accurately made (e.g., all water was taken from
>> > a large, constantly stirred tank that had stabilized at the same
>> > temperature, using the same cup, etc., etc.). Since the human
>> > tongue is very sensitive and can vary from time to time (sorta
>> > like the human ear you know...), isn't it just possible that
>> > there might have been a real detectable difference there mixed in
>> > with all that *assumed* psychological stuff? Could there have
>> > been a small amount of "taste reality" (whatever that is) mixed
>> > in with the so-called power of suggestion?
>>
>> Could have been. But don't you agree that the power of suggestion
>> is strong enough to produce false positives?
>