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

Showing 13 responses by nonoise

Communication is essential to understanding, and arguments are just another form of communicating. The trick is to know when the person you are arguing with is sincere in his posits.

All the best,
Nonoise
Our genes are 99.99% chimp

That explains the callouses on the back of my fingers.

BTW, love that quote from Max Ehrmann: I'm gonna put it on a T-shirt.

All the best,
Nonoise
Just as arguments are another form of communication, being 'funny' can be another form of being serious, serious being thoughtful, careful and deliberate and funny being just another way of getting your view across without the associated cost of being serious.

Or something like that.

All the best,
Nonoise
On an aside, I would like to thank the moderators who let us discuss, deliberate, argue, vent and let us go our way.

There are other sites where this kind of 'talk' is 'verbotten, nein, nein, nein' less enlightenment ensues.

All the best,
Nonoise
Al,
Great point you make about the black and white nature of the sides. There is an admitted bias to the article but in defense of the author, she made it clear which side she is on and how she feels about it.

Mapman,
We all have our Jekyll and Hyde counterparts but to have it under such control as to be merely dismissive instead of violent is commendable, indeed. :-)

All the best,
Nonoise
It's quite the discipline to analyze a situation before speaking as well as Bryon and Al do. Weigh the facts, consider the angles, draw insight, analyze still more, and compare before posting. This has all been like a min-classroom in critical thinking and I feel better for it.

I like to think I have feet in both camps, depending on the topic. As one physicist at CERN jokingly said about the boggs particle they found, " It's more like that godd*mned particle than the god particle". Something was there, all the time. It just took a whole lot of patience and effort to find it.

I feel the same about this hobby (within reason).

All the best,
Nonoise
Boggs? Did I say boggs instead of Higgs boson?
(hiGGS+BOson=boggs)

Another example of unlicensed poetic license.
I should type slower.

All the best,
Nonoise
Categories aside, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, once something is heard, and appreciated, and/or moves you, we all become subjectivists, don't we? :-)

The objectivist might say, after hearing, that the result confirms the data without needing to verify it. I say they are overlooking the fact that the data IS not needed if the result confirms on an auditory and emotional level (here comes that placebo argument).

We don't have to know the measurements, or how it works. Our ears tell us it does and, if good, our emotions respond sympathetically.

Let someone else test all they want, after the fact.

We do this all the time with all manner of equipment that have already been established and never give it a second thought. We swap out X for Y and it gets better or worse. Now, something wicked this way comes, and all bets are off?

Just try it for yourself

None of what I just said matters if the objectivist refuses to listen.

All the best,
Nonoise
Bryon,

This may be an example of "entrenched Objectivism":
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/28/11920006-16-year-olds-equations-set-off-buzz-over-325-year-old-physics-puzzler.

It seems to have set off a firestorm as to the intent of the teenager and the relevance of his discovery. Apparently there are some big egos in the field of science.

All the best,
Nonoise
It would be interesting to see where our military falls on this issue. Having a simplified guidance system (thanks kid!) would make it easier to hit their target(s).

Our military (Pentagon & DOD) already buys into global warming as do all the major insurers and underwriters and have contingency plans to deal with it. They looked at the science and sidestepped the hype.

If they start hitting things more accurately, on a continuous basis, more power to the kid. :-)

All the best,
Nonoise
Quite the perspective there, Uru975.

You forgot to mention there would be no one to argue with anymore. It reminds me of the old Gahan Wilson cartoon:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_E-4d6l_7SXg/S13fSHjSQ7I/AAAAAAAAAGM/qhPZJJrbpWw/s1600-h/gahanwilson.jpg

All the best,
Nonoise
Al,

I like and agree with your first point. Externalities are always at play whether intended or not. To do something in a tightly controlled environment can negate its results in the real world where variables exist. With so much in play, in so many systems, what is claimed to work (benefit) has to be repeatable, to some degree.

I also agree with your 2nd assessment and Mapmans, if that's possible. Broad applications are general in nature and degrees of improvement will vary from system to system. They would still hold true, to some degree.

And your question as to whether some less expensive alternative exists, if the principle is the same but the ingredients are of lesser quality, then the benefit can escape scrutiny given the smaller nature of improvement. It could be chalked up to imagination.
(there, I said it) :-)
There has to be a cost/improvement relationship point at which the benefit justifies the tweak. It could be why some hear a bigger improvement from Furutech fuses compared to HiFi Tuning fuses. I wouldn't know since that's beyond my pay grade (which further backs up your point).

All the best,
Nonoise