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 21 responses by mapman

"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.
"

That's spot on!

The word argument does infer a negative form of communication with undesirable outcome. Better to have discussions if possible. Outcomes there probably tend to be more positive.
"accepting the validity of other people's point of view requires great humility."

Agreed. Humility is a virtue!

One thing I have learned over the years is that often the most valuable insights come from those who look at thing from a totally different perspective than I. It's a key to self improvement, something that we all can always benefit from.
"Others feel that something like the HiFi fuse has to be explained to them , that there has to be scientific proof to validate the claims."

At the risk of further fuse related controversy, not proof but it never hurts to be able to identify something quantitative to substantiate claims. That's what science is all about.

I think many in the fuse thread were in consensus that lack of scientific evidence much less proof does not mean that something is not possible. It just makes it less likely perhaps. Its best to be as educated as possible and then decide yourself when something matters to you.
"My answer to the original question: like everything else, it's about control (and sometimes manipulation) of others."

Bingo!

That's basically it.

Sometimes but not always a sinister thing. Motives will vary. Could be a humanitarian gesture to help another, or could have a pure profit incentive, or other motives as well perhaps.

The scientific method is essentially the means by which an argument is quantified to determine to what extent, if any, facts support a particular conclusion or not.

Most people are not scientists, and science is challenged to support certain conclusions that people arrive at. So people simply argue when needed as a result in order to get some one else to reach a conclusion similar to theirs.

No way to avoid it. It's a natural thing. Often futile in the end however in many cases. Many arguments that are seemingly sound based on observations are not bulletproof.
"Read Jburidan's post. Then read it again. That's all you need to know."

"Jburidan
Our genes are 99.99% chimp."

I think Jburidan is nicely paraphrasing what Bryon said so that even the chimps among us get it! :>
I recall as a child listening to my mother and her male siblings (all very smart but not college educated which was common in the day) argue regularly over various everyday things. Women tend to argue more based on emotions and my mother was quite dogmatic albeit a wonderful person.

I think that conditioned me to save my arguments for when they really matter rather than spend time arguing pointlessly.

Just call me Bonzo, Lancelot Link, or whatever....
As long as Bryon and others are willing to spend the time to try and shed light on difficult questions through their educated and well thought out insights, I am glad to spend the time reading as well.

Its my .1% non chimp homo-sapien side speaking I suppose.

Bryon + other deep thinkers out there, continue to say what you mean and mean what you say. I need to continue to ward off the inner chimp in me!

BTW, I am NOT arguing at present though I feel a good one coming on......
No, I am not arguing even though that is the subject and we haven't figured out why!

I would never argue about why do we argue. That is twice as bad, possibly even 4X worse on a log scale!

Still craving that banana though....
Actually, Dan wrote:

"Why do people want to get philosophical in a hobby forum? :-) "

Note the smiley face. I know I missed it at first.

Actually, I find our Chimp-like DNA (this is a scientific fact I believe the # I have read is 95%+ similar) a much more compelling topic than why we argue. Possibly even more entertaining as well! :>
"I've been called all sorts of stuff by folks that would never have done it in person both because if we discussed in person we could both better communicate and also the obvious smack in the mouth."

Yep. A "Smack in the mouth" web app could be a huge seller if effective! I bet there is one out there somewhere. Might help negate some of the unique advantages of electronic social networking done right though.
I kind of like the fact that on the Internet, people are more apt to say what they mean and tell you what they think of you than they might in person. It can be a double edged sword when things head south but a useful tool for self improvement that might not be available otherwise.
Well, I guess if it boils down to two choices when someone says something that does not sound right:

1) ignore it
2) argue the point

I suppose if we all chose to not argue ever, the world would be a much different place? Better or worse? Hard to say. But I tend to think people do what they are wired to do for a reason that may not always be immediately apparent except perhaps to some higher power, so I guess I will just chose to use the term debate rather than argument and call it a day.
"If they work for other ears that's great, but the only way to know is if you go out and try the things that are being described."

That is true and I doubt anyone would disagree.

But, the hard part is the decision making process. Which things to try and in what order of priority? That is where things get tricky! Especially since not the same things work in every case. Making an educated decision requires facts. Once one has the needed facts, a decision can be made. Individual findings will vary. Arguments may ensue. The facts will generally almost always tend to come out better over time though assuming the stakeholders in the argument STICK TO THE FACTS. Its all good unless things turn personal for whatever reason. The best way to avoid that is to always STICK TO THE FACTS and make clear what is known or not and to what degree of certainty. A lot of "facts" that result in arguments tend to occur in shades of grey. What is true in one case may not be true in the next. YEt, is was true at least once most likely. But no one in their right mind will bank on something just because someone they do not know or know if they can trust says so. Yoo know you cannot trust anyone who insists that a single occurence of something is enough to prove it exists (I will not name names....).
Of course that writer labels himself a subjectivist and then proceeds to paint objectionists as the bad guys. Who'd a thunk it?

I think I am both at the same time. There is good mapman, the subjectivist who believes ALMOST anything within reason is possible and evil mapman who refuses to cross certain lines because he decides they are just not very important.
Nonoise,

Agree that we all have our dark sides. The key is how one manages it.
One is not likely to invest time and money in something they do not believe in.

People believe in many things that I may not. I have no problem with that. However, I will reserve the right to believe what I will for whatever reason I chose in return.

If someone believes in something, it should not matter if another does or not.

Most arguments of merit will catch on over time but there will always be those who believe otherwise.

Not sure what the problem is? If you know something works, why care what someone else thinks? Just state the facts and see what happens.
Michael Berry's comment got the Newton/boy genius thing right. A good bit of hype to boost the substance in that story....

The devil is always in the details. Abstract models are always much easier to get right reliably than detailed ones. That's one reason why Newton's and other aged cornerstone principles like it stick. They are teh most reliable models to apply generally but do not account for many additional factors that exist in reality that others factor in as well over time depending on the need/application. The greatest and most long lived theories will always be the ones with broad application and value. THe more esoteric things (fancy fuses?), eh, maybe not so much.