I prefer to call it debating.
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.
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.
120 responses Add your response
Lacee - I see that you're asking the question sincerely, but I don't think the question has an answer. Or it doesn't have a SINGLE answer. Motives for arguments are as diverse as the circumstances that create them and the people who participate in them. Asking "Why do we argue?" is like asking "Why do we get married?" The answer might be: love, companionship, attachment, emotional security, financial security, to have children, to fulfill cultural expectations, to individuate from your parents, to reenact the relationships of childhood, to obtain citizenship, to avoid the draft, because she got pregnant... The same thing is true of the question "Why do we argue?" It's a question with a thousand answers. And many of those answers are elusive, because people's motives for arguing are largely unconscious, just like people's motives for getting married. Having said that, I believe that there are some COMMON reasons why people argue, both on Audiogon and in the real world. Here are some of them... 1. Rivalry 2. Narcissism 3. Truth RE (1): Rivalry. We are animals that evolved under conditions of scarcity. Access to scarce resources, particularly reproductive resources, is determined by dominance. Dominance is established either through violence or through SURROGATES for violence. IMO, many arguments are surrogates for violence. That is reflected in the principal metaphor people use when talking about arguments, namely that ARGUMENTS ARE WAR, as in He ATTACKED my position. I DEFENDED my point of view. I SHOT DOWN his ideas. I WON the argument. etc. Arguments replace physical conflict with verbal conflict. As surrogates for violence, arguments are a way of establishing dominance without killing each other. The struggle for dominance, whether violent or non-violent, is synonymous with rivalry. Because of the scarcity of resources over the course of human evolutionary history, rivalry is written into our DNA. Literally. RE (2): Narcissism. We are all, to some extent or other, narcissistic. Narcissism has been a character flaw since there was such a thing as character flaws, as evidenced by myths about narcissism, fairy tales about narcissism, biblical passages about narcissism, literature about narcissism, psychological theories about narcissism, movies about narcissism. Narcissism is, among other things, an excess of pride and a shortage of humility. IMO, the denial of ones own shortcomings and mistakes tends to make people argumentative, since the only way to maintain the idea that you're perfect is to attack people who can see that you're not. Narcissism is easy enough to find here on Audiogon or in the real world. Having said that, it does not follow, nor do I believe, that ALL arguments are a consequence of narcissism. And that brings me to RE (3): Truth. A great number of arguments are about WHAT IS TRUE. A smaller but still significant number of arguments are about HOW WE KNOW what is true. In both cases, people have an investment in the truth. The investment can be emotional, ideological, financial, religious... any number of things. The investment people feel in the truth applies not only to important things, like whether climate change is real, but also to trivial things, like whether fuse direction is audible. IMO, theres nothing wrong with being invested in the truth. And theres nothing wrong with arguing about the truth. The problem arises, IMO, when you are so invested in your beliefs being true that you cannot argue about the truth without behaving badly. Put another way, the problem is Dogmatism. Dogmatism can be a consequence of vanity, ignorance, indoctrination... the list is long. So long as people are dogmatic, arguments will go badly. And so long as they go badly, arguments will get a bad rap. But the problem isnt the argument. Its the person doing the arguing. IMO, IME, etc. Bryon |
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...... |
Arguing for the sake of argiung is a term I've heard before. But to have a debate or argument you need two specific but differing points that are based on personal experience,or well established fact(insert science). My point is that it is only argument for arguments sake, when one party cannot back himself up with either personal experience(with a tweak, ie)or can't provide scientific proof either in favour of or not in favour of the item being debated. Prove to me scientifically that an upscale fuse, i.e., has no effect. Don't always expect me to provide proof that it does.Fair enough? I've done my job, I've tried it and stated my experience, although I have no scientific prof to back it up.I am at least half way there. The other fellow hasn't done anything but express an opinion,and an opinion that is not based on personal experience or backed up by scientific fact.He may make references to scientific experiments or quote the results of double blind listening tests,but they are seldom specific to what is being debated, and again he has not participated in those tests, so again,still handicapped. I demagnetize my cd's and lp's and have demonstrated the before and after effects, and everyone who has experienced it at my home has been in agreement that the sound was improved.No one asked for me to prove it to them scientifically.They heard the same things I heard. I once posted this ,in the hope that others might try it and enjoy improved listening. Sceptics who were not present to those demos came out of the wood work and gave a multitude of reasons why demagging can't work. I can speak from experience that it was a power play. Riddicule and sophmoric humour were last resorts as they usually are when one side starts to get the upper hand. The topic doesn't matter anymore, it's all about who wins. Who gets to be proclaimed the Wise One and who is made out to be the Dummy.Only a Dummy would believe that you can demagnetize a vinyl LP. Instead of leaving it alone, or at least trying it for themselves, those folks decided that it was a subject that needed to be scrutinized and sanitized. We don't need no more snake oil claims. You'd of thought I suggested standing in a pool of water while playing with the power cords was the tweak, or some other type of mayhem. This is when there's nothing to be learned, there's no sharing of knowledge and the thread is no use to anyone except the two protagonists and those folks in the crowd watching the fight taking one side or the other. I have nothing against two or more folks freely expressing their opinions, but before you start to argue, please experience it for yourself and then post your take on it. If your experience is different from mine I won't be able to argue with that. So it's not really a two sided argument if one side is handicapped from the beginning. |
06-20-12: Dan_edI see, Dan. I should lighten up. I shouldn't take things so seriously. My apologies. I didnt realize there was a moratorium on serious questions and serious answers. Until further notice, Ill make sure my posts are cavalier, ironic, and glib. Like this one. Was that better? Bryon |
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 |
06-20-12: Dan_edSorry to argue the point, Dan, but that's not what happened. In fact, that's the OPPOSITE of what happened. Here's what happened... 1. Lacee asked a serious and philosophical question in the OP on 6/10. 2. I gave a serious and philosophical answer on 6/11, and another one on 6/18. 3. On 6/19, you asked, "Why do people want to get philosophical in a hobby forum?" 4. Today, you said, "It is funny to watch how some get so serious, and others don't." Those comments amount to saying, "I don't like posts that are serious or philosophical." So the person telling other people how they should react is, in fact, you. I've read a lot of your posts, Dan, and you seem like a well informed and reasonable guy. I would invite you to consider that some people enjoy being philosophical from time to time, and maybe that's not such a bad thing. To my mind, the world could use more reflection, not less. Bryon |
We could always argue about whether cables make a sonic difference or whether tubes or transistors are better, right? And at the root of every one of those threads is a more basic question - the one Lacee raised- about group behavior that applies to a lot of the spirited debate as well as the mud-slinging that goes on here and on almost every internet chat board. And there are a lot of interesting questions relating to the "philosophy" of home music reproduction that transcend the "is X product better than Y product" types of questions. I'm good with all of it. |
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 have been making this observation for years re other related subjects/discussions and it should be made again: 77 (!) responses to the OP, and not ONCE, not a single time is the word "music" mentioned. We get very personal about our music. That is a good thing, and is a testament to the power of music. While IMO some put too much emphasis on the technical aspects of the hobby, the connection to the music is inevitable since without it there is no way to talk about the tweaks and all their (sometimes) questionable effects. Nobody likes to hear that someone else is hearing something in our music that we aren't or can't. So, it is a very human response to get defensive and argue at the proposition. |
My intial reaction was that it was joking. But,I've elicited similar responses that weren't as jovial , hence my second thoughts. I agree, much can be learned from threads that at times can get a bit hostile. If you go back to my intial post, I am in favour of heated debates and opposed to censorship and thread closings. And as I stated, there's always something to be learned if you are open minded. Lucky for us, not all of the wisdom of the ages was lost in the great book burnings. And the folks doing the book burnings were just looking out for our best interests as well.Or so they said. |
consider the medium of argument. the internet has no feedbacks built in from the person you are talking withs posture, ability to counter point immediately and last but not least the elimination of a smack in the mouth. We can say anything and let whatever frustrations out with complete safety. Not seeing your discussion partner has a significant impact. 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. |
"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 have read all the above posts with my usual erudite precision. I can only hope that in retrospect, you have all come to recognize, each and every one of you, that you're wrong - especially that 99% chimp part. I mean, maybe you guys but certainly not me - no way - I went to college and everything. |
Well thanks one and all,all responses,whether they sided with me or or not are valued and again my thanks to the person who thanked the mods for aloowing this to continue. I tend to type slower than I think so my appologies if my message isn't clear. What I hope to now make clear is what my intentions were in the first place. Not completely manipulative,but I did feel that this would push the right buttons and in and of itself would prove that it only takes a bit of prodding to stir up some conflicting views that would later result in arguments. In short, using the word "argue",sets the tone for what will surely follow or so I hypothesized. I believe I was right.I knew this would lead to arguments,which like brush fires eventually evolve into all out wildfires that destroy everything in their path. I wasn't trolling, but I also predict that some will call it that. Most likely the folks who were disturbed by this thread. But what I truly did hope this thread would do, was to try and bring some sort of self awakening or enlightenment to the folks who continually bash the high end, expensive gear and tweaks and seem to be the ones who ignite the intial flame that eventually takes out the forest. What can they gain by being the naysayer? I believe Bryon has elaborated on that issue quite elequently, and my thanks to all the others who did their share of soul searching when I started this thread. We are a hobby of diverse individuals , with different skill sets and levels of education,but we do have one common denominator, the joy we get from listening to recorded music. Why some folks are dead set against accepting things that others say ( with hands on experience)can improve sound quality has been something that I've tried to find an explanation for. I can understand if finances are an issue,but why kill the messanger if an audio mag reviews a $100,000 speaker now and then? Isn't it nice to know that someone got the chance to listen and evaluate it? Believe him or not, be a skeptik, call it a paid for review,make an issue out of the fact that there is a full page add for the product,but at least you have something to read and perhaps get a bit more insite into the product than what you find in the advertisement specs. But again, for some, the specs are all you need. Everything else is rubbish and the ears are not to be trusted. So it goes,in countless forums and letters to the editor. The great debate or argument rages on, like that wildfire, it's grown over the years, to the point where I fear there are more of "them" than "me". BY that, I mean, more folks who are interested in proving something can't work, then there are folks who can say they do. More likely afraid to post that something does work for fear of riddicule from the naysayers. Again, we've learned from Bryon that there are several reasons for this type of behaviour from the naysayers. Which in turn solicited some more controversy. I don't think I"ll be around to see the day when the great divide is no longer with us. There will always be two sides,the ones who are in the playing field and those on the sidelines. But time has a funny way of changing things. I've seen tip toes,vibration control, and more widespead acceptance of power conditioning becoming less fringe and more mainstream over the years. Perhaps some of the more contentious items kicked about will also become just as acceptable. What I fail to understand is the misconstrued perception that only fools spend big bucks on audio systems and only do so for bragging rights. It couldn't be furthter from the truth. If you really feel it's all about the music, you would understand . |
That which constitutes the ability to claim scientific proof requires rigorous methodology, expensive test equipment and likely more money and time that most of us would rather spend listening. Speculation is largely free, other than caloric burn and it's associated expenses. Where facts are scarce, mysticism will prevail. I will use the facts to enhance the mystical experience, especially when it comes to music. That said, if you want to wear a necklace of ferrite beads go for it. I might make such a necklace if you assert its benefits vociferously, but I won't be paying big money for the privilege. |
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. |
I read the thread Bryon. But I think the pendulum is beginning to swing back to promoting better sound rather than trashing it. Pos feedback had a nice article which ties in with this thread and they published my reply to Why I am a Subjectivist in their letters column. Spending money on things which some of us use to improve our systems has mostly been looked at with scorn and scepticism by more and more "audiophiles"( I use the term loosely). That some are now starting to respond to these scatthing remarks and riddicule is long overdue. Music is the reason for getting involved in this hobby, the equipment is a means to enjoy the music.I am also a muscian. I always felt that it was the wise thing to do to use whatever funds were available to increase the level of performance of the system and in turn increase the enjoyment level. I never felt it was about bragging rights,I was spending money on items that worked for my ears. 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. Everyone's perception of an audio breakthrough are different. I've stated before,my take on an improvemnt in my system may not be noticeable to others or in other systems. But what I do know is that it does make my system sound better to my ears and I trust them, because I listen to the music with my ears and my ears only. But then doesn't everyone? So,it also seems that finances are another reason people get angry and like to argue. Over priced gear, out of the reach of normal wage earners,is a reason many have turned their back on audio and condemn those who do make high end purchases. Look at the flack the mags get if they rave about any gear that costs in the five figure range or higher. That angers some folks so much that they cancel their subscriptions. Yet there are always plenty of reviews of new low price gear that performs far better than most of the "vintage" gear they've spent the same money on. All they need to do is read the "specs" and they would see that most modern speakers have better specs than old ones. Amazing, the spec people should be the ones who own all new gear, yet they mostly don't. That over priced, rip off high end gear doesn't sit very long on the Gon pages does it? It's good stuff again if bought at pawn shop prices. Something tells me those magazine reviews of high end gear can come in handy afterall. So to all the folks who cancel their subscriptions because of reviews of high priced gear, thanks. There'll be fewer folks in the know when those nice mono blocks come up for sale used. |
"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....). |
Can it be that this thread prompted this article? http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue62/subjectivist.htm See, we do contribute, even by arguing. All the best, Nonoise |
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. |
From the concluding paragraph of the article at the link NoNoise provided: In my opinion if one believes in this phony so-called science all one needs is MP3s played on the cheapest mini-system one can find and 14 cent a foot 20 gauge speaker wire as these scientists in their quest to destroy high-end audio have proved with their AB and ABX double-blind testing protocols that everything under the sun statistically sounds the same. For example in the concluding comments of both the Stereo Review Amp and CD player tests they state that audio equipment should not be purchased based on sound quality because any differences are all imagined but by features, build quality and reliability. This is destructive bull of the worst type, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that objectivists unrealistic belief's are absurd.Somehow I don't think that there are too many high end audiophiles who fit the author's characterization of the objectivist part of the spectrum, whether they believe in magic tweaks or not. It's easy to make a case against those who do not share your views if you allow for only two possible positions, both of them extremist. Regards, -- Al |
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 |
