You guys are proving my point. There is not even a subject to this thread, and yet you want to argue when someone doesn't react the way you want.
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
06-20-12: Dan_edI see, Dan. I should lighten up. I shouldn't take things so seriously. My apologies. I didnÂ’t realize there was a moratorium on serious questions and serious answers. Until further notice, IÂ’ll make sure my posts are cavalier, ironic, and glib. Like this one. Was that better? Bryon |
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. |
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...... |
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.... |
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 one’s 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, there’s nothing wrong with being invested in the truth. And there’s 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 isn’t the argument. It’s the person doing the arguing. IMO, IME, etc. Bryon |
Lacee, not to be argumentative, but I thought there were some very thoughtful responses, Bryon's really hit the nail on the head- as did several others- we argue because we have different views and argument is not a bad thing if it is done in a civil way. It helps people learn and refine their thinking if done with some thought . I knew UnSound and some of the others were joking, although it may sometimes be hard to tell on the Internet. |
"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. |
Ok, it's another day. So when did the thread turn ugly? Which I guess it has, despite my optimism that the first diatribe was meant in jest. It starts with "who the hell are you-"and the pace is picked up by another poster with "stop it". Then "mother" or should I say Robert Young came in( as I mentioned, there's always one)to call a truce on Father's day. So, true to form we have the ganging up and the peacemaker that I mentioned about. But we still haven't found out why we are arguing? No one has been able to voice their reasons for wanting to end the thread have they? Those two individuals are not being forced to read,so they can "stop it" simply by not reading and not responding. They are in complete control.They can switch channels or turn off the TV. Perhaps that's not enough. Until they explain why, we are stiil in the dark about "why do we argue?" |
It's in our DNA, we can't help it. If the genetic material didn't support behaviors that were competitive in nature, then the self-fulfilling requirement of perpetuating the molecular structure would disappear and with it the fundamental "raison d'etre." The hardest part for people is to make the best of what argument provides for everyone, critical and constructive dicourse, while removing the object under discussion from personalization. Somehow we haven't been able to completely remove that element from our existence, but we're getting there. And then some folks are simply jerks; "avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit." Max Ehrmann |
i have a mixed mind on the subject of forum censorship. on the one hand i loath the idea of online hall monitors/moderators and like charzo et. al. generally endorse the idea of letting boys be boys. on the other hand, some of us still harbor vague dreams that this forum can be somewhat loftier that the typical internet springer show and that everyone will choose to adhere the precepts of civility, mutual respect, etc. unfortunately, like most utopian ideals, a self-policing, elevated forum is still a dream--while the vast majority of folks here are genuinely good folks, there is a loud minority of contentious nitwits, goofy trolls or outright douches, which (unfortunately) mandates some control on freedom of expression. thanks for indulging. |
"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. |
When the talking(argument) is cut short by the mods, we are left with a North and South Korea type of situation. Which is why I feel it's constructive to keep threads alive and not shut them down. Sometimes they morph,but there is always something to be learned,grains of wisdom from the collective whole of those who participate and to me that's a good thing. We need disargreement as a species to stay alive. Where would we be if we all toed the party line? We most likely would still be living in caves if it wasn't for the few brave fools who decided to venture out from the safety and sureness and comfort of their caves. Fast forward and mankind discovers that it will not fall off the face of the earth the nearer he gets to the horizon. So much for the established science and wisdom of the day. I am not anti science. I just feel that we haven't learned everything yet that there is to be learned,so I keep my mind open. 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. They would never have ventured out onto the high seas or out of their caves. All that they need to know is all that they have learned so far, and there's nothing left to discover. More of the closed mindset if you will. One understands he has much to learn, the other feels he knows all he needs to know. Those who have the need to learn and discover will tend towards aftermarket tweaks, those who have done it all know it all will avoid such like the plague. I remember Auntie Enid quite well,I discovered that there is a right and wrong way in power cord orientation. Some folks laughed at her. As I've mentioned,Aczel got me interested in the effect fuses have on our components. My take was that if the fuse degraded the sound in a speaker, then it could have the same impact wherever it is used. A very simple and easy experiment for me to do with my Maggies and my old Amber 70 amp of the day. An experiment that anyone can do to this day if they are careful. But only the folks who are curious will ever know what a fuse can do to the sonics while it protects our gear. The others' beliefs will not be altered, they will not try the fuse or other tweaks.Hardwired into them is everything they have ever learned, and that's all they need. They say their gear is not flawed and mine must have been, hence the reason why I noticed an improvement. Yet they will swap tubes,and replace the odd resistor or capacitor out of neccesity or for sonics. Those have become acceptable audio practises that both types of audiophiles engage in. So the frustrating part for me,a person who understands that everything plays a part in what we hear,is not understanding why the fuse isn't included in the list of acceptable audio practises. To me, there is nothing to argue about or debate about if only one side has ever experienced that which is in question. The only thing that is a certainty is that one side tried it, and one side didn't. Which would be a one sided argument if ever there was one. |
"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. |
06-12-12: Photon46I completely agree with this, Photon. I expressed the same thing a different way in the Verificationism thread, where I said... Verificationism is a major ideological division on Audiogon, particularly on topics relating to cables, power accessories, and miscellaneous tweaks. Verificationists argue that, if a statement about cable x, power outlet y, or tweak z cannot be verified, then the statement is not valid. Anti-verificationists argue that, if they themselves hear a difference between item x and item y, then that is sufficient to make statements about those items valid.What I called 'Verificationism' you are calling Objectivism, but our meanings are very close. 06-12-12: Photon46Again, completely agree. A good illustration is the Neutrality thread, which has 396 posts of passionate debate between Objectivists and Subjectivists. After a few dozen posts, it became clear that the dividing lines of the debate went much deeper than audio. The conflicting viewpoints reflected two fundamentally different ways of looking at truth and knowledge. And you're exactly right that accepting the validity of other people's point of view requires great humility. Bryon |
"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. |
As a long time reader and poster to this forum, I have the impression that a large proportion of the most contentious arguments evolve out of two beliefs: #1. Why things sound the way they do can be explained through current knowledge of science and differences that are real can be measured. #2. Double blind testing is the sword that cuts through delusion. Maybe the objectivist vs. subjectivist view of audio reality is a philosophical microcosm reflecting our respective world views? This bickering between the two audio world views is somewhat like the disagreement between western medicine practitioners and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners. Discussions that cut to the core of our sense of self and world view provoke passionate debate. It takes great humility to accept that someone with a radically different world view may nonetheless have a valid viewpoint. |