In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article
[big snip]


Could you or anyone give me a clue here - an author perhaps? I've just
read something by Marc Perlman* - but I shouldn't think it's up your
street!

Afraid I can't say if it is "up my street" or not without reading what you
reference, although the title seems quite an amusing one. :-)

Is it available on the web somewhere? Not likely to be in my physics dept
library, but we do have a psychology dept with a strong group in perception,
etc, so they may have a copy.

Not knowing the content of what you reference it is perhaps worth commenting
that there is a distinction between discussions of the 'sociology' or
'anthropology' of how scientist behave, and the actual experimental work
they do in terms of assessing the results for the purposes at which
the experiments are aimed.

What is it that you wish to know more about? The actual details of tests
people have done, and how to assess their results? Or opinions and
arguments about people may divide into two 'camps' in order to bicker more
easily without having to bother with the actual evidence? Or...?

Rob

* Marc Perlman (2004) Golden Ears and Meter Readers: The Contest for
Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia; 34; 783, Social Studies of Science

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article
[big snip]

Could you or anyone give me a clue here - an author perhaps? I've just
read something by Marc Perlman* - but I shouldn't think it's up your
street!

Afraid I can't say if it is "up my street" or not without reading what you
reference, although the title seems quite an amusing one. :-)

Is it available on the web somewhere? Not likely to be in my physics dept
library, but we do have a psychology dept with a strong group in perception,
etc, so they may have a copy.

There's a certain irony in your request :-) but yes, let me do the research:

https://cdnav.sslpowered.com/shared/...emic%20783.pdf


I picked it up via an online university catalogue. I suspect you are not
linked to a physics department as such - more the whole university, so
you can get whatever you want.

Not knowing the content of what you reference it is perhaps worth commenting
that there is a distinction between discussions of the 'sociology' or
'anthropology' of how scientist behave, and the actual experimental work
they do in terms of assessing the results for the purposes at which
the experiments are aimed.


Yes, I am familiar with what you say - hence my interest in the
epistemological reference. Before you can even think about method
(scientific or otherwise) you have to establish what counts as fact.
It's just the way it works in natural and social science (IIUC). And
that's what the article's about.

What is it that you wish to know more about? The actual details of tests
people have done, and how to assess their results? Or opinions and
arguments about people may divide into two 'camps' in order to bicker more
easily without having to bother with the actual evidence? Or...?


Well, I'd like some evidence :-)

I'm interested in work that examines DBT, and anything that seeks to
explain why people find differences in things like cables, CD players
(etc) where 'science' dictates no (such) difference is audible.

Perhaps this isn't your thing, so you won't know of any work in this
field. But it seems to crop up on this ng from time to time, and given
there's a few brain boxes here abouts, I thought someone might know.

The AES have some highly qualified people looking at this subject:

http://www.aes.org/technical/pseas/

although they seem rather shy in sharing their findings ;-)

Rob

* Marc Perlman (2004) Golden Ears and Meter Readers: The Contest for
Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia; 34; 783, Social Studies of Science


I found that reference indirectly, via some AES authors. I'm not sure
what to make of Perlman's work; the bit on p.797 onward kept me reading.

Rob

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:


Afraid I can't say if it is "up my street" or not without reading what
you reference, although the title seems quite an amusing one. :-)

Is it available on the web somewhere? Not likely to be in my physics
dept library, but we do have a psychology dept with a strong group in
perception, etc, so they may have a copy.

There's a certain irony in your request :-)

Yes, thought that at the time, but felt it would be quicker if you already
knew. ;-

but yes, let me do the research:

https://cdnav.sslpowered.com/shared/...emic%20783.pdf

Thanks. I'll download a copy and have a look.


I picked it up via an online university catalogue. I suspect you are not
linked to a physics department as such - more the whole university, so
you can get whatever you want.

Yes. I can borrow anything in our University library system. Can also still
get things via inter-library loan or from the BM if necessary. But it is
obviously quicker and easier to find them closer to hand or via the web if
I can.


Not knowing the content of what you reference it is perhaps worth
commenting that there is a distinction between discussions of the
'sociology' or 'anthropology' of how scientist behave, and the actual
experimental work they do in terms of assessing the results for the
purposes at which the experiments are aimed.


Yes, I am familiar with what you say - hence my interest in the
epistemological reference. Before you can even think about method
(scientific or otherwise) you have to establish what counts as fact.
It's just the way it works in natural and social science (IIUC). And
that's what the article's about.

This makes me think of a a book I read a while ago that was about various
views of what consituted the 'scientific method'. It was quite interesting
as it showed that for socioligists and anthropologists this phrase is
interpreted in quite a different way than for physical scientists and
engineers.

I can't recall the details, and have been looking for it so I can specify
the title, etc, in case anyone is interested. I'll see if I can find it
later and give the info.

What struck me about it was the extent to which some 'soft science'
academics do have an approach which is totally different to that in 'hard
science' (to use two rather unsatisfactory terms). I could characature this
as follows:

The physical science types proceed on the basis of a method where it
consists of devising experimental tests that aim to control, statistically
randomise, etc, unwanted variables and effects and which produce results
that then either support or undermine an idea - or which allow us to
distinguish between competing ideas and conflict with one whilst agreeing
with the other. Then decide on the evidence.

The soft science view was as if this was then looked at as 'anthropology
and social structures' like noting that physicsts were gregarious and drank
tea, whilst chemists stayed in their offices and drank coffee. i.e. looking
at social and personal behaviours. 'How scientists behave'. Then taking
this as being the 'scientific method'.

The above is deliberately a cartoon/joke picture for emphasis, but it does
I think show the difference in approach which seemed apparent to me. The
result was that - as social science and anthropology - the ideas of the
soft scientists were perfectly sensible and valid. But the problem was that
the actual experimental/proceedural methods of the science being done was
overlooked, and the method itself lost under the anthropology.

TBH It probably does not help that most physical scientists and engineers
I've met never bothered to think explcitly about the scientific method.
They usually pick up their methods by 'sitting next to Nellie'. i.e. from
their peers and teachers. In that respect the social scientists and
anthropologists' views I have seen are spot-on. But they way they pick up
their methods isn't the actual rational/scientific basis they have. So some
confusion between container and contained ensues. :-)

What is it that you wish to know more about? The actual details of
tests people have done, and how to assess their results? Or opinions
and arguments about people may divide into two 'camps' in order to
bicker more easily without having to bother with the actual evidence?
Or...?


Well, I'd like some evidence :-)

I'm interested in work that examines DBT, and anything that seeks to
explain why people find differences in things like cables, CD players
(etc) where 'science' dictates no (such) difference is audible.

That is difficult for various reasons.

One being that having a well run test does not mean it has to be a 'DBT'.
However for that reason if you look at the various experiments people have
done, you can use them to assess when that may or may not be sensible.

Alas, there are a number of possible reasons for people to 'perceive a
difference'. The problem is that if the experiment is poorly done, this
often prevents you from identifing a 'cause' for the difference as there
are a number of candiates and the test method failed to exclude a number of
them. This is the reason why uncontrolled comparisons may be worthless. Not
because the people are 'deluded' about their being any 'difference', but
because their test gives us no basis for assuming the 'cause' they assume
had anything to do with it! There may well have been an audible difference,
but that doesn't establish the reason is as claimed.

The above is why I find bickering about 'subjective' and 'objective' and
people insisting they are right, or that they are 'deluded' so unhelpful.
It distracts people from the real problems, and how they could be dealt
with if people put their time and interest into doing so rather than
bickering in what seems to me to be a pointless and irrelevant manner.

So you would have to be more specific than "examines DBT" in order to make
headway.

Perhaps this isn't your thing, so you won't know of any work in this
field. But it seems to crop up on this ng from time to time, and given
there's a few brain boxes here abouts, I thought someone might know.

The AES have some highly qualified people looking at this subject:

http://www.aes.org/technical/pseas/

although they seem rather shy in sharing their findings ;-)

Alas, many professionals have decided that it is worse than a waste of time
trying to discuss this in public. The risk is that they just get abused and
attacked. They don't need that, so walk away. Various professionals and
academics have done that over the last couple of decades. This then creates
a reputation for 'audiophiles' which is bolstered by things like the use of
vastly expensive mains cables, etc, that causes most professional academics
and engineers to regard them as a pack of loonies.

The natural desire is then to move down the bus, away from anyone who
starts behaving in such a manner, and get off at the next stop before they
become abusive. FWIW I have repeatedly had reactions from professionals
that I waste my time by even discussing such matters as cables or various
other audiophile topics, and just make myself look daft. Fortunately, life
has resigned me to my role of looking daft. I don't mind, as being willing
to look daft seems to me a price for looking for new ideas. But I may
simply be daft to think this. ;-

The abandonment of this area by professionals is another result of the
pointless bickering and name-calling. I regret it, but can understand their
feelings.

Rob

* Marc Perlman (2004) Golden Ears and Meter Readers: The Contest for
Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia; 34; 783, Social Studies of Science


I found that reference indirectly, via some AES authors. I'm not sure
what to make of Perlman's work; the bit on p.797 onward kept me reading.

May be able to say more once I have had a chance to read the above. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

P.S. I have now found the book I was thinking of. This is

Steve Fuller. "Kuhn vs. Popper: The struggle for the soul of science."
Icon Books 2003 ISBN 1 84066 722 8

FWIW despite the praise on the covers of the paperback copy I have I
can't say it seems particularly well-written or "new". But it may
be of some interest. :-)


--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

Afraid I can't say if it is "up my street" or not without reading what
you reference, although the title seems quite an amusing one. :-)

Is it available on the web somewhere? Not likely to be in my physics
dept library, but we do have a psychology dept with a strong group in
perception, etc, so they may have a copy.

There's a certain irony in your request :-)

Yes, thought that at the time, but felt it would be quicker if you already
knew. ;-

but yes, let me do the research:

https://cdnav.sslpowered.com/shared/...emic%20783.pdf

Thanks. I'll download a copy and have a look.


I picked it up via an online university catalogue. I suspect you are not
linked to a physics department as such - more the whole university, so
you can get whatever you want.

Yes. I can borrow anything in our University library system. Can also still
get things via inter-library loan or from the BM if necessary. But it is
obviously quicker and easier to find them closer to hand or via the web if
I can.


I'm pretty sure you can download the paper from your online university
catalogue - I use a remote desktop application at home. I downloaded the
article from Sage, from within the university internet domain. The link
takes you to the article that someone has naughtily made available.

Not knowing the content of what you reference it is perhaps worth
commenting that there is a distinction between discussions of the
'sociology' or 'anthropology' of how scientist behave, and the actual
experimental work they do in terms of assessing the results for the
purposes at which the experiments are aimed.


Yes, I am familiar with what you say - hence my interest in the
epistemological reference. Before you can even think about method
(scientific or otherwise) you have to establish what counts as fact.
It's just the way it works in natural and social science (IIUC). And
that's what the article's about.

This makes me think of a a book I read a while ago that was about various
views of what consituted the 'scientific method'. It was quite interesting
as it showed that for socioligists and anthropologists this phrase is
interpreted in quite a different way than for physical scientists and
engineers.

I can't recall the details, and have been looking for it so I can specify
the title, etc, in case anyone is interested. I'll see if I can find it
later and give the info.

What struck me about it was the extent to which some 'soft science'
academics do have an approach which is totally different to that in 'hard
science' (to use two rather unsatisfactory terms). I could characature this
as follows:

The physical science types proceed on the basis of a method where it
consists of devising experimental tests that aim to control, statistically
randomise, etc, unwanted variables and effects and which produce results
that then either support or undermine an idea - or which allow us to
distinguish between competing ideas and conflict with one whilst agreeing
with the other. Then decide on the evidence.

The soft science view was as if this was then looked at as 'anthropology
and social structures' like noting that physicsts were gregarious and drank
tea, whilst chemists stayed in their offices and drank coffee. i.e. looking
at social and personal behaviours. 'How scientists behave'. Then taking
this as being the 'scientific method'.


Sounds bonkers to me! The method has to have a basis, even if it isn't
stated. Quite often it's left as what might be considered reasonable
under the circumstances. Bob Jessop is quite good on this - compromise
and method - 'contingent necessity'.

The above is deliberately a cartoon/joke picture for emphasis, but it does
I think show the difference in approach which seemed apparent to me. The
result was that - as social science and anthropology - the ideas of the
soft scientists were perfectly sensible and valid. But the problem was that
the actual experimental/proceedural methods of the science being done was
overlooked, and the method itself lost under the anthropology.


Anthropology has a strong line on 'rationality' and predisposition I
think. I have a very simple view on this. Method can be guided by a
belief that individuals shape society, or a belief that society shapes
individuals. Or something in between. The method used will depend on the
belief. But that's social (of people) science. I can't work through the
analogy in natural science ATM :-)


TBH It probably does not help that most physical scientists and engineers
I've met never bothered to think explcitly about the scientific method.
They usually pick up their methods by 'sitting next to Nellie'. i.e. from
their peers and teachers. In that respect the social scientists and
anthropologists' views I have seen are spot-on. But they way they pick up
their methods isn't the actual rational/scientific basis they have. So some
confusion between container and contained ensues. :-)


I think that positivist social scientific method shares a great deal
with natural science. The trend nowadays appears to be almost
anti-positivist in social science journals, but not in commissioned work
(especially commissioned by govt).

I don't understand your container/contained reference - do you mean the
*relationship between* the container and contained?

What is it that you wish to know more about? The actual details of
tests people have done, and how to assess their results? Or opinions
and arguments about people may divide into two 'camps' in order to
bicker more easily without having to bother with the actual evidence?
Or...?


Well, I'd like some evidence :-)

I'm interested in work that examines DBT, and anything that seeks to
explain why people find differences in things like cables, CD players
(etc) where 'science' dictates no (such) difference is audible.

That is difficult for various reasons.

One being that having a well run test does not mean it has to be a 'DBT'.
However for that reason if you look at the various experiments people have
done, you can use them to assess when that may or may not be sensible.

Alas, there are a number of possible reasons for people to 'perceive a
difference'. The problem is that if the experiment is poorly done, this
often prevents you from identifing a 'cause' for the difference as there
are a number of candiates and the test method failed to exclude a number of
them. This is the reason why uncontrolled comparisons may be worthless. Not
because the people are 'deluded' about their being any 'difference', but
because their test gives us no basis for assuming the 'cause' they assume
had anything to do with it! There may well have been an audible difference,
but that doesn't establish the reason is as claimed.

The above is why I find bickering about 'subjective' and 'objective' and
people insisting they are right, or that they are 'deluded' so unhelpful.
It distracts people from the real problems, and how they could be dealt
with if people put their time and interest into doing so rather than
bickering in what seems to me to be a pointless and irrelevant manner.

So you would have to be more specific than "examines DBT" in order to make
headway.


I chose DBT as an example. It seems to be a 'line in the sand' method to
establish difference, and I am uncomfortable with that. I do doubt that
we're at the 'end of science' any more than we're 'at the end of
history' (a popular notion in some political and social science
circles). I can critique the 'history' concept, but not the 'science'
idea, although what I've read (and understood - very little) on quantum
theory suggests there's a lot more to learn.



Perhaps this isn't your thing, so you won't know of any work in this
field. But it seems to crop up on this ng from time to time, and given
there's a few brain boxes here abouts, I thought someone might know.

The AES have some highly qualified people looking at this subject:

http://www.aes.org/technical/pseas/

although they seem rather shy in sharing their findings ;-)

Alas, many professionals have decided that it is worse than a waste of time
trying to discuss this in public. The risk is that they just get abused and
attacked. They don't need that, so walk away. Various professionals and
academics have done that over the last couple of decades. This then creates
a reputation for 'audiophiles' which is bolstered by things like the use of
vastly expensive mains cables, etc, that causes most professional academics
and engineers to regard them as a pack of loonies.

The natural desire is then to move down the bus, away from anyone who
starts behaving in such a manner, and get off at the next stop before they
become abusive. FWIW I have repeatedly had reactions from professionals
that I waste my time by even discussing such matters as cables or various
other audiophile topics, and just make myself look daft. Fortunately, life
has resigned me to my role of looking daft. I don't mind, as being willing
to look daft seems to me a price for looking for new ideas. But I may
simply be daft to think this. ;-


No, I think that's well put. At another point in history you'd have been
labelled wise (perhaps!) - which is another point on method - the
context (after Foucault).


The abandonment of this area by professionals is another result of the
pointless bickering and name-calling. I regret it, but can understand their
feelings.

Rob
* Marc Perlman (2004) Golden Ears and Meter Readers: The Contest for
Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia; 34; 783, Social Studies of Science

I found that reference indirectly, via some AES authors. I'm not sure
what to make of Perlman's work; the bit on p.797 onward kept me reading.

May be able to say more once I have had a chance to read the above. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

P.S. I have now found the book I was thinking of. This is

Steve Fuller. "Kuhn vs. Popper: The struggle for the soul of science."
Icon Books 2003 ISBN 1 84066 722 8

FWIW despite the praise on the covers of the paperback copy I have I
can't say it seems particularly well-written or "new". But it may
be of some interest. :-)


I thoroughly enjoyed Magee's 'Popper', and spent some time on Kuhn's
'paradigm shift' notion. All very interesting but turned me quite
mad(der) for a while :-)

Rob

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
[snip]



TBH It probably does not help that most physical scientists and
engineers I've met never bothered to think explcitly about the
scientific method. They usually pick up their methods by 'sitting next
to Nellie'. i.e. from their peers and teachers. In that respect the
social scientists and anthropologists' views I have seen are spot-on.
But they way they pick up their methods isn't the actual
rational/scientific basis they have. So some confusion between
container and contained ensues. :-)


I think that positivist social scientific method shares a great deal
with natural science. The trend nowadays appears to be almost
anti-positivist in social science journals, but not in commissioned work
(especially commissioned by govt).

I don't understand your container/contained reference - do you mean the
*relationship between* the container and contained?

It referred to what I was described earlier in the posting. That social
scientists and anthropologists tend to see and analyse 'how scientists
behave'. This leads to a consideration in terms of noting patterns of
behaviour and examination of 'motivation', etc. e.g. the wish by a
scientist to gain the respect of his peers, or get research cash, and so
on.

But the 'scientific method' as I and some others refer to it is something
else. It is the 'method' which involves testing ideas by performing
appropriate experiments to gather assessable evidence, and so on. Also
included is the way experimental methods and protocols are designed to be
fit for specified purposes, or are checked using other experiments. And so
on.

The point I was trying to make is that the immediate motive of many
scientists is to 'get on' and do work which will lead to results that
satisfy them and their peers. (Container) But that this involves at another
level what I am referring to as use of the 'scientific method. (Contained)

For quite sensible reasons, social science/anthropology/psychology
academics and researchers will be interested in one of these, and examine
it in great details. But I have noticed a tendency to then overlook the
other, or assume it isn't present.

[snip]


So you would have to be more specific than "examines DBT" in order to
make headway.


I chose DBT as an example. It seems to be a 'line in the sand' method to
establish difference, and I am uncomfortable with that. I do doubt that
we're at the 'end of science' any more than we're 'at the end of
history' (a popular notion in some political and social science
circles). I can critique the 'history' concept, but not the 'science'
idea, although what I've read (and understood - very little) on quantum
theory suggests there's a lot more to learn.

I've now had a read of the reference you gave, although I've not finished
it or re-read to check my initial reactions. However it seemed to me quite
a decent description of the situation in social science/anthropology terms.

What you say above reminds me of one of the issues it bypasses - by
statement in the reference presumably because they avoid trying to judge
the positions described.

The problem here is the tendency for people to misunderstand or misuse the
'provisional' nature of scientific understanding, and the status of our
ideas and assessment of evidence.

The point is that whilst we accept that any idea *might* have to be changed
or discarded, we use them on the basis of having a way to assess their
reliability using the evidence to hand already. Speculations about what
might turn up later are not a basis for dismissing ideas shown to be
reliable by the evidence we have. For that, the speculation has to be
testable, and only when such a test is done, we can judge on the basis of
the new evidence, combined with previous evidence and any relevant other
ideas (founded on evidence) in our body of scientific understanding.

So yes, there is a great deal more to be learned. But we do not learn it
simply by refusing to accept the ideas we have that are shown to be
reliable. We do so by carrying out suitable new experimental and
observational work.

Nor do we concluse that "we have more to learn" means the same as "we know
nothing". It means we also already have a fair body of useful and reliable
understandings, but will learn more as we progress.

The other point that struck me about the reference was the way it neatly
described the tendency of what they called the 'Golden Eared' to give their
experience 'privilidged status'. i.e. the presumption that both their
perceptions *and their conclusions* cannot be wrong. So any other evidence
which casts doubt on them must be attacked or dismissed. This at one point
was combined with the idea that "science can't explain the difference
reported by the Golden Eared" as showing that "science has things to
learn".

The problem with this point is that "science" can actually offer a number
of quite plausible 'explanations' for what the "Golden Eared" report. Not
merely that they are 'deluded' which is what the debate falls into when
people start trading insults. The difficulty is that when people do poorly
run comparisons there are a number of plausible explanations for what the
"Golden Eared" report, but that it us hard to see which may be the 'right'
explanation as the comparison was so poorly done as to mean that you can't
tell from the comparison which was the one to pick.

[snip]

The natural desire is then to move down the bus, away from anyone who
starts behaving in such a manner, and get off at the next stop before
they become abusive. FWIW I have repeatedly had reactions from
professionals that I waste my time by even discussing such matters as
cables or various other audiophile topics, and just make myself look
daft. Fortunately, life has resigned me to my role of looking daft. I
don't mind, as being willing to look daft seems to me a price for
looking for new ideas. But I may simply be daft to think this. ;-


No, I think that's well put. At another point in history you'd have been
labelled wise (perhaps!) - which is another point on method - the
context (after Foucault).

I would doubt the wisdom of anyone who called me 'wise'. :-)


P.S. I have now found the book I was thinking of. This is

Steve Fuller. "Kuhn vs. Popper: The struggle for the soul of science."
Icon Books 2003 ISBN 1 84066 722 8

FWIW despite the praise on the covers of the paperback copy I have I
can't say it seems particularly well-written or "new". But it may be
of some interest. :-)


I thoroughly enjoyed Magee's 'Popper', and spent some time on Kuhn's
'paradigm shift' notion. All very interesting but turned me quite
mad(der) for a while :-)

I must confess that I tend to avoid 'philosophy' books as they tend to give
me the 'chinese meal' effect of feeling bloated when I am consuming them,
but shortly afterwards I get the feeling that they gave me no real
nourishment at all. Afraid the above book seemed a little like that, but
was interesting at times whilst I read it. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
[ Lots snipped]


I've now had a read of the reference you gave, although I've not finished
it or re-read to check my initial reactions. However it seemed to me quite
a decent description of the situation in social science/anthropology
terms.

Having also read the reference, I agree that it seems quite sensible in
Social Science terms, but even in those terms, it was quite limited.
It didn't analyse the role of the designers and manufacturers of cables and
tweaking products. In my experience, the effect of these is great in
influencing magazines through advertising and placed editorial. In turn, the
magazines influence readers who can become purchasers.
I also didn't see enough mention of the effects of the magazines in moulding
attitudes. Those of us old enough will recall how single-speaker
demonstrations became de rigeur, and how one particluar manufacturer managed
to convince pretty much the entire industry that the source was the most
important aspect of hi-fi.



[snipped as I agree with it so deson't need comment]

The other point that struck me about the reference was the way it neatly
described the tendency of what they called the 'Golden Eared' to give
their
experience 'privilidged status'. i.e. the presumption that both their
perceptions *and their conclusions* cannot be wrong. So any other evidence
which casts doubt on them must be attacked or dismissed. This at one point
was combined with the idea that "science can't explain the difference
reported by the Golden Eared" as showing that "science has things to
learn".

When I read that, I took it to be irony, not a serious point. However,
overall, the document makes many good and serious points, but doesn't come
any closer to settling the subjective/objective arguement which will run and
run for as long as people without hard scientific training are buyers and
users of technology they can't understand. This is equally true of
computers, mobile 'phones, TV and satellite equipment, cars and so on:-
people make decisions on what to buy and defend those decisions on emotional
grounds, not considered technical grounds as they are not equipped for such
an understanding. Whatever our speciality in life, we are all consumers of
technology we don't understand to some extent, and have to rely on
advertising, peer pressure or whatever for our decision-making.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
[ Lots snipped]


I've now had a read of the reference you gave, although I've not
finished it or re-read to check my initial reactions. However it
seemed to me quite a decent description of the situation in social
science/anthropology terms.

Having also read the reference, I agree that it seems quite sensible in
Social Science terms, but even in those terms, it was quite limited. It
didn't analyse the role of the designers and manufacturers of cables and
tweaking products.

My impression is that it is fairly normal in that respect for a paper in
social science, etc. The aim of the article was to describe and discuss the
specific area indicated. To whit: the two social groups it called "Golden
Ears" and "Meter Readers". I would not expect a paper in a physics journal
to normally deal with any related issues of sociology or anthropology,
either, even if they were vital to a give real-world pattern of behaviour.
Although there may well be grounds for making an exception as in this
siuation, but for various reasons (as mentioned below) this can be
difficult for an academic...

The problem the author would have would discussing the influence and
drivers of the kind you described is that, in part, he might be unaware of
them, in part, that it might risk him becoming 'involved' when he was
trying to avoid being judgemental, and in part that it would have made the
paper into a book if he had really covered all the influences, history,
dynamics, etc, of what is involved in the social dynamics. Also other
problems of a kind a mention later.

Quite possibly he might think he could deal with other factors in another
paper. Academics often work on the basis of the 'minimum publishable unit'
of info so as to maximise the number of publications they can string out
from an idea or topic. Looks better on the CV. ;-

[snipped as I agree with it so deson't need comment]

The other point that struck me about the reference was the way it
neatly described the tendency of what they called the 'Golden Eared'
to give their experience 'privilidged status'. i.e. the presumption
that both their perceptions *and their conclusions* cannot be wrong.
So any other evidence which casts doubt on them must be attacked or
dismissed. This at one point was combined with the idea that "science
can't explain the difference reported by the Golden Eared" as showing
that "science has things to learn".

When I read that, I took it to be irony, not a serious point. However,
overall, the document makes many good and serious points, but doesn't
come any closer to settling the subjective/objective arguement which
will run and run for as long as people without hard scientific training
are buyers and users of technology they can't understand.

I agree. But I think that he felt that was not part of his task.

He deals with the matter on one level specific as 'case study' in social
science and anthropology soa s to work within his discipline and area of
academic expertise. I am not surprised that he didn't deal with the other
levels of what may be involved as they aren't 'social science'. No idea if
he recognises them or not, but if he does, he is likely to assume they
aren't part of his specialisation, or not for this 'publishable unit'. :-)
Also, if he had dealt with them, the journal might have wanted that excised
as not being part of the topic area they cover. The paper may well have
been written - as many are - with a specific journal and area in mind.

This is equally true of computers, mobile 'phones, TV and satellite
equipment, cars and so on:- people make decisions on what to buy and
defend those decisions on emotional grounds, not considered technical
grounds as they are not equipped for such an understanding. Whatever our
speciality in life, we are all consumers of technology we don't
understand to some extent, and have to rely on advertising, peer
pressure or whatever for our decision-making.

I was interested to the references to another study of 'TRS80 users' as I
am also a user of a 'non standard computer system'. :-) FWIW I agreed
with, and recognised, many of the points he made. But also agree with what
you have said about the limits of the area he then dealt with. An engineer
or physical scientist would have deal with the matter in a very different
manner I suspect. But I suspect a marketing droid might well have found his
social level more relevant. ;-

Given the above I can see, Rob, why you felt the paper might not be by
'cup of tea'. In many ways it isn't, but it is certainly interesting,
and seems to me to be quite valid and useful in its own terms. So I
found it well worth reading. But dealing with what reliable basis
there may be for the views of the two groupings in terms is a different
matter outwith the paper's remit, I think.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

When I read that, I took it to be irony, not a serious point. However,
overall, the document makes many good and serious points, but doesn't come
any closer to settling the subjective/objective arguement which will run and
run for as long as people without hard scientific training are buyers and
users of technology they can't understand. This is equally true of
computers, mobile 'phones, TV and satellite equipment, cars and so on:-
people make decisions on what to buy and defend those decisions on emotional
grounds, not considered technical grounds as they are not equipped for such
an understanding. Whatever our speciality in life, we are all consumers of
technology we don't understand to some extent, and have to rely on
advertising, peer pressure or whatever for our decision-making.

S.



This from another news group is quite amusing and rather sums at lot of
it up;!...

************************************************** *****************


What people say in job adverts, spout in management meetings and
management training courses is a million miles removed from the way they
actually behave in the office.

A large corporation is a political power struggle, par excellence. How
any work gets done at all is beyond me, frankly.


When selling to middle management in large companies, the guiding
principles are these.

1/. Its not his money he is spending. He may have a budget, but that is
as far as it goes.

2/. If he doesn't spend his budget, it will be reduced next year,

3/. If he overspends his budget it will be less next year.

4/. What is best for the company that employs him is not even an issue
to be discussed.

5/. What counts is what is best for his CV and career in the next job he
has his eyes set on.

6/. He hasn't a clue what he needs: Fortunately neither do his bosses.

7/. He is in a terrible position of having to take a risk which may
damage his career, or take no risk at all, and fail to achieve his
imposed objectives.

8/. His objectives are seldom anything to do with the actual quality of
the service or products delivered. They will have been set as a
political compromise of wish list selection in a 'meeting' that didn't
really resolve or decide anything, and put into a huge document that he
has had to write/had written, which usually contradicts itself, and is
seldom comprehensible. Its been signed off by his boss, who is frankly
bored with the whole thing and only read the executive summary, which
contains all the right buzz phrases.

9/. The sale consists in providing enough spurious guarantees so that he
feels that his arse is at least covered with respect to total project
implosion. Plus enough project documentation to convince his boss that
he has in fact done his job properly. It also has to be at an impressive
price that stretches, but does not exceed the budget. Any less makes him
look like a insignificant manager, whose job could be done by anyone.
Any more means he is impecunious and cannot control a budget.

10/. Finally, when it all goes into meltdown, the project must be
structured and offloaded in such a way, that neither he, nor his boss,
get any brown stuff on their trousers. The neatest way to do this is to
complain that his department is over stressed and understaffed, which
turns the institutionalised incompetence into a plus: he may just get a
budget rise and run an even bigger department next year if his boss
feels a bit threatened too. However this runs the risk that the whole
department may get closed down. So a smart manager will have kept some
budget back to spend on an external consultant, whose job is to come in
and analyse the situation, and write a report that exonerates the people
employing him, and manages to place the blame squarely on the shoulders
of the most expendable staff members, or contractors. This is an art
form, and one I have had to do in my time.

11/. Finally the key to selling is to make sure that nothing legally
sueable was ever said in the contract, so that while its full of empty
promises, they are all conditioned by phrases that say things like 'best
efforts : there should be no assurances of a concrete nature anywhere in
it, to protect the vendors interests. I remember a wonderful time with
Cisco in the channel islands 'We can offer a 24 hour call-out service
anywhere in the British Isles" "On a winters day, with a gale blowing,
the ports closed and all aircraft grounded? Are you sure?" :-)

You will note that in none of the sequences of events here, has a simple
cost effective solution to a real world problem ever been discussed.
Frankly, who needs one? It may actually happen as a result of some keen
junior slipping a spec of quality past the bull****, in which case the
manager will take credit for at the worst, being sharp enough to employ
such a good 'team player'

BUT that guy will be watched like a hawk: he is obviously extremely
dangerous, and patently capable of taking the manager's job away from
him along with most of his staff and budget. Normally he will be
constructively dismissed shortly afterwards.

A real 'team player' is the guy who won't threaten your job, but will
correct your mistakes in a way that makes you look good, and probably
without you noticing it, and seldom even brings them to your attention
and is there to take the blame when things go wrong. Above all a good
team player never ever dulls your day with doses of reality. Corporate
life is all about perception, how you are perceived by others, how your
boss perceives you, how your CV and its implied value in the salary
stakes show..

Whether or not anything is actually achieved is a completely incidental
and usually accidental issue...

You only have top look at the whole mess of government as an employer to
see how true this all is.

--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
When I read that, I took it to be irony, not a serious point. However,
overall, the document makes many good and serious points, but doesn't come
any closer to settling the subjective/objective arguement which will run
and
run for as long as people without hard scientific training are buyers and
users of technology they can't understand. This is equally true of
computers, mobile 'phones, TV and satellite equipment, cars and so on:-
people make decisions on what to buy and defend those decisions on
emotional
grounds, not considered technical grounds as they are not equipped for
such
an understanding. Whatever our speciality in life, we are all consumers of
technology we don't understand to some extent, and have to rely on
advertising, peer pressure or whatever for our decision-making.

S.



This from another news group is quite amusing and rather sums at lot of
it up;!...

************************************************** *****************


What people say in job adverts, spout in management meetings and
management training courses is a million miles removed from the way they
actually behave in the office.

A large corporation is a political power struggle, par excellence. How
any work gets done at all is beyond me, frankly.


When selling to middle management in large companies, the guiding
principles are these.

1/. Its not his money he is spending. He may have a budget, but that is
as far as it goes.

2/. If he doesn't spend his budget, it will be reduced next year,

3/. If he overspends his budget it will be less next year.

4/. What is best for the company that employs him is not even an issue
to be discussed.

5/. What counts is what is best for his CV and career in the next job he
has his eyes set on.

6/. He hasn't a clue what he needs: Fortunately neither do his bosses.

7/. He is in a terrible position of having to take a risk which may
damage his career, or take no risk at all, and fail to achieve his
imposed objectives.

8/. His objectives are seldom anything to do with the actual quality of
the service or products delivered. They will have been set as a
political compromise of wish list selection in a 'meeting' that didn't
really resolve or decide anything, and put into a huge document that he
has had to write/had written, which usually contradicts itself, and is
seldom comprehensible. Its been signed off by his boss, who is frankly
bored with the whole thing and only read the executive summary, which
contains all the right buzz phrases.

9/. The sale consists in providing enough spurious guarantees so that he
feels that his arse is at least covered with respect to total project
implosion. Plus enough project documentation to convince his boss that
he has in fact done his job properly. It also has to be at an impressive
price that stretches, but does not exceed the budget. Any less makes him
look like a insignificant manager, whose job could be done by anyone.
Any more means he is impecunious and cannot control a budget.

10/. Finally, when it all goes into meltdown, the project must be
structured and offloaded in such a way, that neither he, nor his boss,
get any brown stuff on their trousers. The neatest way to do this is to
complain that his department is over stressed and understaffed, which
turns the institutionalised incompetence into a plus: he may just get a
budget rise and run an even bigger department next year if his boss
feels a bit threatened too. However this runs the risk that the whole
department may get closed down. So a smart manager will have kept some
budget back to spend on an external consultant, whose job is to come in
and analyse the situation, and write a report that exonerates the people
employing him, and manages to place the blame squarely on the shoulders
of the most expendable staff members, or contractors. This is an art
form, and one I have had to do in my time.

11/. Finally the key to selling is to make sure that nothing legally
sueable was ever said in the contract, so that while its full of empty
promises, they are all conditioned by phrases that say things like 'best
efforts : there should be no assurances of a concrete nature anywhere in
it, to protect the vendors interests. I remember a wonderful time with
Cisco in the channel islands 'We can offer a 24 hour call-out service
anywhere in the British Isles" "On a winters day, with a gale blowing,
the ports closed and all aircraft grounded? Are you sure?" :-)

You will note that in none of the sequences of events here, has a simple
cost effective solution to a real world problem ever been discussed.
Frankly, who needs one? It may actually happen as a result of some keen
junior slipping a spec of quality past the bull****, in which case the
manager will take credit for at the worst, being sharp enough to employ
such a good 'team player'

BUT that guy will be watched like a hawk: he is obviously extremely
dangerous, and patently capable of taking the manager's job away from
him along with most of his staff and budget. Normally he will be
constructively dismissed shortly afterwards.

A real 'team player' is the guy who won't threaten your job, but will
correct your mistakes in a way that makes you look good, and probably
without you noticing it, and seldom even brings them to your attention
and is there to take the blame when things go wrong. Above all a good
team player never ever dulls your day with doses of reality. Corporate
life is all about perception, how you are perceived by others, how your
boss perceives you, how your CV and its implied value in the salary
stakes show..

Whether or not anything is actually achieved is a completely incidental
and usually accidental issue...

You only have top look at the whole mess of government as an employer to
see how true this all is.

--
Tony Sayer

Dear me, whoever wrote that must have looked inside my head at some stage.
Everything there is *exactly* right, and the reason I never got on in the
corporate rat-race. I have worked for large and small companies, and just
couldn't hack it in large companies where *no-one* had the interests of
their employer at heart, only what was good for them and their CV. At least
in small companies, there's nowhere for anyone to hide, and everyone must
pull their weight. One of my colleagues once said that he never wanted to
work for a company that was large enough to have a Human Resources
Department. Couldn't have put it better myself.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

"Serge Auckland" wrote



Dear me, whoever wrote that must have looked inside my head at some stage.
Everything there is *exactly* right, and the reason I never got on in the
corporate rat-race. I have worked for large and small companies, and just
couldn't hack it in large companies where *no-one* had the interests of
their employer at heart, only what was good for them and their CV. At
least in small companies, there's nowhere for anyone to hide, and everyone
must pull their weight. One of my colleagues once said that he never
wanted to work for a company that was large enough to have a Human
Resources Department. Couldn't have put it better myself.



The alternative of working for a small employer is to 'go without' while
struggling to pay your bills (memories of early married life here) and watch
the useless **** who is the owner's son climb into a car you couldn't even
dream of owning in two lifetimes!

(At least, in my case, not until I lit out on my own - then I worried more
about my employee's capability of paying their mortgages!!)