Skip to main content

Topic: [not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed] (Read 2085 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • mzil
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
This test should have been triple blind; the test subject, test conductor, AND the violinist must be unaware which is the Strad.

If you tell a musician they are about to play a legendary, work of art, it obviously will change their attitude and performance. They may play more aggressively, be more punchy, etc. or their enthusiasm may make them sway Left and Right more (think Ray Charles at the piano when He's happy) which would vary the sound both live, or as picked up by a mic.

My 2 cents.

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #1
>implying the violinists were privy to the identities of the instruments

Quote
The test was a true “double-blind” one, as neither the players nor the people who gave them the violins had any way of knowing which instrument was which. The room was dimly lit. The players were wearing goggles so they couldn’t see properly. The instruments had dabs of perfume on the chinrests that blocked out any distinctive smells. And even though Fritz and Curtin knew which the identities of the six violins, they only passed the instruments to the players via other researchers, who were hidden by screens, wearing their own goggles, and quite literally in the dark.

  • mzil
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #2
^OOPs, I missed that, sorry. My bad.
---

I wonder if a trained person could tell by the flex of the neck, the smoothness of the wood surface, the squishiness of the chin rest or the size of its chin  indentation crater...
the weight, [The taste of the nylon vs catgut strings.... Yuck.]

My point is you have to have an expert on violin construction who can point these things out which the test researchers may be clueless about.

I know nothing about violins.
---

edit to add:
Quote
>implying the violinists were privy to the identities of the instruments


Could be at a subconscious level, too. They weren't "cheating" per say, but the heft of the real thing could have still influenced them.
  • Last Edit: 04 January, 2012, 07:59:56 PM by mzil

  • mzil
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #3
In any case there should be no difference in "heft" (size? weight?)

Heft means weight.

Quote
Reading the article helps a lot


You have a point, but...

It's rather rare that I'll click on a link with the word "blog" built right in to the URL address. I have little interest in the random thoughts of nobodies I don't know, who insist, often without documentation or references, things like "I am a world expert on violins, or at least my friend is, and even though this 'article' has not undergone any third party fact checking, nor can I be held accountable to any editorial board or review staff, trust me." Not that I'm saying I read the article, so...you got me.

Besides, indoctrination, or what most refer to as 'reading', is often overrated, I find . It clouds the mind with weird notions, availibility heuristics, expectation biases, and makes one susceptible to the placebo effect. 

[Don't take me too seriously; but seriously, I'm not taken, should any of you reading this be attractive, young, single, females.  ]
  • Last Edit: 05 January, 2012, 12:32:00 AM by mzil

  • andy o
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #4
Quote
Reading the article helps a lot


You have a point, but...

It's rather rare that I'll click on a link with the word "blog" built right in to the URL address. I have little interest in the random thoughts of nobodies I don't know, who insist, often without documentation or references, things like "I am a world expert on violins, or at least my friend is, and even though this 'article' has not undergone any third party fact checking, nor can I be held accountable to any editorial board or review staff, trust me." Not that I'm saying I read the article, so...you got me.

Besides, indoctrination, or what most refer to as 'reading', is often overrated, I find .

So, you don't read an article, then opine on what it doesn't say, and when confronted, you say you just don't read anything with the word "blog" because of what you think blogs don't do (citing references), which the actual blog quoted (and pretty much all other science blogs) does all the time. Oh, and btw, you don't like reading.

Got it.

Can't wait to hear next what you think about user forums.
  • Last Edit: 05 January, 2012, 02:35:07 AM by andy o

  • mzil
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #5
Got it.


Well, you obvioulsy didn't quite "get" everything:

 
[Don't take me too seriously... ]


but I thank you for you kind words.
  • Last Edit: 05 January, 2012, 03:23:04 AM by mzil

  • andy o
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #6
Got it.


Well, you obvioulsy didn't quite "get" everything:

I apologize if you were being only sarcastic, though I did read the "not seriously". I guess I've just been conditioned by posts like that, people know they're gonna be called out on some BS and then add "but don't take me too seriously" and/or smilies. I think it's colloquially (not technically) known as being passive-aggressive and it gets on my nerves.

Also, Poe's Law applies.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #7
Got it.


Well, you obvioulsy didn't quite "get" everything:

 
[Don't take me too seriously... ]


but I thank you for you kind words.


Saying "i'm not wrong i'm just joking" works better if you don't do it immediately after arguing in earnest.

  • Porcus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #8
This test should have been triple blind; the test subject, test conductor, AND the violinist must be unaware which is the Strad.


Test subject = violinist in this study, right? Or did they listen to each other? In that case it must have been blind too?

  • Gumboot
  • [*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #9
Test subject = violinist in this study, right?


After eliminating the test conductor and the violinist, I thought the test subject must be the violin.  Was the violin wearing goggles?

  • mzil
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
[not bothering to read the article that is supposedly being discussed]
Reply #10
This test should have been triple blind; the test subject, test conductor, AND the violinist must be unaware which is the Strad.


Test subject = violinist in this study, right? Or did they listen to each other? In that case it must have been blind too?


I goofed up, as I already admitted.

The opening post of the thread was predominantly quoted text, and I read all of it. Although a link was provided for the source of that text, the OP did not indicate that there was necessarily important extra details provided there that were critical to the discussion, nor were we asked explicitly to necessarily read the link, apparently from a blog they had seen. Since the opening post was almost entirely quoted material, I presumed everything the OP felt was pertinent was being provided to me, right then and there, and that, along with the current title of the thread, was what I was responding to.

Keep in mind I had never seen the thread under what I now presume was its original title, "Golden Ears", and was only exposed to it with what I thought was a rather unambiguous and thorough (comprehensive) explanation: "Violinists cannot differentiate between Stradivarius and new violins". [I was wrong, however.] I errantly didn't even think to consider that the test listening panel, which I knew to be people (test subjects) thought to have good ears for hearing  what makes a Stradivarius a Stradivarius, ie violinists, were also the actual musicians playing the instruments that were being evaluated! Ooops!

I also didn't read every one of the preceding 30 posts before mine, in part because I was immediately put off when my cursory examination did spot some bickering, hostility, and even an accusation of racism being thrown around between different forum members.  These sorts of conversations are a waste of everyone's time and I find quite disturbing, so I usually avoid them like the plague, however I did feel an important point should be made about the performers (at the time, a different group of people from the listeners, in my mind), so I made it, and then concluded my post, #31, with "My 2 cents".

When confronted with my error, having it explained to me that the test panel's listening subjects (people with keen ears since they themselves played violin) were also the actual musical performers in the test, I freely admitted my mistake and attempted to throw in a little levity, including a smiley face, in an attempt to lighten the mood, but it wasn't well received by all, I'm afraid
  • Last Edit: 06 January, 2012, 12:53:34 PM by mzil