64.13.14.96
| '); } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } // End --> |
In Reply to: RE: You are not dealing with correlation or causation, unless you have an underlying idea that more expensive is posted by Norm on June 26, 2009 at 13:31:13
I think it helps a lot that I am the whole population and that even if I'm wrong, there is little downside.
It seems to hit the fan each time someone posts that they did thus and so with good results. To someone else that may seem the depths of impossibility so they ridicule the poster rather than either trying it or just deciding that it's so unlikely that they aren't going to waste the time to check it out. Ridiculing others rather than thoughtfully examining your own understanding is very tempting and I've fallen off the wagon a few times myself.
I enjoyed this thread but like you, I believe, it's hard for me to see how statistics have much value for an individual listener. If I can't hear it, it doesn't matter and if I can I'll try to choose the best compromise if it isn't clear-cut. And I may share the result. Even if it isn't reliably predictive it does provide insights into things to try. And that's where AA shines, getting ideas to play with.
If I want to learn more about the underlying processes then I'd turn to measurements and try to find ones that correlate to the listening and from there try to reproduce the results with known changes which would hopefully be enough information to understand and usefully model whatever the process is.
Ironically even if it can be proven beyond question that Joe reliably hears a difference by putting marbles under his clock radio, that chunk of data alone adds little more to predicting my results than just his assertion that he does. One of the nicest things about this hobby is that you can try this stuff at home without the neighbors knowing.
Rick
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup: