|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: My point is that blind and sighted testing are unreliable in different ways posted by Jay Buridan on November 11, 2016 at 18:18:05:
>There was a life size sculpture of a human male figure in the area where I used to walk my Malamute. My dog would bark and growl at the sculpture, thinking that it was a threat. Though I never tried it, I'm sure that my dog would not have barked had he been blindfolded. Was he a better watch dog without the blindfold?<
Excellent story - and I do now understand... I hope!
The answer, I think, is that sighted testing overinflates differences, while blind testing deflates them. Neither is terribly reliable, but unless one wants to blindfold oneself repeatedly, we go with sighted. And if the statue were actually a human intent on doing harm, sans blindfold would be best. Your dog took a "better safe than sorry" approach which in my mind made him an excellent watchdog! :)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: My point is that blind and sighted testing are unreliable in different ways - kerr 13:56:33 11/14/16 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
