that in order to satisfy all the DBT critics, you'll have to better than what you are proposing now? The fact that there may be labs which HAVE overcome the difficulties with the published data? The only fact here is that your mind is closed to the possibility that some of the published difficulties have been overcome and you have no interest in persuing it.-
Persuing what? That's a lie. You haven't offered anything TO persue, only a bunch of unsubstantiated, extremely extraordinary claims. You have contradicted some of the most strongly demonstrated principles of auditory testing, but you won't even offer anecdotal evidence, let alone any extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claims.
First, it's you who claims that the test you report on, but won't
take responsibility for (even here) is perfect. I'm not making novel claims, you are. You claim an advance, but you won't provide any evidence to evaluate.
Second, the mob aspect of multiple subjects is not a conjecture, it's
a known, done deal. If you're going to use multiple subjects you're
going to have to show some major evidence that you've come up with a way to completely avoid that.
Then you deceptively state - Okay, so you can EXACTLY remember a
complex auditory input for 10 minutes or more? -
As you are well and truly aware, unless you don't even read what I
write, I am the one asserting that 200 milliseconds is the far limit
for comparisons of small acoustic differences. I have no idea where your "10 minutes" comes from, nor why you have deceptively implied that I claim any such thing.
No, you can't recall that long. That's why any test that does not
allow each and every listener to switch AT WILL is extremely suspect.
You've indicted your own test. It's your test that has a delay between the similar parts of the same presentation, not mine. Couldn't you at least get your story straight?
Finally, you ARE making claims here, and extraordinary ones. Claiming
that it's not your test, that it's proprietary, and the like, are
lame, weak excuses. You've described the test, so it's not proprietary OR a trade secret. You've made claims about its sensitivity, so you've obligated yourself to support those claims,
so:
Submit a paper, and we'll see what comes of it.
You made the claims, now deliver the evidence.
You've made extraordinary claims, and used multiple instances of
extremely deceptive "logic" in your defenses. To wit: You imply,
completely without justification, that somehow 10 minutes of detailed
partial loudness memory are required for time proximate testing, when
that is just the opposite of the truth. You state baldly that I am
claiming that "tests are perfect" when in fact you are the only one
here implying that, and for your test. You won't say when or where these tests happen, so we can't confirm your claims that way. You won't even use your real name, and deny yourself even that bit of credibility.
You may know something, but your presentation suggests only that
you're talking (if your own description is correct) about a seriously
insensitive test. You will put up no evidence, but you repeat the same empty claims over and over again.
You appear to have nothing to offer. Write the paper, and get it peer-reviewed. Until you do, I'm afraid that I'll have to regard your claims as specious.
Frankly, you read like a straw-man instantiation of the subjectivist's claims about people who do DBT's.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies