" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

[snip]

Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted
become
minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no
differences
blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of
trying
to draw any further conclusions from this data.

Norm Strong

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
that
ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is
difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as
follows:

It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal
point
of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious
one.
The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running
in
parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the
discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of
which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample
is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the
brain
can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB
test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other
kinds
of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes? Can
we
assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same?
I
do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to
work
with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is
an
extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain.
According
to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve,
which
he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to
Piaget,
many members of the adult population never reach this level. This means
that
ABX subjects such individuals to a test that relies on the ability to
discriminate an abstract symbol, an ability that may not be fully
developed
in the individual!

The consequence of the inability of some of the subconscious processes to
participate in discrimination of abstractly labeled samples is that the
full
mental capacity of the individual is not brought to bear on the problem.
It
disables part of the mind as a function of the test.

There should be a form of blind testing that works; one which is not
subject
to the obvious failures described by Ludovic; one which preserves the
sensitivity experienced by sighted observers, while responding to the
valid
concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination.

You keep forgetting the sensitivity observed by sighted observers is not
sensitivity at all, it's expectation.

Maybe, if that's what you expect.
Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation.