"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...


snip, not relevant to following


A couople of excerpts: You have probably heard the opinion that blind
people develop better senses of touch and hearing to compensate for
their
lack of vision. If you consult with knowledgeable persons you may be
told
that this is just a myth. For example, the class notes (PSYC 442Y5Y) of
Professor Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto recently included
the
following statement: "Despite widespread beliefs that blind people have
better hearing (and more sensitive touch) than sighted people (the myth
of
sensory compensation), there is no evidence that this is the case. In
fact, vision helps us integrate information across modalities (e.g.,
providing information about what we are hearing or touching). Thus, the
absence of vision may lead to poor performance on many non-visual
tasks.

Do you see the irony of insisting that blind testing is "better" than
sighted testing for determining differences in audio discrimination.

It is more accurate and reliable, which is why it's the standard in
science
and product testing.

Audiophiles should just learn to live with 'practical' levels of
uncertainty, and stop making foolishly certain claims about what they
hear.


And you should stop snipping off the remainder of the argument that puts my
quote in context, without even indicating you did so. Bad internet ettiquet
at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.