Robert Morein wrote:
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.

You lost me when using collate and Ludovic in the same sentence.

My subconscious processes refused to associate those labels.


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.

How would you make any unconscious process aware? If its aware... its
no longer unconscious.


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.

Bob, Could you please proofread before posting? These longwinded
attempts to appear educated fail miserably when you butcher the content
so obviously.

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!

Do we really need to worry about ABX testing for people who can't
read?


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.

Now I see why you hate ABX... you can't breathe during a test
requiring all your subconscious processes to focus on the test.

It
disables part of the mind as a function of the test.

There should be a form of blind testing that works;

How will you decide if it 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.

So contradictory... a literal catch 44.

ScottW