Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 0:23:53 GMT
Ok, I said I'd start a thread on perception from an NLP standpoint, as I feel it's often assumed that it's only our ears that differ. Some won't even accept this, preferring to believe sound is objective and superiority can be defined, quantified and agreed almost universally. Hopefully this thread may provide an alternate perspective. Here Goes:
NLP (neuro- linguistic programming) is built upon the work of Richard Bandler and John Grinder. The term neatly encompasses the approach as it relates to mental processes (neuro) language (linguistic) and eliciting behavioural responses (programming. NLP seeks to understand the structure of subjective experience. It begins with some basic assumptions.
1. Firstly, "the map is not the territory". This refers to the fact that we interpret the world through sensory experience. We cannot absorb reality in its entirety, so we use our senses to take in, make sense of and store information in a way that makes sense in the context of what we already "know" and "understand". This is our own internal map which begins to form from our earliest experiences. It cannot wholly be ours though as the earliest contours of the map which lend shape to all that follows are often fed to us by parents, siblings and other early influences.
Every sensory experience is fed through a sensory filter which either "generalises", "distorts" or even "deletes" information in order to make it fit and continually redraw the map. The brain is a very effective deletion device, even though the un-conscious mind may store far more than we consciously realise.
2. NLP seeks to work within each individual's map and it therefore follows that "the message is what is received". Given that the map is where we experience the world and it is not the territory, how could it be otherwise? Again, there is a focus on subjective experience, which is something we sometimes talk about in Hifi circles but don't usually seek to understand.
3. Sensory experience can be visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, gustatory, olfactory and combinations thereof. Also, individuals are not the same, meaning one person will be more visual in the way they see the world, use language etc, whilst another may tend towards auditory stimuli and another will focus more on feelings and instincts. These are referred to as "lead representational systems". The methods and means of communication we use can be adapted to reach the individual and build rapport more effectively. I won't bore you all with the details here as they aren't central to the thread.
At this point it is important to stress that only a small part of communication is verbal/linguistic. Non verbal communication makes up the majority of content and NLP recognises and utilises this. Again, certain tools and methods can be used to build rapport and then align and influence.
4. The conscious mind is like a spotlight. It can focus on only a very small part of our experience and it cannot maintain focus indefinitely. The unconscious however, can process a great deal more information. Just think how hard it would be if we had to consciously breathe and pump our hearts whilst listening to music. Our unconscious mind takes these in its stride and much much more.
5. Trance is a regular and very normal state we encounter many times each day without even realising. We are all experts in trance. Ever driven to a destination without really recalling the journey? You were in trance. Ever listened to music and found your mind drifting to other thoughts? Yep, trance again. We all do it regularly without realising.
MUSIC, HIFI, LISTENING AND PERCEPTION When we evaluate or do A/B comparisons, we use the conscious mind, yet the vast majority of listening relies on the un-conscious, which can process far greater volumes of information. Much of our listening is done in trance. Is this why we sometimes make a choice from conscious listening/comparison, only to find ourselves un-fulfilled over longer listening? It's an interesting question. Moreover, when we are consciously listening, how wide is that spotlight that is our conscious mind? Are we hearing all, most, or only some of the music that's reproduced? NLP would lean towards it only being a fraction: A signature if you like. And each of us will hear varying fractions which means there may or may not be an overlap. Is this why some swear by vinyl and can't get away with CD (and vice versa). It would explain why some "flaws" on either side are either ignored, dismissed or picked up and highlighted by different people.
With our unique maps, varied representational systems and our unconscious minds processing myriads of info we aren't even aware of, it's easy to see why perception may differ, irrespective of the "objective" sound: When I listen to Exposure amps, I form a mental "shape" of the sort of sound they offer. If I try to pull up mental associations, I get images of hot buttered crumpets toasted over a real fire, or warm port on a Winter's evening. My mind replays my first hearing in the Sound Org in 1987. I even find myself visualising the big chunky casework, logo, feel and form of the amps just as I associate a loved one's voice with their features, walk, scent etc. In other words, far more than the sonics are playing in my head. Several senses, associations, past experiences and future expectations are all in play. My unconscious mind is giving me the pleasure and whilst it's triggered by the sound, it's now become far more than just sound. Like an accomplished NLP practitioner, the Exposure amps have built a rapport with me and their performance is congruent with my expectations of music. They hold a position of influence and I'm inclined to believe their story without challenging their version of reality.
Now any amp that has a similar signature will have an advantage when I listen as I already have the "Exposure shaped map". Any aspect incongruent with the Exposure sound will be negotiated with me until I either re-shape my map to accept it, or reject is as "wrong". How did the Exposure sound "hit the spot" in the first place? Most likely because it was a very good fit to my expectations of music in the map I already had. Early pleasurable experiences of a warm, full sounding radiogram, or richly textured music issuing from a small Jazz club I used to pass as a kid and likely hundreds of other experiences I'm not conscious of are all in play. I'll park things there as I don't want this to be an essay and it's already lengthy. I hope it makes some sense as I am still under the weather. It's only my "map" so feel free to accept, negotiate or reject as suits. I do hope it at least raises the issue of perception as a subject for discussion and hopefully seeking better understanding.
|
|
|
Post by John on Dec 27, 2014 7:19:35 GMT
Thanks for sharing. Many interesting points I tend to agree we do all process information in slightly different ways giving our own meaning (making sense of what we experience) I tend to see sensory filters being unique to each individual I work with people on the Autistic spectrum and this tends to be exaggerated even more often helping to understand behaviours and sensory perception can even fluctuate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 9:01:33 GMT
Indeed, John. There's perhaps a natural tendency for us to assume that everyone else's experience is the same as ours. It's far more rewarding to accept and enjoy the world in all its variety. I sometimes feel each of us should have come with our own dedicated instruction manual. I'm at the stage in life where I've put everything together and now I have to work out why performance is not exactly optimum and what I need to do with the leftover bits that the manual would no doubt explain the location and function for
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 9:09:26 GMT
This all makes perfect sense and explains why some people are so sure they are right about stuff in the face of disagreement. From their perspective (map) they are. Sadly, many won't accept that not everyone's map is the same as theirs and argue about nothing until the cows come home.
I'm as guilty as any. I am a total sceptic over the foo that surrounds this hobby but who knows, maybe it just doesn't appear on my map.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Dec 27, 2014 9:18:00 GMT
What a great post! Fascinating and well explained. Thanks a lot for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 9:31:19 GMT
This all makes perfect sense and explains why some people are so sure they are right about stuff in the face of disagreement. From their perspective (map) they are. Sadly, many won't accept that not everyone's map is the same as theirs and argue about nothing until the cows come home. I'm as guilty as any. I am a total sceptic over the foo that surrounds this hobby but who knows, maybe it just doesn't appear on my map. That's very perceptive, Gordon. My tutor used to tell us he'd always agree with his spouse, saying "You're absolutely right dear" then adding to himself "......according to your map". As you say, we are all right in terms of our own experience and map. How can you tell someone their own experience is "wrong" and they should choose according to your experience instead? It's always puzzled me and also frustrated me. But then again, perception is rarely discussed because it's so easy to think everyone else is just like you. I thank God every day that there is a whole world full of living souls that aren't just like me!
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Dec 27, 2014 11:48:06 GMT
I hope this doesn't amount to drift or hijacking, but I think its related to a thread I started on AOS (and which, like so many of mine, got locked). It was to do with right brain and left brain and their influence on our appreciation of music and our auditioning experiences. Briefly, our 2 brain halves are specialised and function VERY differently. This has been discovered / established as a result of work on people with brain injuries, and other tests. The left brain, which receives input from the right eye and ear, is usually dominant and is the rational, numerical, logical, conscious verbal reasoning brain. The right brain, is the sub-conscious, creative, relational, instinctive, perceptive, automatic brain. We automatically use both, but most, like me, find it hard to "deliberately" use the right brain. I taught myself to do so using a book called "drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwards. I had to train my left brain to "hush" so I could use my right brain to draw (which, compared with my left brain, it is very good at). By contrast, my wife is plainly a right brain dominant individual. She can draw and paint "naturally" but gets into a panic state if asked to deal with numbers, and, even accepting that "feminine logic" is an oxymoron anyway, she is far more creative and expressive than rational. Couldn't reason her way out of a paper bag. I am pretty sure this is why she is "quicker" to pick differences on audition in some situations than I am. We both have a reasonably common experience, just listening and appreciating - our "maps" are very similar - and very tilted towards our experiences of live acoustic rather than electric music. But she can immediately listen with her right brain, whereas when I am "evaluating" I am always going to have a very strong left brain getting in the way. I hear it in the end - but things that take me half an hour, or half a days auditioning to pick, she can pick, I kid you not, in 20 seconds. I noticed at my time at Pink Triangle, where we had to audition "professionally" to be sure differences were real, where there would be peer pressure to notice the difference, and a lot succumbed, and frankly you could tell them what to hear. I think this offers a "rational" explanation for things like cable burn-in which people experience. I note, as others have, that it's always burn-in, never burn-out. I think these are left-brainers (most of us) and the "new" equipment is being auditioned with the left brain which just doesnt enjoy or experience music in the way the right brain does. After a while, folk return to just listening to the music (right brain) and prefer that experience, and the component has "burned in" Note - neither the issue of our own map, nor right brain / left brain, make "A:B" comparisons impossible. Just harder. So I got Sue to evaluate the effect of home plugs feeding mains into the system blind. But you need an accomplice. All Sue knew was she was evaluating. She didn't know what she was evaluating, or even when she was expected to hear a difference. Her "hifi auditioners map" was by-passed (with Sue, it pretty much is anyway - she has no such "map"). If I had any doubts, I will do the experiment I plan to do once I connect her PC to the network direct with Cat5, rather than via homeplugs. I will roll a dice to pick 30 days worth of even numbers = plug in homeplug, odd numbers = unplug homeplugs, and we will just listen to music as normal. If it makes a difference, Sue will comment . Come day 15, if no results, I will fish for comments still without telling her what I am doing. Anyone who wants to convince me that a mains lead makes a difference, would need to arrange a similar test, where they can know they are auditioning, but nothing else. The accomplice (that'll be the missus) needs to randomly use an ordinary lead and a "super lead" according to a daily pattern set by dice throws, and the evaluator needs to comment on the "perception" of the music every day - no peeking. That takes knowledge of the component being evaluated out of the map, and leaves only sensory (and other experiential factors) in the map. Note - all of us routinely learn using each specialised half for their own purposes. I have just been trying to learn the intro to Silent Night on the guitar. It's not technically difficult at all -and perhaps because of that I struggled. My rational, impatient left brain says "this is easy and familiar" and tries to play it at performance speed, repeating mistakes and training to play it wrong. When I slow it right down to 2 seconds per beat, and play it correctly 5 times in a row, my right brain says "got it" and just plays it while I talk to Sue and formulate this post. I don't hear my right brain say "got it" - its the non-verbal half. I just suddenly realise I am playing it and it is childishly simple and impossible to play wrong - until I start thinking about it again! Enough - post too long already
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Dec 27, 2014 12:03:12 GMT
MUSIC, HIFI, LISTENING AND PERCEPTION When we evaluate or do A/B comparisons, we use the conscious mind, yet the vast majority of listening relies on the un-conscious, which can process far greater volumes of information. Much of our listening is done in trance. Is this why we sometimes make a choice from conscious listening/comparison, only to find ourselves un-fulfilled over longer listening? It's an interesting question. Moreover, when we are consciously listening, how wide is that spotlight that is our conscious mind? Are we hearing all, most, or only some of the music that's reproduced? NLP would lean towards it only being a fraction: A signature if you like. And each of us will hear varying fractions which means there may or may not be an overlap. Is this why some swear by vinyl and can't get away with CD (and vice versa). It would explain why some "flaws" on either side are either ignored, dismissed or picked up and highlighted by different people. Fascinating post, many thanks for that. I knew very little about NLP but shall do some reading up.
I think that "Much of our listening is done in trance" rings true for me. It explains why it can take a while to hear changes I've made to my system but how much easier it is to pick out once I'm aware of it. It also explains why comparative changes and more especially double-blind listening tests are useless to me. Music is all about a direct connection to our brain and my experience is that it takes time to sink in. It's a very personal experience and those who have come around to mine know that I enjoy the different perceptions we have over what we hear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 12:18:08 GMT
All experience is largely subjective, so I can see the usefulness of putting it in context and looking at the framework through which we do the experiencing. But there is an objective truth behind our subjective experience, at least I think there is.
Lawrence
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 12:39:43 GMT
Its interesting to equate all this with the objective/subjective debate.
If there is only one reality and we all just interpret it differently, surely we all should really have the same equipment (allowing for the ability to pay for it) It would make the right noise and we would interpret it in the way we would the 'real' thing.
I choose electronics on looks to a large degree as I'm heavily into industrial design - I've started collecting old Quad gear for this reason. After a certain level, I find the tiny differences between electronics to matter less than the joy of using something I admire. Speakers are a different matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 12:55:49 GMT
All experience is largely subjective, so I can see the usefulness of putting it in context and looking at the framework through which we do the experiencing. But there is an objective truth behind our subjective experience, at least I think there is. Lawrence I think you make a very interesting point, Lawrence. My fascination lies in exactly how much and which elements of the "objective truth" or in this case the music being reproduced we actually take in. My own personal feelings (based only on my own subjective experience and therefore unable to be sure for others) are that I only take in as much or as little as I need to accept or reject what I hear. That's probably not a great deal. if I can give a visual analogy: I am in bed with flu and regularly gaze out of the bedroom window. Do I see everything? Not consciously. I may briefly direct my conscious attention outwards if I see a bird on a telephone wire or an aeroplane vapour trail, but most of it is deleted, distorted or generalised unless I notice a change. I just asked myself without peeking, how many cars are out there? Not a clue. Can I say what Colour and shape the lamp posts are? Not a chance. I just accept it as the street I live in and within seconds my focus is elsewhere. Is hearing/listening to music the same? Do we just look for the points of recognition or pleasure that we expect, rather than taking in the whole? The objective reality still exists, just that I don't absorb it all. I only join the dots to make sense of the experience. If we join different dots to fit our maps, can we be entirely surprised that others disagree because they have a different experience of the same reality? I've seen some very interesting articles on perceived beauty and facial recognition. This too has indicated that we generally only look for "markers" or "indicators" rather than taking in the whole: certain traits, spatial relationships etc. There are commonalities although these vary in extent between individuals. My own feelings are that it is the same with music although I'm still learning and asking questions myself. Maybe others can question their next listening experience and try to work out how much conscious listening they do before sinking into the music. Also which elements actually anchor them to the experience. Finally, what non-auditory factors come into play? For instance does what separates are playing influence you? I know it does with me. Try imagining a small integrated producing the music rather than your big pre/power or vice versa. Valves in place of your solid state amp, thicker cables instead of thinner ones etc etc. I've tried all of these and they can influence my perception. Maybe they will for some and maybe they won't. Thanks to all for listening to this and engaging with it. May all your maps lead to treasure!
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Dec 27, 2014 13:00:39 GMT
I recently took a further mental step, which I think underlines that, after reading New Scientist and others.
The brain does most of all sense interpretation with the ears only being the starting point for aural. Various studies on the other senses showed that the brain was doing so much and could compensate or change experiences.
I'm assuming the brains we have start off different and become more or less different, depending on our exposure (am I getting good at these puns or what ...?)
The boss asked me pointedly why I listen to certain albums, as there surely can be no enjoyment Wire - Chairs Missing being the example then
I don't know. My aural enjoyment seems to come in many different ways. Some nails across a blackboard albums I enjoy puzzle me
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Dec 28, 2014 15:29:55 GMT
Picking up where I left off on the "ground vibrations" thread, the big difficulty we face in evaluating whether something "non-mainstream" like mains quality or cones under amplifiers has an effect or not, is that the basis for the claims are almost invariably purely subjective. And not universally replicable. If I change a goldring 1032 for a Dynavector XX2II - I would expect 100% of HiFi buffs in the room to hear the difference and agree which was which (not necessarily which they preferred). But change the mains lead to the power amp? Advocates of these "unmeasurable" hifi treatments often maintain that listening is the only approach - that's what the music is all about. "The ears are the final arbiter" is a familiar mantra of another forum leader. The irony is, based on what this thread has helped to explain, while the ear may be a fine measuring instrument, and the instrument of choice, it is not used by those making statements like "the ear is the final arbiter" Instead of measuring with the ear - they listen. And listening is a function of the brain, which makes use of stimuli from the ear drum, but also from the eyes, and also those "map factors". Including mood, ambient temperature, fatigue level, but also critically expectation and preconception. Blind testing - which as a manufacturer we used at Pink Triangle, was an attempt to, as far as possible, remove the other stimuli and factors influencing "listening" and make it just a measurement using the ear as a detector. As a punter, just enjoying my music, this doesn't matter. If cones "sound" good to me, it makes no difference whether that is due to the cones changing the sound waves that strike my eardrum, or just belief in the cones making me feel good about what I hear. All that matters is that I enjoy listening more - not which stimulus caused that. But that is not capable of being universally shared. Something that changes the sound vibrations made, should be able to have a reasonably universal applicability. Something that depends on aspects of our map that are internal rather than external, cannot be shared (necessarily) in the same way. People get very defensive about this. To suggest that your listening experience depends on your mind and not purely your ears is pejorative to many. But am I the only one on this forum to hear music in their sleep. Real , vivid music. Some of my guitar solos are just awesome, but I hear orchestral music and the singing of others at times. This is completely real - an identical experience to the waking one stimulated by actual sound pressure stimulation of my ear drum - but entirely internally generated. Our reality is what we perceive it to be, and we do our perceiving with that fabulous instrument - the brain. Hell, I have dreamed I am stumbling, and lashed out physically whilst asleep to regain my balance. The experience is real - because , although physical stimuli feed the brain in processing its experience of the world, ultimately that experience is only realised inside our brains - inside our consciousness. So evaluations of anything unmeasurable, that depend on "when I listen to it for long enough, I am sure of it" are real listening experiences, but not necessarily real changes to the sound waves striking our eardrums. Establishing that, requires drastic steps to disable some of the automatic powerful processing functions of the brain. As a minimum it is necessary to remove visual cues, and "knowledge" cues. I have had a couple of goes at doing this, but of course, if I fail then it is attributed to my lack of acuity, not evidence that the effect is not a real sonic one. Manufacturers are uninterested in this sort of test all the time there is a lucrative market which maintains the orthodoxy that the "magic bullet" is for real. So those that like it continue to enjoy it, and those of us that fail to get the benefit, console ourselves that if it is due to our lack of perception, at least our wallets are heavier for it But accept that if the effects others hear are internally generated then lightening our wallets is never going to enable us to share them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2014 16:02:36 GMT
A very interesting post and, as ever, packed with ideas and observations. I often find satisfaction and enlightenment from revisiting your posts. A bit like a great movie or book, in that there always seems to be another layer that I mssed first time around. This time, I feel you've raised a central question that I don't think I got across as eloquently as I could have in my initial post. It links to your point that a mains lead may not actually change the objective sound in any meaningful way, although it may change perception. NLP would not seek to challenge the existence of an objective reality, but it would predict limitations in terms of anyone ever being able to fully perceive said reality due to the limits of perception (sensory filters, representational systems, the capacity of the conscious mind etc). Again you make fascinating points about music in your sleep etc, which I also experience. Upon waking, it starts to fade and by the time I have all my senses, it's gone without recollection. It's not music I recognise so did I compose it or does it come from elsewhere? I've no idea, but you are right that I can't be hearing it. It has to be a function of the brain rather than the ear, I feel. I believe many of our sensory experiences are more sophisticated combinations of the mind and the 5 senses, rather than a single sense, yet we don't usually consciously explore this. I was adamant that I heard differences in mains leads when I bought expensive ones. Nowadays I can't hear the differences. However, whenI think of thicker, better built cables and listen, I "hear" improvements. Suggestion is a central element of NLP but it doesn't have to be externally stimulated. In order to rationalise experience and make it ft with our map and expectations, we can do this internally and be unaware of the fact. Hand on heart, I don't know if mains leads make a difference to the objective sound, but I do know I can alter my own perception via various techniques. What I would say is that measurement is not (to me) a perfect answer because I'm not convinced we are measuring everything that is relevant. I don't want to dismiss measurement though, as it seems logical that a reproduced sound that is objectively closer in measured terms to the original, will have more chance of being perceived as accurate and may even have a better chance of being perceived as pleasurable too, given that music is generally regarded as such. It's just nice to be able to discuss such things openly without dogma and perhaps open the door for more people to explore and question. At least that's my perception
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Dec 28, 2014 17:07:02 GMT
I was adamant that I heard differences in mains leads when I bought expensive ones As was I when I upgraded my mains cables to cheaper ones.
Anyone can overcome expectation bias if they just be honest with themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2014 17:58:54 GMT
I've had that experience too, albeit with interconnects so I hear what you are saying. Awareness of expectations is a help I feel. I still have certain heightened expectations of thick cables, tonearm tubes etc. Have I overcome them? I'm not sure but at least I'm aware of it and I try to ask myself about it. My system and home has changed several times since I bought expensive mains cables, so I cannot even be sure whether their efficacy is simply reduced in the new location and setup. On my experiences I could be both a believer and a disbeliever, but I'd end up agprguing with myself!
I personally feel that the issue is both deeper and wider than easily identifiable expectation bias though. According to an NLP understanding, there is a significant amount of "contextualising" of any experience in order to make sense of it and to make a fit between the experience and our maps. Much of this contextualising is unconscious and also involves, memory, emotions and past experiences, as well as more senses than just our auditory system. Often, we make associations that we are completely unaware of. Therapeutically, NLP can be used to help explore and identify any limiting associations and offer choices in terms of more helpful and empowering ones.
I don't want to overplay this, nor do I want to underestimate the auditory experience or the objective sound. I've watched in disbelief at the debates on forums between subjectivists/Objectivists, cable believers/non-believers, CD/vinyl and even subjectivists who think their great experience means their ears are infallible and everyone else is less entitled to an opinion. I've never felt the need to convert others or impose my opinion but maybe that's down to my map, which has likely been shaped by my NLP experiences amongst innumerable others. Finding answers is a big ask, but raising questions is manageable. For me, it's also desirable if it leads to others questioning their own beliefs, especially if that leads to less intolerance of others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2014 18:29:52 GMT
Interesting entry on WIKI for NLP.
The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents.
Whilst I have little confidence in its usefulness in therapy (that goes for 99% of therapies), the basic premise about how we experience reality still seems to make sense.
Please don't see this as an attack, its just that as I had never heard of NLP until your thread, it seemed a good idea to do little reading. Much as I distrust WIKI as a source of information, it still a good place to start looking.
As I said before, NLP seems to explain the dogmatism that some belligerent people can apply to something as unimportant (in the scheme of things) as how a hi-fi sounds. The big problem is that there are many people out there who apply the same principle in all their dealings. 'I am right' seems to be a mantra that guides their lives.
It leads to evangelism which is one of my pet hates - please go preach to someone else, I'm enjoying stuff the way I like it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2014 19:00:53 GMT
I remember reading the Wiki entry a long time ago and that part was present back then too. I have no real wish to "convert" anyone so I'm reluctant to defend NLP beyond saying that I personally don't agree with the Wiiki entry as it doesn't match my experience. Bandler in particular has never claimed it as a theory, as his focus was more towards practical modelling.
I will say NLP is more widely used in clinical terms than many realise, even in the UK, either directly or as an influence upon other clinical approaches. if I were to judge it's efficacy as an onlooker, I'd probably be more swayed by the fact that the biggest "investors" in NLP techniques are the marketing men and our political "masters". They seem convinced that it works, but they are the last people I'd want using it. Still, like any tool it can be used for many means.
Whether it works for you or anyone else is down to individual experience. Awareness can only offer increased choice, so I'm encouraged that it wasn't known about by everyone.
PS. I love your last line. I agree completely and I wouldn't mind it as my epitaph!
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Dec 28, 2014 19:03:31 GMT
Really interesting. It rings true and to me explains why blind testing which presumably being so deliberate uses a conscious state is only a part of the picture. The unconscious (I think it's more sub-conscious...) or trance state is more how we listen so perception in this state is different to blind testing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2014 19:14:44 GMT
That very thing ate at me for years, Clive. Every time I compared kit, I would spend cash on the "better" sound. I'd be happy for a very short while then my musical tastes would narrow and my listening sessions would shorten. Then I'd crave the old sound I had and seek to return to the very items I'd "upgraded" from. Nowadays I don't do comparative listening as a means of choosing. I just live with something and let my habits decide.
The differences in listening ststes would seem to offer a plausible explanation for my experiences but I can't say whether other listeners have a greater overlap between their focused listening when choosing kit and the way they use a system long term.
|
|