Expectation Bias

"Expectation bias" is the new "Giant killer" of audio forums.

Giant killer of discussion.

The other issue is once a person doubles down on their beliefs,     https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pathways-experience/202102/doubling-down-why-people-deny-the-facts   they will only accept what supports their own position. This is how it works, and it works the same in Audio. People like to think that audio is different, it is not. It is EXACTLY THE SAME.

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Nah. We loose the term loosely in audiophilia, it could also be called confirmation bias, or a couple of other things. It's also the reason people talk about double blind testing: so that the biases of both the tester and the subject being tested are removed.

It's extremely well established that such perception bias exists and influences all aspects of human perception: sight, hearing, and the other senses. To the extent that we can hear something that isn't there, just because a visual reference is telling us it is. Or see something that isn't there, just because their are visual clues that tell our brains it "should" be there. 

Audiophiles tend to arrogantly assume they are immune to it. They aren't. Ever (in any sighted/conscious testing).

As you said, this is why Double-Blind testing is the standard to remove bias. W/O it, we would never know how good or bad the drugs we use really are.

5 hours ago, firedog said:

The actual problem is that most audiophiles insist on living in a fantasy world where it doesn't exist; and especially doesn't exist in their own minds. 

I thought expectation bias means a fantasy world that exist in one’s minds?

5 minutes ago, dericchan1 said:

I thought expectation bias means a fantasy world that exist in one’s minds?

meaning they live in a fantasy world where expectation bias doesn't exist.

6 hours ago, firedog said:

It's extremely well established that such perception bias exists and influences all aspects of human perception: sight, hearing, and the other senses. To the extent that we can hear something that isn't there, just because a visual reference is telling us it is. Or see something that isn't there, just because their are visual clues that tell our brains it "should" be there. 

Audiophiles tend to arrogantly assume they are immune to it. They aren't. Ever (in any sighted/conscious testing).

Yes that’s the lore, but I want to see if I can find anything that points to studies that confirm there’s solid proof backing those talking points as it pertains to how we go about listening.  Nothing you wrote in what I’ve quoted has existed in my world (in which I don’t just include myself).   I took this for granted for so many years but now that I better understand psychology I am inclined to think that it’s an agenda-driven mythology.  I’ll do some research and maybe post my findings in the objectivists forum.

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

The other issue is once a person doubles down on their beliefs,     https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pathways-experience/202102/doubling-down-why-people-deny-the-facts   they will only accept what supports their own position. This is how it works, and it works the same in Audio. People like to think that audio is different, it is not. It is EXACTLY THE SAME.

At the very start of that article it explains why that’s done.   “To protect themselves from the psychic pain of something that has happened.”  You have to be careful about how you apply this to audio.  What is described is a protection mechanism.  
 

I think not being able to hear what others claim to be hearing would result in some pain that one would like to avoid feeling.  To ease that pain, those who are unwilling to accept that they may not hear as well or maybe not have assembled a system good enough to hear it will need to deny that others heard it.  They “do not confront their failings head-on, but rather practice different forms of evasion, rationalization, and realignment.”  So yes it does exist in audio for sure, but amongst those who want to write this all off as perception bias.  

4 hours ago, botrytis said:

As you said, this is why Double-Blind testing is the standard to remove bias. W/O it, we would never know how good or bad the drugs we use really are.

I’m glad you mentioned this because it supports my argument.  Typically only a small percentage of those given the placebo react as if it actually did something.  Blind testing relies on this number being small as it represents the control group.  They can know a drug is effective when those actually given the medication have a reaction that exceeds that of the control group
 

If perception bias were as bad as some in audio say, double-blind testing would be useless because mostly everyone given the drug would imagine that it helped.  That double-blind testing can be counted on as being reliable is proof that expectation bias isn’t as big of a factor as some make it out to be.  

12 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

I’m glad you mentioned this because it supports my argument.  Typically only a small percentage of those given the placebo react as if it actually did something.  Blind testing relies on this number being small as it represents the control group.  They can know a drug is effective when those actually given the medication have a reaction that exceeds that of the control group
 

If perception bias were as bad as some in audio say, double-blind testing would be useless because mostly everyone given the drug would imagine that it helped.  That double-blind testing can be counted on as being reliable is proof that expectation bias isn’t as big of a factor as some make it out to be.  

 

Sorry, Kenny this and your other posts suggest a basic misunderstading of the concepts. You've simply gotten it wrong. 

Placebo effects can be large, even in drug testing. The idea doesn't depend on it being near 100%, as you seem to think. The strength of the placebo effect also depends on the malady involved. 

In audio it's even more important, as unlike drug testing, we aren't curing a disease or eliminating a specific physical reaction, which is a clear outcome. In audio it can have subtle effects. So unlike drug testing, the effect is altering say, bass perception, not eliminating it. 

There are so many tests showing perception bias in humans that it isn't in dispute. Including audio perception. Ever looked up the McGurk effect? Try it.

Your exercise doing Google searches don't undo decades of research. 

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

Sorry, Kenny this and your other posts suggest a basic misunderstading of the concepts. You've simply gotten it wrong. 

Placebo effects can be large, even in drug testing. The idea doesn't depend on it being near 100%, as you seem to think. The strength of the placebo effect also depends on the malady involved. 

 

In audio it's even more important, as unlike drug testing, we aren't curing a disease or eliminating a specific physical reaction, which is a clear outcome. In audio it can have subtle effects. So unlike drug testing, the effect is altering say, bass perception, not eliminating it. 

 

There are so many tests showing perception bias in humans that it isn't in dispute. Including audio perception. Ever looked up the McGurk effect? Try it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM

Your exercise doing Google searches don't undo decades of research. 

 

 

29 minutes ago, firedog said:

Your exercise doing Google searches don't undo decades of research. 

Great then I’m sure it would be easy for you to provide support for your claim that expectation bias impacts us all the time when we evaluate audio.  
 

The McGurk effect has no relevance to this topic.  This has nothing to do with bias.  It pertains to the interaction between hearing and vision in speech perception.  Nice that you can call out a study by name.  How about naming one that actually supports your assertions around audio.  I’m genuinely interested in seeing this and have yet to find anything myself.  

54 minutes ago, firedog said:

Placebo effects can be large, even in drug testing. The idea doesn't depend on it being near 100%, as you seem to think. The strength of the placebo effect also depends on the malady involved. 

My point was that if expectation bias was as bad as you said, a placebo wouldn’t be able to be counted on to establish a control group.

If you are going to argue that I have a misunderstanding, then there should be no reason to put words in my mouth just to make your case.   
 

Edit: actually please don’t respond.  We should let this thread get back on topic.  And judging by your replies so far, I don’t get the sense that you are actually interested in putting forth a crisp defense of your position.  

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

I’m glad you mentioned this because it supports my argument.  Typically only a small percentage of those given the placebo react as if it actually did something.  Blind testing relies on this number being small as it represents the control group.  They can know a drug is effective when those actually given the medication have a reaction that exceeds that of the control group
 

If perception bias were as bad as some in audio say, double-blind testing would be useless because mostly everyone given the drug would imagine that it helped.  That double-blind testing can be counted on as being reliable is proof that expectation bias isn’t as big of a factor as some make it out to be.  

 

Then you don't understand how DB testing works and your your bias is showing. I would say, you underestimate the impact of expectation bias, it is that strong.

12 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Then you don't understand how DB testing works and your your bias is showing

That you brought me into it is very telling.  Instead of attacking my arguments you attacked my understanding.  @firedogdid that too.  This is not at all surprising to me actually. 
 

I’m not surprised either with you flagging my posts as disagree.   That confirms that I made a really good argument.  You guys are so helpful to my understanding of psychology.  Thanks so much.

5 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

Yes that’s the lore, but I want to see if I can find anything that points to studies that confirm there’s solid proof backing those talking points as it pertains to how we go about listening.  Nothing you wrote in what I’ve quoted has existed in my world (in which I don’t just include myself).   I took this for granted for so many years but now that I better understand psychology I am inclined to think that it’s an agenda-driven mythology.  I’ll do some research and maybe post my findings in the objectivists forum.

 

The audio enthusiast's world is a strange one ... the aim of quality reproduction is to create an illusion of something happening that is not there; being, musicians performing in a space in front of you, without any sense of the mechanism which is performing this 'trick'. Yet, the concept of "being fooled!" is seen as something bad, an indication that somehow the listener is not smart enough to perceive how well, or poorly, the system is actually doing ... a case of wanting it each way, and probably failing at both, .

Anyone who has experienced, and enjoyed, a setup that allows one to enter the world of what is on the recording without quibbles about the technical qualities, and shuts down any nervous tension about whether some part of what is heard is right or not, most likely will wonder what all the fuss is about - the 'conjuring' is working, and that's all that matters ... .

Dup ...

20 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

That you brought me into it is very telling.  Instead of attacking my arguments you attacked my understanding.  @firedogdid that too.  This is not at all surprising to me actually. 
 

I’m not surprised either with you flagging my posts as disagree.   That confirms that I made a really good argument.  You guys are so helpful to my understanding of psychology.  Thanks so much.

No, you had no argument and that IS the point. Expectation bias affects every decision we make, good or bad. It is built-in to our decision making process. Understand that.

You had no argument and that is why I disagreed.

7 minutes ago, botrytis said:

No, you had no argument and that IS the point. Expectation bias affects every decision we make, good or bad. It is built-in to our decision making process. Understand that.

 

You had no argument and that is why I disagreed.

Your repeated use of toxic arguing techniques suggests that you are trying to salvage a win out of what you perceive to have been a loss.  It’s a good bet that the better I argue in defense of my positions, the more you will need to rely on these techniques, so I won’t be responding to you again.

57 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The audio enthusiast's world is a strange one ... the aim of quality reproduction is to create an illusion of something happening that is not there; being, musicians performing in a space in front of you, without any sense of the mechanism which is performing this 'trick'.

Imagine though what happens when an individual has never heard their own system do this.  Most healthy individuals will react to that by acknowledging to themselves that their system is in need of improvement.  But what if they are unable to acknowledge weaknesses in themselves or in something they themselves have assembled?  To such folks the problem cannot be on the “inside”, it has to be coming from the “outside”.   
 

I put the words inside and outside in quotes as I really like how Wikipedia has defined psychological projection: psychological projection is the process of misinterpreting what is "inside" as coming from "outside”.  I think something similar happens in some individuals where they have to shift the problem that is happening on the “inside” (their system isn’t producing the magic others report about theirs) over to the “outside” (those reporting the magic must be imagining it).  

14 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Imagine though what happens when an individual has never heard their own system do this.  Most healthy individuals will react to that by acknowledging to themselves that their system is in need of improvement.  But what if they are unable to acknowledge weaknesses in themselves or in something they themselves have assembled?  To such folks the problem cannot be on the “inside”, it has to be coming from the “outside”.   
 

I put the words inside and outside in quotes as I really like how Wikipedia has defined psychological projection: psychological projection is the process of misinterpreting what is "inside" as coming from "outside”.  I think something similar happens in some individuals where they have to shift the problem that is happening on the “inside” (their system isn’t producing the magic others report about theirs) over to the “outside” (those reporting the magic must be imagining it).  

 

Maybe they thought it would do this, so they heard it, but it didn't happen. That is expectation bias.