Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
the last two or three years of experiments in behavioral psychology and cognitive science are pointing powerfully towards the opposite conclusion, namely, that extensive thinking and explaining and quantifying tends to distort our perceptions more than clarify them, and that the accurate conclusions we reach after much consideration are actually known to us well before we get to the point of being able to articulate them.
I've done a bit of reading on this as well, probably not as much as you I admit, as most of my time learning psychology has been for class material which has so far only had a few brief swims into brand-new cognitive research such as this.
This point is a valid part of testing for sure. I apologize for thinking you were talking voodoo - I cringe whenever I hear the word "precognitive" being used as a potential explanation for something.
Unfortunately one's intital intuition-type judgement on something is more often wrong than right. Scientists have known this for many years while the general public tends to ignore it and tells everyone to trust their feelings. Now of course as you mentioned some research is moving towards seeing if there's anything to that in a different sense - overanalyzing, rational thoughts introducing new biases, etc. The problem is that the rational thinking process is also used to be aware of and eliminate bias. Without it we are completely at the mercy of our prejudgements on something. Too often do we judge a piece of gear at least partially on its price, its look, its coolness factor, or because of what someone else said... all without really recognizing we do so. If we go only by that 1-second initial intuitive sense of a sound, we simply don't have time to eliminate those potential biases and think critically about the sound, nor do we have time to compare the sound to a memory reference of what we best like.
I definitely see where you're going with this and there is some merit to it. However I think the cons outweigh the pros by far. My opinion of course; perhaps my conclusion is incorrect, but certainly my premise here is right - all the bias research that has been done over the past fifty years is strong stuff.
As for the other posts here, I don't really want to be debating this. I don't think music is all about intuition - unless you think that mathematical reasoning (a logical process) falls into that, along with our cognitive functions that tie those mathematics into our emotional responses and hormones.
Anyway I respectfully bow out now of this side of the discussion. Sorry, just don't want this to get ugly. I'm sure we all know that it's impossible for people to argue beliefs and get anywhere.
The supported psychological side of it, and how that relates to gear, though, I am all for a continuing discussion so long as it doesn't get into repetition of the same points.