blind testing

peter kern

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Thoughts_on_science_perception_4571.html

Just out of interest what do people think about this article?

tunney

Depends what you are trying to infer.

People always have presumptions of quality and what they like based on what they see.

I remember on a J1 in Chicago making a big deal of of cheap Milwakee Best tasting like sh1t and Budweiser being nicer. The lads for two weeks replaced the contents of my bottles of bud with the Beast. Did I notice. Nope.

However if they changed it to orange juice I would have.

peter kern

I would guess nowadays you could modyfy orange juice to taste like beer ;-) (certinly after you had 2 beers )

anyway like to hear more opinions on the article.

mistermatthew

peter kern wrote: »

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Thoughts_on_science_perception_4571.html

Just out of interest what do people think about this article?

I think its a fair point. I'm a big believer that bikes and wheels and their costs are based a lot on hype. Comfort/reliability is number one for me. The performance is fairly standard.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

I would guess nowadays you could modyfy orange juice to taste like beer ;-) (certinly after you had 2 beers )

anyway like to hear more opinions on the article.

What I draw from it is when things are at the top end that its hard to tell one top end product from another based on comfort, feel and perceived performance. I'd agree with this.

What I don't think its saying is "people could tell the differnce between a PlanetX road bike and a Cervelo R3" - i.e. quality products versus muck.

What I also think they are saying is people judge books by their cover.

Take you for example.

Peter Kerns is German.
What would people automatically think? - not funny and always on time. They'd be wrong (Certainly about one, and maybe the other)

People look at high end carbon bikes and think "less road buzz than the high end alu", they see deep section rims and think "harder to control and harsher than my box rims".

People have biases and preconceptions. But its not just in bikes and wheels - its in every walk of life.

In short its a very good article IMHO and could be extrapolated out to many walks of life.

sconhome

As they say in the article human nature has a lot to do with it.

We are pretty adaptable to most situations and will generally find a comfort in anything if we have to and will make the best of anything. I'm not sure of the point of the article other than to confirm that which would be known.

People regularly make decisions based on perceptions all the time, and you will generally find fault with something you dislike while finding the good in that which you like or want to like.

You only have to witness Tunney and I discussing Polar to see the proof of that argument

What do you think of the article Peter?

mossym

the subject of blind testing comes up all the time in another area i'm interested in audio, most typically around the subject of whether speak cable makes any difference to the sound of a speaker. it's a contentious test, often open to claims it's not being run right.

if using blind testing to tell teh difference between something, the approach of using two and asking which one is the "right" one is flawed, and the more normal approach is to subject the test subject to one of the items under test, then to both of them and ask which of the two was the first one. if they can get it right, to a statiscally significant number, then it tells there is at least a difference. it won't however tell you if one is better. that's really open to personal preference, so even if you could statically tell a difference, you may not be able to tell one as "better"

I'm with dave on this one. there is a diminishing law of returns on almost everything. Once you get to the top end, the differences become so miniscule, (and usually command such a a premium), as to be indistinguishable. however, you take a high end product, and it's low cost alternative, and the differences become pronounced.

peoples perceptions are a key factor. i visited a customer several years ago in the uk, a well known high end speaker maker. they were just about to launch their first powered computer speakers, and had just received the first demo models back from assembly in china. the customer lands them on the table in front of us, and asks us what we think. we say they look lovely, but we'll have to hear them to say for sure. guy says no, gets all annoyed, hands us each one and asks us what we think of the weight.

turns out they knew, that no matter how well they sounded, or that they were made by a company whose speakers are used in recording studios all over the world, that if the speakers felt light people wouldn't think they were a high end product. the weight became one of the most important factors in whether a set of speakers were a success or not, and the company ended up filling empty space inside the speaker to make them heaiver.

it's this perception that often is the only differentiation between high end products, so blind test, take away the perceptions, and often they are indistinguishable. but i don't anyone would set up my tri bike and a cervelo p5 identically, and not be able to tell the difference.

much as the blind test didn't work in this case, i've seen lots where it has.

coppinger

I dont know if I could tell the difference between ultegra and dura-ace, why?

Because at the moment I have only one bike. If I had ten bikes, ranging from sora to dura-ace and frames from planet x to canyon to colnago, same with a range of wheels from crappy to great, and if I used all that equipment on a daily basis maybe then I could differentiate.

The article seems to be about having an educated palate, so you can feel real differences, and who has this amount of experience with such a wide range of gear? bike shop owners, pros, industry guys? does anybody test the good, the bad and ugly on a daily basis?

If you don't have this wide range then it does come down to paint.