Am Mi., 2. Apr. 2025 um 06:39 Uhr schrieb Robert J Zatorre, Dr <robert.zatorre@xxxxxxxxx>:
Dear colleagues
I propose that those who wish to pursue this thread (below and several others) kindly do so on a different list. Many people are starting to drop out of the auditory list, which I find regrettable, and I believe it is likely because they are tired of reading about these matters or do not wish to have their inboxes filled with various arguments that are unrelated to our domain of study. The auditory list as initially conceived by my late colleague Al Bregman is really meant for discussion of auditory science. There are many other valid and important topics to discuss, especially in the current context. They belong on different platforms, not this one.
Thank you
Robert
Robert Zatorre, PhDProfessor and Canada Research ChairMontreal Neurological InstituteMcGill University3801 UniversityMontreal QC H3A2B4Canada
From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Etienne Gaudrain <egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: March 31, 2025 09:40
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Silence from leaders in auditory scienceDear Doug,
First, I would like to commend the courage it takes to be a dissonant voice in a group that seems to be thinking uniformly. Thank you for engaging in a conversation, and thank you for your patience.
Second, I would like to state that I agree with you that although scientists can be cunning in their pursuit of factual truth in their domain of expertise, they can also be hopelessly naïve, especially when it comes to outside forces exploiting or directing our work. After all we have been willingly gifting all our (publicly funded) research to a publishing industry that has made billions out of it, and has now grown enough to lobby governments to set the rules defining scientific excellence...
However, I must confess that I do not understand what you are implicitly referring to. I reread all the messages, and I see various quotes and metaphors, that, frankly, escape me a bit. But at the center of your comments, there seems to be the allusion to a role of the media (although that point was initiated by J. Scott Merritt) and funding sources in steering politically motivated research? Am I understanding that correctly?
If so, can you give some more specific examples? Especially in our field? I think it is important for everyone to know.
And if I misunderstood, would you please have the patience to spell it out for me? Again, I think it might be very informative.
It could very well be that I am not familiar with the US American system enough to get it, and it is obvious to many. Sorry if that is the case. Still, I suppose that I might not be the only one who is confused here and could benefit from some clarification.
Once more, thank you for your patience.
Best regards,
-Etienne
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 at 06:15, Douglas Scott <jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The snark is completely uncalled for.
For the record, I wasn't referring to the Cocktail Party Effect, but rather to Champagne Socialism. This is not intended to be partisan. I'm certainly not trying to attack one ideology or another here (although I certainly do get the distinct impression that I am being attacked by a particular ideology): Any research becomes susceptible once they place political concerns over scientific concerns. In this case, it is specifically the phenomenon where well funded researchers choose not to consider the sources of funding of their research, or the ultimate ethical implications of accepting it, because doing so risks that funding.
The analogue to the Cocktail Party Effect would be where a researcher tunes valid sources of information (even from erstwhile political allies) to focus on a message that elevates their own specialty for short term gains to their own careers at the risk of damaging scientific integrity and the trust of the general public in science in the long run.
I am also fully aware of the political realities connected to funding. However, what I am advocating against is bringing political discussions into actual scientific forums. It's one thing to discuss such things at cocktail parties, Cocktail Party Effect or no. Quite another to bring it into the lab.
Doug
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 00:32, Nathan Barlow <nb.audiology@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Congratulations on the correct mention of The Cocktail Party effect.
Sadly I was not playing white noise whilst reading your passage from 1940s Italy , so was not experiencing said neurological effect when your conclusion mentioned said Effect.
Such is life.
N.BSc, PGDip, MSc(SpchSci)(Hons), CoP, MSc(Clinical Audiology)(Soton)@eres_ope
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025, 04:32 Douglas Scott, <jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alain
If you want to talk politics we can do so.
I understand the apprehension you feel, but have you considered the fact that it is precisely a result of the low quality of the information on the matter you are consuming? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just pointing out that media organisations take in the same sources of funding that many researchers have come to rely on for very nefarious purposes from less than salubrious sources. Otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people who only dip their toes in the water and react emotionally to an endless stream of manipulative propaganda are exactly the target market.
As a general rule, if you are told you should feel bad for holding certain opinions or questioning others, there is a very high chance that you are a target of information warfare. Eco's often misunderstood essay on Ur-Fascism provides a really useful sanity check that is particularly apt in the present time:
"On the morning of July 27, 1943, I was told that, according to radio reports, fascism had collapsed and Mussolini was under arrest. When my mother sent me out to buy the newspaper, I saw that the papers at the nearest newsstand had different titles. Moreover, after seeing the headlines, I realized that each newspaper said different things. I bought one of them, blindly, and read a message on the first page signed by five or six political parties — among them the Democrazia Cristiana, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Partito d’Azione, and the Liberal Party.
Until then, I had believed that there was a single party in every country and that in Italy it was the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Now I was discovering that in my country several parties could exist at the same time. Since I was a clever boy, I immediately realized that so many parties could not have been born overnight, and they must have existed for some time as clandestine organizations."
It's a much broader discussion that extends well beyond the current era to larger currents of the global social and economic order basically since WW2, long-past the point where it should have rightly collapsed. Current events are the continued unresolved fallout of what happened in 2007. Don't look to journalists, wikipedia (which, on political matters, is just basically just the opinions of the sponsor of editors' cocktail parties), or AI (which, on political matters, is basically just repackaged wikipedia) for insight into matters like this. As Mark Twain noted: "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed". Better to be uninformed, but unfortunately the system has become so all-pervasive that it is impossible to remain free from its influence unless you actually devote some serious thought to it.
I personally find that applying this test to every political panic to be a useful balm.
Long story short: Science cannot save itself by becoming a cloying mouthpiece for the local the cocktail party circuit. Those days are, be it fortunately or unfortunately, well passed.
Doug
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 04:47, Alain de Cheveigne <alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Scott,
I followed your advice, and read what you had to say with empathy and an open mind. Sadly, it does not make good sense. You complain that the list 'devolves into a political battleground,' but then wade in wholeheartedly. You defend a pristine channel of scientific debate, but defend the notion of science itself being sacrificed to fix the debt.
As an accomplished engineer, you should feel that something is wrong. For one thing, the cost of science is a minor factor in the debt. We usually attend to major factors before minor. For another, science (like other elements of society funded collectively) creates the platform on which you and others create wealth. It seems strange that the richest country on the planet suddenly thinks that such basics are not worth paying for. A reluctance to pay tax is the major factor in the debt.
An apt metaphor is an apple tree. All we care for is the apples, but we would not get rid of leaves, branches, roots, soil and water because they appear wasteful. A tree might benefit from pruning to remove dead wood and superfluous branches, but you do not go at it with a chainsaw.
What is happening to the US reminds me of the zombie ants who suddenly figure that it is a good idea to latch on to a leaf and die. In the ant, this behavior results from the hijacking of neural circuits that process information and control action. Those circuits normally ensure homeostasis, keeping the ant (and its colony and species) alive, much like the controls of a plane keep it in the air. Hijacking those controls might allow the hijacker to influence the trajectory to their benefit, at the expense of the plane and its pilot.
You single out 'polarization' of the (US) electorate and 'modern media' as causes. Why is it that I, who am not part of that electorate and partake sparingly of social or even written media, am so apprehensive of the current trajectory?
To answer the original question about the 'silence of senior leaders', those 'leaders' are confused and scared. Confused because their usual levers of action no longer work and they do they fully understand why and how to fix them, and scared because of recent examples of retribution and bullying, in scientific spheres or elsewhere.
This is why politics might seep into the scientific debate from time to time. Regrettable? Yes.
Alain
> On 22 Mar 2025, at 17:05, J. Scott Merritt <alsauser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I am saddened to see the Auditory List devolving into a political battleground. If additional political "discourse" is needed, there is certainly no shortage of other places on the web where it can be found.
>
> From my perspective, the -central- problem with US politics is the increasing polarization of the electorate. Gone are the moderate statesmen/women that seek a fair compromise acceptable to most. I put the blame for this situation firmly at the feet of modern media - where all of the incentives are singularly aligned with increased "engagement" of their viewers.
>
> Given that view point, I disagree with the premise that each side should put as much effort as possible into organizing their resistance and further arguing their points. Instead, I believe we need more people to listen carefully, with patience and empathy, to the grievances of all sides in hopes of finding a middle ground that works for all.
>
> I would venture to say that the majority of the US electorate would agree that the massive debt that US has run up is a significant problem, and would further agree that reduced scientific research funding is an appropriate (albeit small) step to address that problem. As such, it would be hard to argue that reduced scientific research funding, by itself, is an assault on American democracy.
>
> It can certainly be argued that the methods apparently being used to reduce funding are crude and not well prioritized, with an emphasis on haste rather than wisdom. Unfortunately, I fear that this will remain the case while the electorate is so heavily polarized and we careen viciously to the left or right after each election.
>
> So ... my suggestions is NOT to "put as much effort as possible into organising resistance to this coup" ... but rather to engage -individually- with those of differing viewpoints, with patience and empathy, in hopes of reaching a better shared vision and understanding.
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 08:25:25 +0000
> Petter Kallioinen <000001c5645d28b7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I am writing from Stockholm following what I take to be the fall of American democracy. My advice is to not the resist the urgency of this situation and not hope for the best. What I would suggest is for everyone to minimize their ordinary work on a stable level and put as much effort as possible into organising resistance to this coup. Everyone!
