Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Silence from leaders in auditory science [please let us move on] From: Alain de Cheveigne <alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:43:06 +0200Robert,=20 I agree. We have seen many people ask to leave, and there may be others = we did not notice leaving because they were savvy of the procedures Dan = just reminded us of. Perhaps it is time for someone who was there from the beginning to post = a brief history of the list?=20 No need to call it an 'obituary', as the list will no doubt live one = with perhaps fewer scientists, or other able-minded but busy members. Alain > On 1 Apr 2025, at 20:05, Robert J Zatorre, Dr = <robert.zatorre@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >=20 > Dear colleagues >=20 > 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. >=20 > Thank you >=20 > Robert >=20 > <Outlook-02h4vhdr.png>Robert Zatorre, PhD > Professor and Canada Research Chair > Montreal Neurological Institute > McGill University > 3801 University > Montreal QC H3A2B4 > Canada > =46rom Perception to Pleasure: The Neuroscience of Music and Why We = Love ItFrom: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception = <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Etienne Gaudrain = <egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: March 31, 2025 09:40 > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Silence from leaders in auditory science > Dear Doug, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 na=C3=AFve, 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... >=20 > 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? >=20 > If so, can you give some more specific examples? Especially in our = field? I think it is important for everyone to know. >=20 > And if I misunderstood, would you please have the patience to spell it = out for me? Again, I think it might be very informative. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Once more, thank you for your patience. > Best regards, > -Etienne >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 at 06:15, Douglas Scott <jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx> = wrote: > The snark is completely uncalled for. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Doug >=20 > On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 00:32, Nathan Barlow <nb.audiology@xxxxxxxx> = wrote: > Congratulations on the correct mention of The Cocktail Party effect.=20= >=20 > 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.=20 >=20 > Such is life.=20 >=20 >=20 > N. > BSc, PGDip, MSc(SpchSci)(Hons), CoP, MSc(Clinical Audiology)(Soton) > www.eresope.wordpress.com > @xxxxxxxx >=20 >=20 > On Tue, 25 Mar 2025, 04:32 Douglas Scott, <jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx> = wrote: > Alain >=20 > If you want to talk politics we can do so. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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:=20 >=20 > "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 =E2=80=94 among them the Democrazia = Cristiana, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Partito = d=E2=80=99Azione, and the Liberal Party. >=20 > 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." >=20 > I personally find that applying this test to every political panic to = be a useful balm. > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Doug >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 04:47, Alain de Cheveigne = <alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Scott,=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. =20 >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > This is why politics might seep into the scientific debate from time = to time. Regrettable? Yes. >=20 > Alain >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > On 22 Mar 2025, at 17:05, J. Scott Merritt <alsauser@xxxxxxxx> = wrote: > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > =46rom 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > >=20 > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 08:25:25 +0000 > > Petter Kallioinen <000001c5645d28b7-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> = wrote: > >=20 > >> 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!