Author: karan

Pearls before Breakfast, the article I was talking about yesterday, got me thinking about the why and how. I’m convinced it’s bad experimental design (let alone any considerations about the playing style), and to have taken the single instance (a.k.a. “stunt”) as the representative result is a clear example of confirmation bias: they went in with a hypothesis, and in single stroke of brilliance, proved it! (asking the symphony orchestra director was merely a play to setting up the fall, I say – the article starts cynical and stays that way).

There’s two main flaws:

• He’s standing outside the station exit and inside the doors; it’s a commute area, not one which a group can easily gather
• It’s morning and turning up late at work is rarely an option

A more representative experiment would have included:

• Playing in the evening rush home (less time pressure)
• Playing at lunchtime (open wallets)
• Playing somewhere other than at the station (location influence neutered)
• Playing at a different station (comparative sample)
• Playing on the platform (captive audience of those waiting)
• A female expert playing (different to “standard” by visual)

There’s a hundred other variables to the experiment, naturally, but these are some obvious ones that wouldn’t be difficult or time consuming to test; they’re things which any ordinary busker would also need to take into account. Finally, the comparison needs to be done: if an “ordinary” violin player had been at the same spot at the same time of day, would the result have been the same, or less? or even more, as people appreciated the attempt? One factor to consider is that if the performance is exceptional, it may blend, in a curious way, with something the people have already heard before.

If you’ll indulge, what if the skill meant that people filed it away, unconsciously identifying it as pre-recorded and ignoring it much as they would a stereo system? :)