The problem, Jan, is knowing who CAN 'go along with' the concept ...
I suppose from one perspective, yes, this is important but only to the extent we have these constant battles against the shouters to discuss the topic. If you accept the thinking that cables and cable lifters, clocks, foils and such devices can make improvements in subjective sound quality without always having objective measurements to prove the fact, then you can get beyond the naysayers and enjoy the music. If you've reached that level of enjoyment, then who "CAN" go along with the idea is reduced to a function of extended forum threads. Even when your perception goes against past experience and learning - and you "hate when that happens" - you can get beyond the naysayers. No? Am I missing your point, May? Isn't what you've said here that the myopic food technician cannot see the window maker's experience? OK, why should I allow their intransigence to affect my perception?
In which case, Freako, ...
Do you really believe we felt that change inside the monitoring cells? Don't you think we took off some of our clothes to stay comfortable instead?
... misses the point. You have put the cart before the horse, we have to monitor the environment to know whether to put on or take off clothing. Right? So, yes, we are monitoring and should the environment become unfriendly we are placed in a stressed condition until we can rectify the situation. You don't know you're cool until you know you're no longer hot.
Basic yes, but is it possible that some people have a very high threshold of feeling safe? Nor doubt are there degrees to this constant monitoring, but do you find it absurd to believe that there is actually people (daredevils, extreme snowboarders etc) who finds ALL the environments safe that they frequent?
Again I think you're missing the point here. Daredevils do not feel safe because they have an inherent sense nothing can go wrong but IMO because they have an inherent sense of the danger present in their risk taking. They only feel safe once they have "signed off" on the perception they have made the environment safe as possible by planning and accounting for all the possible dangers which might present themself. Doing otherwise is why the Darwin Awards were created. As Norm Abrams says, "Measure twice, cut once."
I am certain there are people who are beyond this (=reading their environment as 100% safe).
Only up to the exact moment they hit the ground, burst into flames, realize they cannot get the cuffs undone, etc. Then they show up as a headline in the The Sun tabloids along with BatBoy and the aliens advising Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc.; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(newspaper)