I’ve taught beginning photographers, and that’s so true. A guy I teach with even started an “Intro to Digital Photo/Video Using Your iPhone” class).
THAT is wonderful!
Stealing it (30 lb. joke, so no lock)…
Q: is the “right” answer that super expensive stuff… the one that rhymes with “Mops Fine”?
I’m starting to think after reading a few of the responses that it might be a combination of low information combined with the labeling being a sort of shorthand guarantee of sorts.
In other words, if you don’t know much about how oils work, then if you buy a gun or bike specific oil for your gun or bike, there’s a perception that it’s more likely to work correctly than if you ‘take a chance’ on say… 3-in-1 oil.
Then some people take it too far, and claim that NOT using specific products will cause problems. Which in the absence of actual manufacturer specifications beyond “high quality oil” (which generally means don’t use bacon grease), is not at all true.
So a logical fallacy of some sort- if using specific products gives peace of mind then not using them is courting disaster.
Dirt is the main concern, and that’s not something lubricants can really do much about. That’s more a function of how often and thoroughly you clean your chain. But in terms of load, speed and temperature, bike chains are small potatoes compared to say… a wheel bearing or electric motor or something which runs at high temps, high RPM and high load.
I remember when they first started making sealed bearings more widely available - there were lots of failure - despite thoswe bearings being rated for much higher speeds and loads.
Turns out that in cycling the loads are often off axis, uneven, slow and in low temperatures in wet and sometimes salty environments. Bike chains suffer the same issues, also worth noting that cycle chains are also called upon to operate across a range of angles and have enough lateral flexibility to cope and they often get shock loading.
The forces involved are not great but in the end the combination of them means they are simply not good for the thousands of hours that machine driven application routinely deliver
I think you’re right that there’s a logical fallacy, but it’s more along these lines: “I know X is true, therefore Y must be false,” because they are somehow related, even though X does not specifically preclude Y.
People who exhibit brand loyalty when they have tried only the brand they use are exhibiting this.
It’s risk-averse behavior, on the one hand, but low reward on the other. I know I like chocolate ice cream, therefore, there’s no point in trying any other flavor. I never waste money on a flavor I turn out not to like; but I never discover that raspberry sorbet is even better than chocolate on a really hot day, and chocolate mint is a nice change 1 time out of ten.
It seems to be quite common for Warhammer, IME.
Citadel makes a decent line of paint even if it’s a bit pricey so a lot of people recommend it. But I’ve never observed anyone look at someone’s well painted army and tut tut them for using Army Painter or Vallejo paints or something.
My mini painting is for D&D so maybe it’s different with Warhammer but, yeah, I haven’t seen a trend towards “Citadel or trash”. It’s a big world so I’m sure someone says it but usually it’s more of a “Mini paints are better pigmented so you can try craft paints but you might be disappointed/frustrated with how hard it is to get a good coat”. Then someone invariably says how they only use $1.25 paints from Walmart on their competition-winning minis.
For gardening, I suspect what sometimes happens is that people start off going ‘Oh, fertilizer’s fertilizer, I just use whatever’, and don’t always have great results- their lettuce is flowering or their tomatoes aren’t. so someone tells them to try using a specific one. They do, and there’s a real, noticeable difference. They suddenly realise it really can make a difference, and start trying to use the right fertilizer for everything, regardless of how niche and how undetectable the difference, because they don’t want to be that numpty who just bunged any old thing on again.
It also saves researching if there is a difference, or if it’s all hype. My local garden centre does a ‘tree fern’ fertilizer. Do tree ferns have a significantly different nutrient requirement to most other locally grown plants? How would I find out? Google it and look at some websites*… which are probably going to tell me that yes, this stuff’s great and they use it on all their plants. They’re expensive, notoriously temperamental plants, who’s seriously going to do a large scale controlled trial to find out if there’s a real difference? It’s only a few quid difference from the other fertilizers.
-* Actually I’d ask the guy I know who runs a tree fern nursery, but I realise this option isn’t widely available.
Sure, but most of that is probably because they don’t have a clue what nutrients their soil have, and then are using something hideously unbalanced. I can’t imagine that if you got something like 14-14-14 Osmocote, that you wouldn’t have good results all around.
Usually there’s some notion that a lot of phosphorus is good for flowering plants, a lot of nitrogen is good for growth, and a lot of potassium is good for general health. But it’s not like turning a dial- giving your plants high phosphorus fertilizer isn’t going to force them to bloom or anything. As I understand it, it’s more of a question of adequate levels- a plant won’t flower well if it doesn’t have adequate phosphorus, but adding extra phosphorus isn’t going to make it flower more or better as long as there’s enough available. Same with the others.
Also, if you buy Dr. Whiplash’s Nirvana SuperBlast 2-1-1 Buds-The-Word formula at $30/quart (as sold at the “hydroponics” stores), you’re essentially paying for pricey water with a fancy label.
A sprinkle of Miracle-Gro would give you the same effect at a fraction of the cost.
Having read the whole thread (yaay me!) IMO @RivkahChaya’s whole treatise on control is about 80% of it. With the most recent comments of hers and @bump’s about the fallacy of the excluded middle between known-good and unknown-must-be-terrible cover another 15%.
The last 5% IMO is the personalities who do this. They are, as one memorable thread had it: Tedious Asbergery Wankers.
For folks of that mindset, there’s an obsessive need to be exact, an obsessive need to do it The One Right Way, etc. And an obsessive need to share their amazing (in their own mind) expertise.
Which hobby they choose to enthuse obsess about is semi-random. But with extra bonus points for a choice with a big helping of extreme arcana. See also this gem from 2009: