Thread: Identifying a convex bevel caused by extensive pasted stropping

My point about hht-x is the subjectivity. If x goes from 1 to 5, there's 5 levels of subjectivity to deal with and calibrate. I've no issue with hhts generally.

But the 1 to 5 thing is pointless drivel, not to put too fine a point on it, for getting help or describing an edge If someone says to me I'm only getting hht 2, say, I still need for them to describe in words what is happening. So what's the point of the numbers?

By all means use numbers if you want for your own internal reference.

Anyway, there's no need for apologies or agreeing to disagree or any of that. We're adults having a debate. Normally I try to choose my words carefully so as to impart a non confrontational tone, but clearly I didn't manage it this time. Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky

James

Here's a thought. Hone a razor & shave with it. If it passes the shave test then do the HHT. Does it pass 1-5 or fail ? What now is the significance of the HHT ?

& James is that an African swallow or European swallow.

The big problem with the HHT-x is we all have different hair, some might have hair like barbwire, some like baby hair, there's no way that they can work for everyone. For razors I hone, I have my tests, if they pass for me they will shave anybody, but I always shave test first. You have to calibrate for yourself, then most importantly they must pass a shave test.

Adults having a debate or a bunch of men swinging purses? Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

So how exactly does knowing that someone else thought they got a good shave or a hht 4 or whatever actually help you?

I agree with you regarding the subjective nature of these things, which is why I've never made any bones about the fact that I think numerical gradations of a subjective test is not only ludicrous but, IMO, deliberately misleading the less experienced into thinking there is something scientific going on. And I will continue to poke fun at the hht-x wherever and whenever I see it arise.

Sorry I said the H word out loud, it was intended to be from one Coticuleer to another.

I will say this once, and never speak of it again here:
Numerical graduations of the HHT are, IMO, meaningful only to Coticule honing with slurry and slurry dilutions.
There is no doubt that keenness steadily improves during the dilution stage. This progression is intimately related to microconvexity, and the reason I invoked the H word.
As keenness improves, the force to cut a hair is reduced, by definition. (or at least by my definition of keenness)
When quantifying the HHT test we are attributing qualitative but repeatable characteristics of the manner in which the hair interacts with the blade to levels of keenness.

Originally Posted by fuzzychops

Sorry I said the H word out loud, it was intended to be from one Coticuleer to another.

I will say this once, and never speak of it again here:
Numerical graduations of the HHT are, IMO, meaningful only to Coticule honing with slurry and slurry dilutions.
There is no doubt that keenness steadily improves during the dilution stage. This progression is intimately related to microconvexity, and the reason I invoked the H word.
As keenness improves, the force to cut a hair is reduced, by definition. (or at least by my definition of keenness)
When quantifying the HHT test we are attributing qualitative but repeatable characteristics of the manner in which the hair interacts with the blade to levels of keenness.

I would disagree with your entire hypothesis... And please think it through first, I am quite sure you will find the obvious flaws rather quickly, there are multiple ones

Originally Posted by Jimbo

My point about hht-x is the subjectivity. If x goes from 1 to 5, there's 5 levels of subjectivity to deal with and calibrate. I've no issue with hhts generally.

But the 1 to 5 thing is pointless drivel, not to put too fine a point on it, for getting help or describing an edge If someone says to me I'm only getting hht 2, say, I still need for them to describe in words what is happening. So what's the point of the numbers?

By all means use numbers if you want for your own internal reference.

Anyway, there's no need for apologies or agreeing to disagree or any of that. We're adults having a debate. Normally I try to choose my words carefully so as to impart a non confrontational tone, but clearly I didn't manage it this time. Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky

James

Jimbo, do you mean that it is like trying to describe the flavour of an orange to someone who has never eaten an orange?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I would disagree with your entire hypothesis... And please think it through first, I am quite sure you will find the obvious flaws rather quickly, there are multiple ones

As someone who is only starting on the honing road, I do a light refresh and have a set of hones on the way, I think I can see what you are saying. The whole idea of the hht without standards strikes me as ridiculous. And a natural stone combined with user made slurry, testing on their own hair seems to have the least number of standard characteristics that could be possible for two different people to replicate.

Originally Posted by Steel

Adults having a debate or a bunch of men swinging purses? Hmmm.

Well, I'd prefer it to be a debate or discussion if possible

James.

Originally Posted by edhewitt

Jimbo, do you mean that it is like trying to describe the flavour of an orange to someone who has never eaten an orange?

I suppose it's a bit like that Ed, but not entirely.

Basically, without getting too technical, what is going on is what's known as an ordinal scale. It is not the same as a numerical or ratio scale, where we can say that 4 is twice as big as 2 and so on, but it is not quite as arbitrary as a completely categorical system (where we can interchange the labels so long as we remember what they mean - eg we might label patients in a drug trial as A = drug group and B = control group, but the labels can be swapped - or are arbitrary- so long as we keep track of which label refers to which group).

So the HHT-x is ordinal - the x's are categories, but there is order associated with them ie 1 < 2 ... < 5. Now there's nothing wrong with that at all from an internal consistency perspective, obviously. I know what I mean by the numbers, and in fact as I gain more experience using the scale I will most likely jigger and readjust things until I get the scale just how I like it and it will be quite useful for me.

Problems arise, however, with inter-person use. There are two main issues: location and scale. I think I can demonstrate both of these diagrammatically, but don't hold me to that

The location issue is where two people start the scale. My HHT 1, because of my hair type, may in fact correspond to your HHT 2 for example. That is, on the same edge my hair would, say, simply split whereas your hair may in fact cut through. So we'd be out of sync like this, for example:

1 *** 2 *** 3 *** 4 *** 5
.........1 *** 2 *** 3 *** 4 *** 5

The other problem is scale. Ordinal scale cut offs cannot be assumed to be equi-distant (as I pictured above). Different individuals may have different "elasticities" between cut offs:

1 ***** 2 ** 3 * 4 ****** 5
1 ** 2 **** 3 ** 4 **** 5

And of course there could be combinations of scale and location differences between people too.

There's a rather large literature in the mathematical and, more particularly statistical, literature on this kind of thing. As a general rule, any proposed measure of something using this kind of scale needs to be assessed both for its intra-person reliability (which for HHT-x I think is probably quite good after a bit of calibration) and its inter-person reliability (which is where I think the HHT-x really falls down).

Of course, poor inter-rater reliability of the HHT-x is pure (educated) conjecture on my part. I could quite possibly be very wrong. The only way to find out would be to conduct inter-rater testing which would involve many raters assessing the HHT-x behaviour of an identical set of edges independently of each other. If anyone wants to do that I'd be more than happy to advise the experimental design, and I'll even throw in the analysis and waive my usual consultation fee

Please also note that unless coticules somehow impart hair homogeneity to everyone who hones with them, the problems I've outlined above are not non-coticule specific I'm afraid.

James.