Omnimaga
General Discussion => Other Discussions => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: holmes221b on December 12, 2010, 10:56:27 am
-
**This discussion is continued from a tangent started somewhere in this thread (http://ourl.ca/8244)**
NLP is providing structures and methods that work on 99% of the people. And if one method does not work on person A then changes are very slim a other method wont work either. NLP also wields the power of language. Both verbal and nonverbal language. NLP has some much tricks in it that it has a 100% succes rate because no one is completely immune to NLP (except for the dead xD)
It is impossible to have a 100% success rate--at least, not without someone fudging the data. And until you provide me with quantifiable, unbiased, scientific fact, I am inclined to be very dubious of your claims.
impossible to have a 100% success rate?
- every time i take a breath, i breathe in air. 100% of the time. successfully.
- this soccer season, i successfully played in every single JVA game. that's 100%.
- i didn't miss school the entire first quarter. i was successfully, 100%, in attendance.
clearly, someone is fudging the data on my life, because it is impossible to not miss school for 45 days. you must have at least one absence.
-Your body doesn't release all of the carbon dioxide that it produces.
-Depends on your definition of "successfully played"--was every pass completed? Did you shoot on the goal and make it every time?
-Both physically and mentally? Did you not go to the bathroom during class? Were you ever late to school/a class?
To fudge data, you manipulate it. Depending on the confidence value used, for example, you can manipulate the data. Another way of manipulating data is in how you describe the parameters of what is "success" and what is "failure".
that word impossible is thrown around too much. i don't agree completely with matthias either, but i'm not going to call his theory impossible.
I didn't call his theory impossible. I said that until he provided concrete scientific evidence to back up his claims, I was going to remain dubious of his claims.
-
-my body releasing carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what i breathe in.
-looks like i should've reworded. is successfully participated in every single soccer game. as in, i was on the field for at like a couple minutes playing in regulation high school time against an opponent.
-i said i was 100% in attendance. that means that 100% of the days i was physically in school. i haven't gone to the bathroom in school this whole year. we have gross bathrooms. i've been late to a class. but does that mean i wasn't at school? no. i was still on the campus.
no, describing what is success and what is failure does not manipulate data. describing success and failure defines how the data should be interpreted. you can fudge the interpretation of data, though. just look at the global warming crusade. Chlorofluorocarbons are used in refridgerants, destroy O3 and are generally claimed to be a cause of global warming. you know what else is a large source of CFCs? Volcanoes. (http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/) The actual data of how many CFCs are being released into the atmosphere cannot be manipulated. it's a straight fact. sure, you can lie about it. but the actual quantity won't change. the interpretation will.
fair enough, about the last point though.
-
It appears both of you have differing expectations of what constitutes 'success' and 'failure'?
Perhaps a common definition should be worked out before attempting to argue if anything could fail?
-
no, describing what is success and what is failure does not manipulate data. describing success and failure defines how the data should be interpreted. you can fudge the interpretation of data, though. just look at the global warming crusade. Chlorofluorocarbons are used in refridgerants, destroy O3 and are generally claimed to be a cause of global warming. you know what else is a large source of CFCs? Volcanoes. (http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/) The actual data of how many CFCs are being released into the atmosphere cannot be manipulated. it's a straight fact. sure, you can lie about it. but the actual quantity won't change. the interpretation will.
"Success" and "failure" is defined by what the researcher is looking for, which CAN and WILL influence what data is collected--and how it is collected. I'm not talking about the dictionary definations of these words.
-
It depends upon the scope of the data collected whether or not 100% is possible or not.
In a finite set of data and subjects. It very well is completely possible to have 100% success (or failure) rates of what is being tested.
Only if the set of subjects and data is infinite, then the probability of 100% would be 1/(infinity). In other words, next to impossible.
Other than that, there is always a chance (though sometimes very small) at being 100%
In the terms of the original topic of NLP, if it can work at some level on everyone, then it is 100%. The chances of it actually being 100% though, are very small. Like 1/6000000000 That is because if there is only one person in the world that it does not affect period, then it's not 100%. However, until we find such a person there is a very, very small chance (but a chance nonetheless) of it being 100%.
(Sorry for my weird way of writing, I'm in "Think Mode" atm :P )
-
no, describing what is success and what is failure does not manipulate data. describing success and failure defines how the data should be interpreted. you can fudge the interpretation of data, though. just look at the global warming crusade. Chlorofluorocarbons are used in refridgerants, destroy O3 and are generally claimed to be a cause of global warming. you know what else is a large source of CFCs? Volcanoes. (http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/) The actual data of how many CFCs are being released into the atmosphere cannot be manipulated. it's a straight fact. sure, you can lie about it. but the actual quantity won't change. the interpretation will.
"Success" and "failure" is defined by what the researcher is looking for, which CAN and WILL influence what data is collected--and how it is collected. I'm not talking about the dictionary definations of these words.
you've just proven my point. a 100% success rate is possible because a researcher defines successes and failures. Thank you.
Also, i think Homer is right. in a finite set 100% success if very possible, and in an infinite set it is very difficult (not impossible). just try to comprehend how large the universe is and how many trillions of galaxies there must be and how many trillions of solar systems there are within each galaxy, with multiple planets in each. can you even begin to argue for impossibility when this is such an overwhelming huge universe?
-
Chlorofluorocarbons are used in refridgerants, destroy O3...
The difference with CFCs is that although they may have many sources, we can observe their reaction pathways with O3. I'd still like to see the claimed papers for NLP that show the research (as shoddy as I generally regard psychological research to be).
can you even begin to argue for impossibility when this is such an overwhelming huge universe?
Yes, P∧¬P, given P∩¬P=∅. That's kind of hacking symbols together, but you get the picture.
-
I thought CFC meant Centucky Fried Chicken? :P
-
can you even begin to argue for impossibility when this is such an overwhelming huge universe?
Yes, ¬(P∨¬P). QED.
ever heard of a rhetorical question? (hint included)
-
Quote
can you even begin to argue for impossibility when this is such an overwhelming huge universe?
Yes, P∨¬P. QED.
I googled this and didn't find anything :(
Could you supply a link.
What I said is not to say that it is impossible to have impossibilities (:D) But that if you have nothing that disproves the theory or goes against what is to be 100% Then the probability is as stated. However if only one instance of that disproof manifests itself. In that particular case,, yes it is impossible to be 100%. Because you have something that prevents it from being 100%.
(I hope this makes some sort of sense. I'm not a good explainer of things)
-
Homer, what you quoted is actually a universal truth :P
I've already edited my mistake, if you want to read it again.
The real impossibility is P∧¬P, given P∩¬P=∅. This basically says that if you have two events P and not P that are mutually exclusive*, then the occurrence of both of them is impossible.
*The condition isn't strictly necessary, but I'm sure that someone could come up with a situation in which you could have P∧¬P.
-
Homer, what you quoted is actually a universal truth :P
I've already edited my mistake, if you want to read it again.
The real impossibility is P∧¬P, given P∩¬P=∅. This basically says that if you have two events P and not P that are mutually exclusive*, then the occurrence of both of them is impossible.
*The condition isn't strictly necessary, but I'm sure that someone could come up with a situation in which you could have P∧¬P.
Ahh I see now. Thank you.