Random Thoughts Part 4 - Split Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Random Thoughts
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a variety of topics, beginning with the reopening of a thread on the Physics Forums. Participants express relief at the continuation of the conversation and share light-hearted banter about past threads. There are inquiries about quoting from previous threads and discussions about job opportunities for friends. The conversation shifts to humorous takes on mathematics, particularly the concept of "Killing vector fields," which one participant humorously critiques as dangerous. Participants also share personal anecdotes, including experiences with power outages and thoughts on teaching at university. The tone remains casual and playful, with discussions about the challenges of winter, the joys of friendship, and even a few jokes about life experiences. The thread captures a blend of humor, personal stories, and light philosophical musings, all while maintaining a sense of community among the forum members.
  • #3,781
Ibix said:
Just a broad overview, perhaps?

Doesn't have to be a broad, could be a man too *. But good point, had not thought about it like that.

* Broad is a slang term for a woman in parts of the U.S, not sure if also in the U.K.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3,782
Thanks to Hollywood (Bogart style hardboiled detectives in this case), pretty much everyone in the entire world is familiar with many dialects of US slang...
 
  • #3,783
rbelli1 said:
Yeah for the new capitalism. A product doesn't have to actually work well or even work at all. It just need to be cheap enough that returning it is more trouble than just throwing it away.

There's a lot written about our "Throwaway Society"
and my feelings are mixed
part of me says "Waste not want not"
and another part says "sure it's cheap but everybody can afford one" .

Those with an inclination might get interested enough to dig in and learn a great deal about something seemingly ordinary which i suppose enriches their life. What if SiliconWaffle got interested in high performance loudspeaker enclosures ? It's a booming hobby.

I have learned to fix stuff
and that enables one to have fine things he couldn't otherwise afford
when somebody else throws them away.
This neat old Czechoslovakian "Copy of Jacobus Stainer" needed strings, a bridge , the back glued back in place and sound post reset . Seven bucks in the thrift shop.
A friend showed me how...
twenty more bucks and a couple afternoons later
Violinresized - Copy.jpg


Now i need a bow and a lesson.

old jim
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes collinsmark
  • #3,784
jim hardy said:
sure it's cheap but everybody can afford one

In the case of Silicon Waffle's speakers he is buying something that is cheap enough that if it is entirely worthless as a product it will just go to the landfill unused. That is totally different from providing everyone the opportunity to own otherwise unattainable items. Those speakers are designed to work once. The fact that they often work longer is irrelevant to the manufacturer. If they could shave a few cents off the cost of manufacturer and make them certainly only work once they would. I have stopped buying that kind of junk because they always fail so soon and the warranty replacement cost will be more than getting a new one (that will break just as quickly). [/rant]

Then you have something like this:
http://www.myce.com/news/fake-and-counterfeit-usb-flash-drives-spreading-on-amazon-72165/

It is engineered specifically to not work but trick one into purchasing it. Seems more honest in an ironic sort of way.

BoB
 
  • #3,785
I've opened up some plain awful sounding cheap computer speakers
the electronics is decent and would last a long time
but the speaker element itself way too small to make decent sound with the power available.

So you're right
most of them do go straight to landfill when user's sophistication improves and he starts paying attention to sound quality
or a flimsy wire breaks..

I fundamentally agree with your rant, though,
but at the other end of the cost continuum.
How many people remain in perpetual debt to automobile loans?
When cars got so expensive they had to come up with seven year financing
they had to be built to last ten years so a second owner could get a loan.

[PLAIN said:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20150729/RETAIL/150729861/average-age-of-u.s.-fleet-hits-record-11.5-years-ihs-says][/PLAIN] The average age of light vehicles on the road in the U.S. reached a new all-time high of 11.5 years at the end of 2014,
I drive $2000 cars because they last me half as long as $30,000 cars.
throw_away_society__popa_matumula.jpe

credit: http://www.cartoonmovement.com/cartoon/924

old jim
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #3,786
rbelli1 said:
Yeah for the new capitalism. A product doesn't have to actually work well or even work at all. It just need to be cheap enough that returning it is more trouble than just throwing it away.
It's a brilliant strategy, really, and I think the originators of it should be rewarded with some jail time.
 
  • #3,787
jim hardy said:
I have learned to fix stuff
and that enables one to have fine things he couldn't otherwise afford
when somebody else throws them away.
As a matter of fact, though, aren't you old enough to have been raised in the time when repair was the norm rather than the exception? High schools used to have all kinds of shop courses back in the day: machine shop, wood shop, auto shop. People darned socks, and patched clothes. They fixed broken furniture. When your shoe soles wore through, you took them to a cobbler to be re-soled. The concept of disposable goods is actually pretty recent. Everything used to be considered repairable.
 
  • #3,788
zoobyshoe said:
As a matter of fact, though, aren't you old enough to have been raised in the time when repair was the norm rather than the exception? High schools used to have all kinds of shop courses back in the day: machine shop, wood shop, auto shop. People darned socks, and patched clothes. They fixed broken furniture. When your shoe soles wore through, you took them to a cobbler to be re-soled. The concept of disposable goods is actually pretty recent. Everything used to be considered repairable.

It is coming back in a limited sense. My uncle recently started a shoemaker business.
And if I'm not mistaken people take clothes to a tailor to repair them more often as well (over here at least).

In fact I should bring him another pair of shoes with loose stitching and cracked leather.
You can invest once in a decent pair and use them for years to come if you treat them well (didn't with that pair).
 
  • #3,789
JorisL said:
It is coming back in a limited sense. My uncle recently started a shoemaker business.
And if I'm not mistaken people take clothes to a tailor to repair them more often as well (over here at least).

In fact I should bring him another pair of shoes with loose stitching and cracked leather.
You can invest once in a decent pair and use them for years to come if you treat them well (didn't with that pair).
Good to hear. However, I'm betting your uncle's clients are probably well off people whose shoes are very expensive to begin with. Back in the day, just about all shoes were resoled and reheeled, cheaper ones included.
 
  • #3,790
zoobyshoe said:
Good to hear. However, I'm betting your uncle's clients are probably well off people whose shoes are very expensive to begin with. Back in the day, just about all shoes were resoled and reheeled, cheaper ones included.
Sometimes it is a matter of basic cost. My $250 PC conked out a while back, after two years of use. Repair estimates were $100-$150. No point in repairing, I can get a better product ( tehcnological improvements over 2 years) for another $200-$250. .With technology, production costs have sunk, making the choice of replacing a product version 1.0 with a version 3.0 of the same product a reasonable idea/strategy Plus, technology changes so quickly that it may be hard to update one's repair skills. Then there is, of course, planned obsolescence too.
 
  • #3,791
Ibix said:
Thanks to Hollywood (Bogart style hardboiled detectives in this case), pretty much everyone in the entire world is familiar with many dialects of US slang...
Massive marketing machinery puts out a lot of crap, unfortunately.
 
  • #3,792
WWGD said:
Sometimes it is a matter of basic cost. My $250 PC conked out a while back, after two years of use. Repair estimates were $100-$150. No point in repairing, I can get a better product ( tehcnological improvements over 2 years) for another $200-$250. .With technology, production costs have sunk, making the choice of replacing a product version 1.0 with a version 3.0 of the same product a reasonable idea/strategy Plus, technology changes so quickly that it may be hard to update one's repair skills. Then there is, of course, planned obsolescence too.
Yes, it's a whole different paradigm now: produce a product that is so cheap, and which changes so quickly, that when it fails (according to design) it will be in your best interest to buy a whole new one and throw the old one away, as per Jim's cartoon. Everything is disposable now in order that manufacturers have a constant large income. But, as BoB pointed out, now they're experimenting with selling products so cheaply made they don't work at all, but they're too inexpensive to bother returning and complaining about.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
  • #3,793
Interesting to read about study on social anxiety. Seems problem stemmed from (anxious) people focusing on potentially problematic outcomes, to the extent that they scared themselves from trying. Therapy consisted in training them to shift focus from problematic outcomes to more neutral ones: they were repeatedly shown a series of pictures in which colors flashed next to neutral stimuli (neutral facial expressions), to which they were trained to react and thus pay attention, which made them shift their (automatic ) attention away from the potential pitfalls.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
  • #3,794
WWGD said:
Interesting to read about study on social anxiety. Seems problem stemmed from (anxious) people focusing on potentially problematic outcomes, to the extent that they scared themselves from trying. Therapy consisted in training them to shift focus from problematic outcomes to more neutral ones: they were repeatedly shown a series of pictures in which colors flashed next to neutral stimuli (neutral facial expressions), to which they were trained to react and thus pay attention, which made them shift their (automatic ) attention away from the potential pitfalls.
That sounds very much like Cognitive Therapy, whose mechanism consists of shifting from distorted thinking to realistic thinking. From, "If I try this, something bad will surely result!," to, "If I try this, most likely nothing particularly good or bad will happen."
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
  • #3,795
zoobyshoe said:
That sounds very much like Cognitive Therapy, whose mechanism consists of shifting from distorted thinking to realistic thinking. From, "If I try this, something bad will surely result!," to, "If I try this, most likely nothing particularly good or bad will happen."
But what seems strange to me is that a problem that at first sight seems intractable can be dealt with in a relatively straightforward way. No need for years of therapy, for accounts of one's childhood, etc., just 4-5 therapy sessions seems to do it.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
  • #3,796
WWGD said:
But what seems strange to me is that a problem that at first sight seems intractable can be dealt with in a relatively straightforward way. No need for years of therapy, for accounts of one's childhood, etc., just 4-5 therapy sessions seems to do it.
I guess what seems strange to me is that you haven't heard that all those dig-into-your-past schools of therapy died at least 30 years ago. It's all pretty much dig-into-your-present now. In the sense that, it's what's going through your mind in the present that's bothering you. Finding out where the problematic thinking pattern started, it has been realized, doesn't actually change or cure it at all.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
  • #3,797
zoobyshoe said:
... Finding out where the problematic thinking pattern started, it has been realized, doesn't actually change or cure it at all.
Exactly!
 
  • #3,798
zoobyshoe said:
I guess what seems strange to me is that you haven't heard that all those dig-into-your-past schools of therapy died at least 30 years ago. It's all pretty much dig-into-your-present now. In the sense that, it's what's going through your mind in the present that's bothering you. Finding out where the problematic thinking pattern started, it has been realized, doesn't actually change or cure it at all.
Simple, my exposure to literature on therapy is a casual one; I have not delved much into it. This case I was referring to comes from a book on attention from a cognitive, not therapeutic perspective. My exposure to therapy itself is also casual, though I may be throwing a softball to many who know me by saying it.
 
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
  • #3,799
I guess I should have taken the ski mask of before going into the bank. But it was too cold.
Still, it was the bank people who decided to give me the money, I did not ask for it, so it only
seems fair that I get to keep it.
 
  • #3,800
WWGD said:
Simple, my exposure to literature on therapy is a casual one; I have not delved much into it. This case I was referring to comes from a book on attention from a cognitive, not therapeutic perspective. My exposure to therapy itself is also casual, though I may be throwing a softball to many who know me by saying it.
Another interesting idea about therapy I casually picked up ( by a book author being interviewed in CSpan's BookTV) is the claim that one can overcome a difficult issue by "walking it away". One must not be carrying anything that impedes the natural movement. Then, the claim is, that when one thinks about the issue during the walk, the alternating movement of the left and right arms will allow the issue to be processed by both the right- and left- sides of the brain. True that this left- , right- brain is somewhat simplified, but there may be something to it.
 
  • #3,801
WWGD said:
Another interesting idea about therapy I casually picked up ( by a book author being interviewed in CSpan's BookTV) is the claim that one can overcome a difficult issue by "walking it away". One must not be carrying anything that impedes the natural movement. Then, the claim is, that when one thinks about the issue during the walk, the alternating movement of the left and right arms will allow the issue to be processed by both the right- and left- sides of the brain. True that this left- , right- brain is somewhat simplified, but there may be something to it.
This one sounds like pure BS to me; a kind of self hypnotism: if you expect it to work, it may well work, but the neuroscience explanation sounds like jaberwocky.
 
  • #3,802
zoobyshoe said:
This one sounds like pure BS to me; a kind of self hypnotism: if you expect it to work, it may well work, but the neuroscience explanation sounds like jaberwocky.
I haven't looked for evidence, but the proponent (Thom Hartmann) is an NLP practitioner. He was interviewed in CCSpan, which usually invites reasonable people (no Ancient Aliens garbage, etc.) . This is not evidence, but at least it is not from just your random person, I will look it up later.
 
  • #3,803
WWGD said:
I haven't looked for evidence, but the proponent is an NLP practitioner (Thom Hartmann). This is not evidence, but at least it is not from just your random person, I will look it up later.
NLP is pretty much BS. Derren Brown deconstructed it in his book, "Tricks of the Mind." (He does a lot of debunking in addition to his magic/hypnotism shows.)
 
  • #3,804
zoobyshoe said:
NLP is pretty much BS. Derren Brown deconstructed it in his book, "Tricks of the Mind." (He does a lot of debunking in addition to his magic/hypnotism shows.)
But why is just one author's disagreement accepted as a full dismissal? I am not sure either way, but by that token, just about any theory is BS, since for every theory there is an (alleged) debunker. EDIT: I mean, if, say 3-4 people I considered to be capable and reasonable dismissed it, I would be more likely to accept it, but just one person's disagreemnt (a person I know nothing about) or dismissal is not enough for me.
 
  • #3,805
WWGD said:
But why is just one author's disagreement accepted as a full dismissal? I am not sure either way, but by that token, just about any theory is BS, since for every theory there is an (alleged) debunker.
Derren Brown's debunking is accepted by me because I perceived it to be an excellent debunking. I am certainly not going by the theory that, just because someone attempts to debunk a thing, it is de facto, debunked.
 
  • #3,806
zoobyshoe said:
Derren Brown's debunking is accepted by me because I perceived it to be an excellent debunking. I am certainly not going by the theory that, just because someone attempts to debunk a thing, it is de facto, debunked.
From the Wiki page, it seems Brown has no training in neither Neurology nor in Linguistics, which I would like someone to have when debunking a field based on these. Sadly, as I see it, most people tend to overstate their hypotheses, their claims. I am all for these ideas being debated, but , it takes a while for some clarity to emerge because of this; both sides overstate their claims. Besides, this guy is in his 40's . I would have more faith in someone who is older, who has had the chance to gain enough depth and width in many areas to be able to do a deep-enough evaluation of a whole field. Still, it is more of a Bayesian issue than anything else.
 
  • #3,807
WWGD said:
From the Wiki page, it seems Brown has no training in neither Neurology nor in Linguistics, which I would like someone to have when debunking a field based on these.
This might be a requirement if the creators of NLP had had any training in either Neurology or Linguistics, but since they didn't, it is perfectly fine with me for Brown to look at it just as a self-help movement.
Sadly, as I see it, most people tend to overstate their hypotheses, their claims. I am all for these ideas being debated, but , it takes a while for some clarity to emerge because of this; both sides overstate their claims. Besides, this guy is in his 40's . I would have more faith in someone who is older, who has had the chance to gain enough depth and width in many areas to be able to do a deep-enough evaluation of a whole field. Still, it is more of a Bayesian issue than anything else.
I think the most important thing for you to bear in mind is that NLP is a course you take from NLP coaches for money. It is not an academic field of study.
 
  • #3,808
zoobyshoe said:
This might be a requirement if the creators of NLP had had any training in either Neurology or Linguistics, but since they didn't, it is perfectly fine with me for Brown to look at it just as a self-help movement.

I think the most important thing for you to bear in mind is that NLP is a course you take from NLP coaches for money. It is not an academic field of study.

So you have checked the background of all of those involved? Have you searched, for research :

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cou/34/1/103/

http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/research-in-nlp-neurolinguistic-programming-science-evidence

http://www.ia-nlp.org/web/scientific_research

John Grinder, one of the founders : from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder:
After receiving his doctorate, Grinder took a full-time position as an assistant professor in the linguistics faculty at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). He engaged in undergraduate and graduate teaching, and research. His research focused on Noam Chomsky's theories of transformational grammar specializing in syntax and deletion phenomena.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,809
WWGD said:
So you have checked the background of all of those involved? Have you searched, for research :

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cou/34/1/103/

http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/research-in-nlp-neurolinguistic-programming-science-evidence

http://www.ia-nlp.org/web/scientific_research

John Grinder, one of the founders : from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder:
After receiving his doctorate, Grinder took a full-time position as an assistant professor in the linguistics faculty at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). He engaged in undergraduate and graduate teaching, and research. His research focused on Noam Chomsky's theories of transformational grammar specializing in syntax and deletion phenomena.
I stand corrected: one of the founders had formal training in linguistics. However, the primary sources of NLP were from psychology:
In 1972 (during Grinder's stint at UCSC) Richard Bandler, an undergraduate student of psychology, approached him for assistance in specific aspects of modelingGestalt therapy. Bandler, along with good friend Frank Pucelik, had spent much time recording and editing recordings of Fritz Perls (founder of Gestalt therapy) and had learned Gestalt therapy implicitly during intense group sessions. After some time, Grinder was invited to participate in group discussions. Although at first Grinder sat quietly, he eventually approached Bandler and Pucelik with some observations and questions. Grinder left a lasting impression on Pucelik and was later dubbed 'the real genius'.[12] Bandler and Pucelik invited Grinder to team-up eventually creating a very close group. Although Bandler, Grinder and Pucelik were the main driving force, there were several other students at the university who contributed ‘a hell of a lot’ according to Pucelik.[12] In the end, hours of unpaid research significantly aided the formation of Meta - modern day NLP.

From there Grinder and Bandler modeled the various cognitive behavioral patterns of therapists such as Perls, a leading figure in family therapy Virginia Satir and later the leading figure in hypnosis in psychiatry Milton Erickson. As a result, The Structure of Magic Volumes I & II (1975, 1976), Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, Volumes I & II (1975, 1977) and Changing With Families (1976) were published. This work formed the basis of the methodology that became the foundation of neuro-linguistic programming.
NLP was mostly an attempt to formalize Erickson's techniques into a teachable theory. He's the Big Guy they're constantly quoting and using as an example.

I am not sure why you posted the first link. It seems to contribute to the opinion that NLP currently has no demonstrable effectiveness:

In an earlier review of the experimental literature on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), the present author (see record http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1984-21020-001 ) concluded that the effectiveness of this therapy was yet to be demonstrated. In their comment on that review, E. L. Einspruch and B. D. Forman (see record http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1986-08199-001 ) agreed with this conclusion but suggested that it was due to the presence of methodological errors in the research on NLP to date and that the efficacy of NLP was open to debate. In the present article, it is contended that those suggestions were based on misconceptions regarding the factors that limit the methodological worth of research. Several of the detailed criticisms from that review are refuted, and data from 7 recent studies that further demonstrate that research data do not support either the basic tenets of NLP or their application in counseling situations are presented. Implications for the use of NLP in counseling research or clinical practice are discussed. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The second link seems to be a supporter of NLP making excuses as to why it hasn't been properly studied. But, he claims that various separate studies support various separate aspects of NLP:
This is only a very small sampling of current research studies that support various aspects of NLP practice and methodology, and more appear each week. There is a lot of research that supports NLP principles, but it is not identified as such. If all these studies were collected into a review article, it would provide quite impressive support. Meanwhile, a few of us continue to explore the boundaries of what we already know and can do.
And the last link, to an NLP site, appear to list more studies, each of which only supports some aspect of NLP. Instead of providing "impressive support" taken altogether, it might well reveal NLP to be a 'grab bag' of disconnected tools with no central structure.

Regardless, the proof of the pudding is in the taste. I recommend you experience it yourself: take the course and get your certificate. That is basically all the research Derren Brown did: he took the course, and his criticisms are based on that experience.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,810
zoobyshoe said:
I stand corrected: one of the founders had formal training in linguistics. However, the primary sources of NLP were from psychology:

NLP was mostly an attempt to formalize Erickson's techniques into a teachable theory. He's the Big Guy they're constantly quoting and using as an example.

I am not sure why you posted the first link. It seems to contribute to the opinion that NLP currently has no demonstrable effectiveness:
The second link seems to be a supporter of NLP making excuses as to why it hasn't been properly studied. But, he claims that various separate studies support various separate aspects of NLP:

And the last link, to an NLP site, appear to list more studies, each of which only supports some aspect of NLP. Instead of providing "impressive support" taken altogether, it might well reveal NLP to be a 'grab bag' of disconnected tools with no central structure.

Regardless, the proof of the pudding is in the taste. I recommend you experience it yourself: take the course and get your certificate. That is basically all the research Derren Brown did: he took the course, and his criticisms are based on that experience.

My battery was dying and I could not surf well; I will look it up latter. Going through the training alone can at best show that the training is done poorly, and that it may have become over -commercialized. When you say that one member has training, have you looked up the background of all the authors? Sorry, I need to be out for now, I cannot address points for a while.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3K ·
89
Replies
3K
Views
159K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2K ·
76
Replies
2K
Views
170K
Replies
11K
Views
560K
  • · Replies 2K ·
63
Replies
2K
Views
56K
  • · Replies 3K ·
112
Replies
3K
Views
360K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K