Common denominator of success essay

Differentiate yourselves from the mediocre
  1. The Common Denominator of Success – Prioritization | chakshuRA - as i see it
  2. Get The Lithub Daily
  3. Your Recipe For Success
  4. Disruption doesn’t have to be disruptive

Become a member. Sign in. Get started. Behind the Common Denominator of Success. Sarah Dee Follow. Define your own terms of success The first thing we have to get is the understanding of the form of success within ourselves which always be different between one and another. Differentiate yourselves from the mediocre The key is the different habit and act between the successful people and the failures. I love to spread positivity, laugh, and learn.

See responses 1. Discover Medium. While some statistical concepts were applied to form the argument presented in the paper, there was no empirical hypothesis test in the study. The statistical model used is independent uniform distributions for each measurement.

Based on the measured data and these assumptions, the authors then infer that, since the number of state combinations is immense, the probability of any two individuals matching is so small as to be meaningless. Tooth 22 was predicted to have a total of Bush, Bush, and Sheets used a dataset of specimens, allowing for 14, pairwise comparisons of individuals. But when the data were actually checked, of the pairwise comparisons were matches. The difficulty here was the assumption that tooth position followed a uniform distribution model; most people are average, and the distributions are closer to normal than uniform.

The probability of occupation of each particular state is not simply 1 over the number of states; more sophisticated distributional models are required. When the position of more than 1 tooth at a time was examined in the same manner, by computing the expected number of matches of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 teeth in the lower dentition and then comparing these expectations of match rates with the specimen database, the number of matches far exceeded the model expectation.

A total of 7 pairs of specimens had matching states on all six teeth in the lower dentition. A bit of consideration of the biology of the data explains why. Human dentition has to form a working bite, and humans display some level of bilateral symmetry, so that there is substantial amount of correlation of the positions of the teeth with one another; they are not independent. If the right side of a human face is unusually broad, the expectation will be that the left side is as well.

It appears that this class of impression evidence is thus supported only by inductively inferential logic and prior accepted use, quite literally tradition. The claimed exonerations of roughly 24 convicted individuals argue that there is some error rate in the use of bitemark evidence. Although there is error in all forms of human endeavor, there exists sufficient empirical evidence that the rate of error for forensic bitemark comparisons exceeds what might be considered acceptable limits for forensic application.

The premise that dentition is effectively unique seems well supported by the long and effective history of post-mortem forensic identification based on entire complete dentitions, but bitemarks record far less information about the dentition than is typically available in a whole-dentition study, so it appears that the premise of the uniqueness of biting dentition is not a necessary corollary of the effective uniqueness of the entire dentition. It also appears that the preponderance of empirical evidence finds against uniqueness.

The conclusion here would be that the strong reliance on inductively inferential logic has not served us well in the case of bitemark comparison. Flaws in the initial premises of inductive inference may be difficult to ascertain by discussion and logic alone. Effective use of hypothesis-driven empirical research is desperately needed here and in others areas of forensic evidence supported only by inductive inference and judicial history. The inherent characteristic of arson to consume or destroy the very evidence needed to establish existence of the crime renders it one of the most difficult to investigate and prosecute Tobin and Monson Tobin, W.

The Common Denominator of Success – Prioritization | chakshuRA - as i see it

But mainstream scientists have long been aware that inductive inference from limited observational studies are quite vulnerable to bias and logical fallacies. Fire scenes are very dirty, and fire investigation is not glamorous. In as much as virtually all fire and arson investigators derive from the ranks of law enforcement, few are schooled in any of the hard sciences physics, chemistry, materials science, metallurgy, mechanical engineering, statistics, inter alia , and fewer yet are schooled in design of experiments, hypothesis testing, or inferential logic processes.

However, anecdotal observations and inductive extrapolations from various fires to future events and pronouncements are vulnerable to bias, logical fallacies of presumption, and other flawed inferential logic, many of which were passed down within the practice culture and became imbued in the domain literature.

s2 The common denominator of success

Unless such anecdotal observations used for extrapolation are sufficiently similar in all relevant aspects influential input parameters to those of the event s to which they are extrapolated. Largely because there is little extrajudicial interest in the domain literature by other than fire investigators themselves, there was virtually no oversight or challenge from the true, mainstream scientific community.

Although many of the observationally developed guidelines have been relatively recently exposed as mythology and folklore, some continue to be used today. An example of inductive extrapolation without scientific oversight is illustrative. In other words, the argument that all canaries are birds does not imply that all birds are canaries. For decades, the same observational extrapolation process from fire scene investigations was used to develop guidelines for fire investigators desperate for criteria by which to accurately assess cause and origin.

In that process, hypothetically, a certain characteristic might be observed from a specific fire admittedly set by a suspect. Department of Commerce, at The basis for one of the red flags raised from literature review was the fact that metallurgists have known for centuries that time and temperature are strongly inversely correlated, a fact used in production heat treatment processes, to obtain the same dependent variable microstructural outcome.

In efforts to reconcile the disparate rationales, metallurgical researchers conducted burn experiments of mattresses at the FBI Burn Facility in Quantico, Virginia, simulating both smoldering cigarettes and accelerant-induced fires Tobin and Monson Tobin, W.

Get The Lithub Daily

As suspected by the researchers, it turned out that there was no observable difference in spring collapse behavior. The belief comprising pathological science 4 4 Pathological science is a term believed to have been first used by Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir in his presentation at a colloquium at The Knolls Research Laboratory, December 18, View all notes turned out to be a classic case of anecdotal extrapolation based on fallacies of presumption primarily false dichotomy and suppression of evidence. View all notes. However, relatively recent challenges from the true mainstream scientific community question the scientific foundations of the practice, but defenders of the practice cite its lengthy judicial admissibility as evidence of its scientific reliability for Daubert purposes.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. From a scientific perspective, a salient threshold consideration for this discussion is that practitioners and jurists alike conflate validity and reliability. Lengthy judicial admissibility does not equate to scientific validity or reliability. Unfortunately, many judicial rulings incorporate that fallacy of presumption, with the presumption that decades of consistent legal opinion equate to scientific reliability. Foster , F. Supp 2d , n. Santiago , F. Supp 2d , S.

Absence of evidence to the contrary does not render a claim valid. These opinions also conflate validity and reliability, as discussed infra. One might have expected the situation to change following Daubert , but so far that has not happened. Thornton and Peterson, a Thornton, J. Faigman , D. Kaye , M. Sacks , and J. Eagan, Minnesota: West Publishing Group.

ISBN: In fact, because the foundational validity and reliability of the forensic practice has not been established and currently has no probative value, the PCAST recommended that the practice of firearms identification not be offered in courts.

  • Define your own terms of success.
  • a level economics essay library.
  • Common Interview Questions.
  • uc app essay prompt 2012.
  • thesis for degree of doctor of philosophy;
  • Common Interview Questions | Minnesota State CAREERwise.

Reliability relates to consistency in observational results repeatability and reproducibility , not the accuracy or validity of the results. As noted by two authors differentiating reliability and validity, … a parade of forensic scientists who make the same subjective judgment, or a series of machines that give the same readings in response to the same evidence sample, can only be said to be reliable.

Validity refers to the degree to which a measuring instrument measures what it purports to measure.

Your Recipe For Success

See also Horn , F. In short, reliability refers to consistency, while validity refers to accuracy or correctness. They can all be wrong. This is a critical concept to grasp, as the forensic identification fields are notorious for trying to equate consistency with correctness. Thornton and Peterson, Thornton, J. The accuracy of firearms identification is possibly more strongly correlated to efficacy of investigative function by law enforcement than to forensic practice, resulting in likely Type III errors attaining a correct answer but for the wrong reason, in essence, inadvertently obtaining a correct answer.

Although both the judicial and forensic domains are comprised primarily of nonscientists, it is quite ironic that some insightful jurists, generally even more removed from science and technical endeavor than forensic practitioners, are beginning to recognize the vacuous claims infused in firearms identification practice with unfounded expressions of certainty, yet practitioners still have not. Green , F. Supp 2d D. See, U.

Disruption doesn’t have to be disruptive

Chaz Glynn , F. See also, Williams v. See also, State v. Goodwin-Bey , No. It is not a science, 9 9 Both legal and scientific scholars have expressed agreement on this observation.