by Richard L. Weaver IIScientists at the And Then Some Publishing, LLC, (ATSP) laboratories located in the prestigious residential community of Palo Alto, California, close to Stanford University, have developed a technology that will determine whether or not listeners, readers, subscribers, and others (unfortunately the technology is not refined enough to distinguish among these), have an interest in, will want to read, and will put to use material in the next book ATSP will publish.
The technology allows technicians to determine, based on an experientially situated paradigm, whether or not those studied have an interest in and can use a rule-based format.
What the scientists worked on first was fundamentals. Through a scientifically developed procedure called “Remote Information Disclosure” they discovered the role that learning fundamentals plays in people’s lives. What they uncovered was that people preferred building a solid foundation and knew that fundamentals opened alternatives and options. It surprised scientists when they realized people also knew that fundamentals supercharged creative juices, offered them strength, supplied the license, permission, and authority to act, gave confidence and security, offered a base for experimentation, and supplied a way to evaluate outcomes and assess results. Scientists were stunned by the erudition and perspicacity of their subjects.
When scientists detected the fact that most people preferred learning the basics before proceeding to higher-order thinking and doing, they knew that a rules-based, ordered presentation of ideas would be welcomed.
Scientists at the ATSP laboratories in Palo Alto then developed a series of intricate, methodical, statistically based, controlled, experimental studies that used before and after comparative populations, local central limit theorems and high-order correlations of rejective sampling and logistic likelihood asymtotics, and controlling for independent but not necessarily identically distributed random variables, in a variety of environmental settings, each with a designated control group, designed steps that would move people from a fixed beginning point to an intangible and evasive culmination whose objective would be to yield feelings of consummation and fulfillment.
Throughout the experiments, the goal of the scientists was to accurately record all of the acts, abilities, and skills demonstrated by study participants. This was accomplished through the use of MP3 VoiceRecorders, video cameras, as well as trained, paid, on-sight observers. These notes were gathered, collated, and transcribed, and the results have been preserved for public record in the United States Government Archival Records and Transmissions Office (USGART) in Washington, D.C.
After working out progressive steps, and after explicating the competence levels necessary to attain each of the prescriptions, scientists gathered in focus groups to work out specific details and record their findings in ways a lay public could comprehend. Each focus group had a designated participant to take notes, reduce jargon to understandable verbiage, and make the final report for each group.
At first scientists called their results theories, but they knew there would be people who would misinterpret these “theories” as untested suggestions that did not have proof nor universal acceptability. Axioms, maxims, and canons were other considered possibilities. One scientist wanted to use the word praxis because, for her, it represented the precision and accuracy of their work. Finally, after much discussion and debate among the various groups of scientists, the word “rules” was finally agreed upon — but only after several hours of discussion and debate. The minutes of these final discussions reflect lengthy debate and much disagreement.
To put their rules to a final test, each of the participating scientists was required to prepare a brief, formal, final public presentation. The primary requirement for this presentation was that it had to follow precisely the rules they had established, and the success of each presentation would be measured — by the other scientists, a gathering of family and friends, and a group of trained, paid, objective professional observers — by how faithfully, accurately, and literally each presentation subscribed to the requirements set forth by the rules the scientists had previously agreed upon.
For the purposes of the experiment, a standard, objective evaluation form was constructed by a paid, outside, contracted agency. This was the evaluation form used independently by each of the groups. Monitoring of the use of the form was performed by the West Lake Detective Agency. The firm was paid to make certain all judgments were independent and that no group- decision making occurred during the evaluation period.
The day arrived, presentations were made, listeners responded enthusiastically, critical evaluations took place uneventfully, results were tabulated by an independent comptroller, and the results were announced at a final banquet.
The news media were invited to the banquet, and the results were picked up by the Associated Press, and all the local television stations reported the results on their nightly newscasts. There was, at that time, wide support and strong encouragement for the results to be compiled in such a way that they could be made available to the general public. This feeling compelled one scientist during the business meeting that followed the final banquet to present a motion to this effect.
The vote on the motion was unanimous. There was loud and uproarious applause, and with the announcement of the result of the vote, all participants rose as one to not just acknowledge the results of the vote but to support the need to have the results published.
It is with great pleasure and a great deal of pride that ATSP has been given the privilege of publishing these results. The title of the book is Public Speaking Rules! All you need to give a GREAT speech, by Richard L. Weaver II, and when it becomes available it can be purchased at Amazon.com.
Happy April Fools’ Day! Everything in this essay is false except the last sentence of the paragraph above. (As of this writing, the book is in the final stages of preparation.)
______________________________________________________________________________
At “Museum of Hoaxes” (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/aprilfool/) , “The Top 100 April Fools’ Day Hoaxes of All Time,” there are not just a numbering or listing of all the hoaxes, but there is a brief discussion of each one, and they are listed in hierarchical order as judged by notoriety, absurdity, and number of people duped.
The Wikipedia website under “April Fools’ Day” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fool's_Day) offers information on the “Origin,” “Well-Known Pranks,” “By Radio Stations,” “By Television Stations,” “By Magazines and Newspapers,” “By Game Shows,” “By Websites,” “List of April Fools’ Hoaxes,” “Real News on April Fools’ Day,” “Other Prank Days in the World,” and “April Fools’ Day in Media.” It is an impressive presentation of a wide variety of information.
______________________________________________________________________________
The technology allows technicians to determine, based on an experientially situated paradigm, whether or not those studied have an interest in and can use a rule-based format.
What the scientists worked on first was fundamentals. Through a scientifically developed procedure called “Remote Information Disclosure” they discovered the role that learning fundamentals plays in people’s lives. What they uncovered was that people preferred building a solid foundation and knew that fundamentals opened alternatives and options. It surprised scientists when they realized people also knew that fundamentals supercharged creative juices, offered them strength, supplied the license, permission, and authority to act, gave confidence and security, offered a base for experimentation, and supplied a way to evaluate outcomes and assess results. Scientists were stunned by the erudition and perspicacity of their subjects.
When scientists detected the fact that most people preferred learning the basics before proceeding to higher-order thinking and doing, they knew that a rules-based, ordered presentation of ideas would be welcomed.
Scientists at the ATSP laboratories in Palo Alto then developed a series of intricate, methodical, statistically based, controlled, experimental studies that used before and after comparative populations, local central limit theorems and high-order correlations of rejective sampling and logistic likelihood asymtotics, and controlling for independent but not necessarily identically distributed random variables, in a variety of environmental settings, each with a designated control group, designed steps that would move people from a fixed beginning point to an intangible and evasive culmination whose objective would be to yield feelings of consummation and fulfillment.
Throughout the experiments, the goal of the scientists was to accurately record all of the acts, abilities, and skills demonstrated by study participants. This was accomplished through the use of MP3 VoiceRecorders, video cameras, as well as trained, paid, on-sight observers. These notes were gathered, collated, and transcribed, and the results have been preserved for public record in the United States Government Archival Records and Transmissions Office (USGART) in Washington, D.C.
After working out progressive steps, and after explicating the competence levels necessary to attain each of the prescriptions, scientists gathered in focus groups to work out specific details and record their findings in ways a lay public could comprehend. Each focus group had a designated participant to take notes, reduce jargon to understandable verbiage, and make the final report for each group.
At first scientists called their results theories, but they knew there would be people who would misinterpret these “theories” as untested suggestions that did not have proof nor universal acceptability. Axioms, maxims, and canons were other considered possibilities. One scientist wanted to use the word praxis because, for her, it represented the precision and accuracy of their work. Finally, after much discussion and debate among the various groups of scientists, the word “rules” was finally agreed upon — but only after several hours of discussion and debate. The minutes of these final discussions reflect lengthy debate and much disagreement.
To put their rules to a final test, each of the participating scientists was required to prepare a brief, formal, final public presentation. The primary requirement for this presentation was that it had to follow precisely the rules they had established, and the success of each presentation would be measured — by the other scientists, a gathering of family and friends, and a group of trained, paid, objective professional observers — by how faithfully, accurately, and literally each presentation subscribed to the requirements set forth by the rules the scientists had previously agreed upon.
For the purposes of the experiment, a standard, objective evaluation form was constructed by a paid, outside, contracted agency. This was the evaluation form used independently by each of the groups. Monitoring of the use of the form was performed by the West Lake Detective Agency. The firm was paid to make certain all judgments were independent and that no group- decision making occurred during the evaluation period.
The day arrived, presentations were made, listeners responded enthusiastically, critical evaluations took place uneventfully, results were tabulated by an independent comptroller, and the results were announced at a final banquet.
The news media were invited to the banquet, and the results were picked up by the Associated Press, and all the local television stations reported the results on their nightly newscasts. There was, at that time, wide support and strong encouragement for the results to be compiled in such a way that they could be made available to the general public. This feeling compelled one scientist during the business meeting that followed the final banquet to present a motion to this effect.
The vote on the motion was unanimous. There was loud and uproarious applause, and with the announcement of the result of the vote, all participants rose as one to not just acknowledge the results of the vote but to support the need to have the results published.
It is with great pleasure and a great deal of pride that ATSP has been given the privilege of publishing these results. The title of the book is Public Speaking Rules! All you need to give a GREAT speech, by Richard L. Weaver II, and when it becomes available it can be purchased at Amazon.com.
Happy April Fools’ Day! Everything in this essay is false except the last sentence of the paragraph above. (As of this writing, the book is in the final stages of preparation.)
______________________________________________________________________________
At “Museum of Hoaxes” (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/aprilfool/) , “The Top 100 April Fools’ Day Hoaxes of All Time,” there are not just a numbering or listing of all the hoaxes, but there is a brief discussion of each one, and they are listed in hierarchical order as judged by notoriety, absurdity, and number of people duped.
The Wikipedia website under “April Fools’ Day” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fool's_Day) offers information on the “Origin,” “Well-Known Pranks,” “By Radio Stations,” “By Television Stations,” “By Magazines and Newspapers,” “By Game Shows,” “By Websites,” “List of April Fools’ Hoaxes,” “Real News on April Fools’ Day,” “Other Prank Days in the World,” and “April Fools’ Day in Media.” It is an impressive presentation of a wide variety of information.
______________________________________________________________________________
Contact Richard L. Weaver II
