A certain activity comes with a checklist that defines the performance of someone/something that's executing that actvity.
When we say someone is underperforming or not performing at all, it means that that individual is not meeting the expectations set forth by the institution -- be it the academia, workplace, or competition. It is hard for some people to accept this because it restricts creativity and it is a direct assault to the individuality. Again, let's go back to rules. I cannot stress this enough, the justification for rules lies in feasibility and optimization. The first rule is, there should be rules if something is going to be measured and judged.For example, a child who despite their best efforts tries to get good grades in the end is still given a failing mark for bad performance. What form are they failing to master, is it the form of academia or the form of the subject that they are trying to learn?
If it is the latter, then would it be unreasonable to suggest that given the near unlimited forms that subjects can take that there might be another form better suited to each failing student, which is merely overlooked by others for convenience? — kudos
When we say someone is underperforming or not performing at all, it means that that individual is not meeting the expectations set forth by the institution – be it the academia, workplace, or competition. It is hard for some people to accept this because it restricts creativity and it is a direct assault to the individuality.
I cannot stress this enough, the justification for rules lies in feasibility and optimization.
It depends on what institution -- for example, workplace, you need to know how to do your assigned role, you should be meeting deadlines, you should show up for work, etc.I might ask what are the expectations based upon? I imagine you mean that the answer to the question lies is in the following line, — kudos
No, it goes both ways. The institution needs to optimize the delivery of learning or instruction (subject matter) they're offering by having rules on performance. This is really not about the greatest happiness and all that jazz. You're misunderstanding.We optimize, but the structures we are optimizing are ultimately for us. OK Jimmy then gets an 'F' in gym class because he fails to catch the ball. Someone might say that catching the ball is a structure optimized for us to perfect our visual and spatial sense in the best way possible (according to experts). This system maximizes happiness. It is the optimal solution to the differential equation of what will cause the least suffering. — kudos
And the justification for rules is that there needs to be a standard of measure. If you're being evaluated, they have to have a written guideline on what they're measuring so that, not only they could see whether you're a good fit to the company, or they need to put you on performance improvement plan, or just outright fire you.
Only the authority would have the legitimacy to judge whether it's the participant's fault or the problem is with the rules themselves (assuming no bias, prejudice, or discrimination happening). And this is because that person is being compared to other participants. I don't think we're getting closer to understanding the word evaluation here. One's performance is being compared to others doing the same thing based on some rules.I'm interested to know would you say in response to the hypothetical situation where someone were poor in performance everywhere they went. If they tried as much as possible to correct it themselves on some grounds they would turn around and say, "This is not my fault." As far as the expectation/reward scenario goes it doesn't seem like this person would ever be qualified to say this; only the authority would have that power. — kudos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.