![]() For the notion of a recursive metric space see. The article above is only concerned with constructive analysis in the narrow sense of the Soviet school (see also Constructive mathematics). Kushner, "Lectures on constructive mathematical analysis", Amer. Shanin, "Constructive real numbers and constructive function spaces" Trudy Mat. Moschovakis, "Recursive metric spaces" Fund. Tseitin, "Algorithmic operators in constructive metric spaces" Trudy Mat. When thinking about memory as a constructive process, we can. Using the same general methods as for the case of constructive metric spaces, one can develop a theory of constructive normed spaces and Hilbert spaces. Hence, the word constructive, which in this context we may understand as deriving from inferring. The axioms 1), 2) imply that $ \rho ( X, Y ) \geq 0 $Īre called equivalent (respectively, distinct) in the constructive metric space $ \ n $. ![]() The set $ \mathfrak M $Īre respectively called the carrier and metric algorithm of the constructive metric space, and the elements of $ \mathfrak M $Īre the points of this constructive metric space. The following properties hold: 1) $ \rho ( X, X ) = 0 $ Ģ) $ \rho ( X, Y ) \leq \rho ( X, Z ) \rho ( Y, Z ) $ (here and in what follows the term "algorithm" is used in the sense of one of the precise notions of algorithm). Into a constructive real number (see Constructive analysis), is called a constructive metric space if for any $ X, Y, Z \in \mathfrak M $ Is an algorithm converting any pair of elements of $ \mathfrak M $ Is some set of constructive objects (usually words over some alphabet) and $ \rho $ The notion of recursive metric space has nearly the same meaning. The ongoing experiment in “radical transparency” at Bridgewater Associates and the culture at Netflix, which the Wall Street Journal recently described as “encouraging harsh feedback” and subjecting workers to “intense and awkward” real-time 360s, are but two examples of the overriding belief that the way to increase performance in companies is through rigorous, frequent, candid, pervasive, and often critical feedback.The concept of metric space used in constructive mathematics. But recently the discussion has taken on new intensity. Since at least the middle of the last century, the question of how to get employees to improve has generated a good deal of opinion and research. The debate about feedback at work isn’t new. Managers need to help their team members see what’s working, stopping them with a “Yes! That!” and sharing their experience of what the person did well. Managers can’t “correct” a person’s way to excellence. Research shows that, first, we aren’t the reliable raters of other people’s performance that we think we are second, criticism inhibits the brain’s ability to learn and, third, excellence is idiosyncratic, can’t be defined in advance, and isn’t the opposite of failure. But it turns out that telling people what we think of their performance and how they can do better is not the best way to help them excel and, in fact, can hinder development. Managers today are bombarded with calls to give feedback-constantly, directly, and critically. Learning rests on our grasp of what we’re doing well, not what we’re doing poorly, and certainly not on someone else’s sense of what we’re doing poorly. The general intuitive notion, referred to as declarative ob- jective semantic information (DOS), is defined by alethic values (see e.g. Neuroscience shows that we grow most when people focus on our strengths. Instead, when managers see a great outcome, they should turn to the person who created it, say, “Yes! That!,” and share their impression of why it was a success. ![]() Managers will never produce great performance by identifying what they think is failure and telling people how to correct it. ![]() Last, excellence looks different for each individual, so it can’t be defined in advance and transferred from one person to another. Second, neuroscience reveals that criticism provokes the brain’s “fight or flight” response and inhibits learning. First, research shows that people can’t reliably rate the performance of others: More than 50% of your rating of someone reflects your characteristics, not hers. But it turns out that feedback does not help employees thrive. For years managers have been encouraged to candidly praise and criticize just about everything workers do.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |