Continuing my reply:
I wonder how you decide which goals you’ll actually pursue in your life. I think living your life can be one big project and you can choose which goals you want to pursue for that project.
Im thinking you could still pursue a goal even if it has an error that makes it fail. You can still pursue even if you evaluated that a plan/solution will fail at a goal. The question you would have tho is why it failed and why pursue it?
Imma write about the following paragraph:
Second sentence:
I think “That’s” is thinking of many goals, evaluating them, and choosing which ones you want in life. Doing that seems to be the big improvement.
I think if you’re clear about the goals you have and know if you’re going to pass or fail them and then choose the right goals then that does seem like a big improvement. You can actually interact with your goals in words and ideas. You don’t have to keep it so vague. If you’re having a problem accomplishing your goals or getting stuck in life then why not study this subject a bit? Try that out. You might find a problem with your ongoing project that you can fix.
I don’t like how vague goals are these days cuz if you manage to accomplish them you seem like a genius. If you don’t accomplish them then you’re not trying hard enough or aren’t disciplined enough. How about thinking about the topic rationally? Maybe not doing that is why people fail so often at life goals
Paragraph I’m going to write about:
Last sentence:
I see that there’s gotta be a difference between “clear goals” and “binary goals”. I haven’t seen those terms close to each other so it has me thinking them. It’s hard to describe the goals like each of their definitions
I see that you can decide on clear goals. I don’t think that’s deciding if you want those goals to be your goals? I think it may tho be cuz if you use binary goals and then figure out which errors are important then those are already your goals. Idk really
Idk what this is:
how do you use binary goals? Is knowing which plans/solutions succeed or fail at which goals?
Also I see that there’s a definition for binary goals in the quote:
I think that’s a definition. Binary goals do what’s said in the quote above
That’s different than when I tried to define binary goals:
I use the word “outcomes” and ET’s quote uses the word “outcomes” too. They seem to have different uses. In ET’s quote the adjective “all” is used to describe “outcomes”. That probably means there’s more than two outcomes. What matters I think is judging the outcomes as success or failure. That’s what binary about binary goals. “Outcomes” to me sounds like when you do a plan/solution and then you see the results. Anything you do for a binary goal will tell you if you succeeded or failed. That’s cool.
Imma write about the following paragraph below:
The first sentence:
If criticisms try to point out errors then that sounds useful. If you don’t know about an error then if you hear about a criticism it might let you know about one.
I know that a criticism “tries” to point out an error so that means it doesn’t always succeed at pointing out the error. It can be wrong.
Where it says that a criticism is a “statement”, that’s likes a sentence or an idea no? What’s a statement? According to Merriam Webster, “statement” means:
a single declaration or remark : assertion
I saw that “assertion” in the quote above meant declaring that something is the case. That sounds like what a criticism does but for an error.
An error can cause failure at a goal. A criticism tries to point out an error. I think we use criticisms when we error correct or when we look at clear goals that fail cuz of an error.
Second sentence of the paragraph im replying to:
There’s good criticism it seems. That’s better than bad criticism. What does good criticism do? It does what’s said in the quote above. One thing I notice about a good criticism is saying why something happens. When you say why something happens, you talk about reasons for something. That’s an argument. You can always make arguments like in essays to find the truth.
I think “issue/problem” is an error. Those things are causing failure at a goal. An issue wouldn’t be a problem if it couldn’t do something better I think for the goal.
Issues/problems don’t just cause failure one goal but it could be more. So that’s >=1. If the issue/problem didn’t cause failure at any goals then you wouldn’t need a criticism. The issue/problem is causing failure at 0 goals there.
I think a bad criticism would not say why an issue/problem causes failure for one or more goals. It tried but failed at doing that. You can look at a bad criticism and say, “that’s not why that issue fails at that goal.” Or “that’s not the right issue/problem that’s causing the failure at a goal.”
Third sentence of the quote I’m replying to:
“It” is the criticism. Also, it’s interesting that a criticism says “which” goals fail and “which” won’t. So it can say more than one thing? Like, more than one idea. Cuz if the criticism is saying an error is causing failure at one goal, it could also say that an error is not causing failure at this other goal.
Also, I think “It” in the quote above may be good criticism, not just any criticism.
Does a criticism say which out of all the goals will fail and which out of all the goals will succeed? Idk
I think a good criticism is being specific about which goals will fail or succeed. How does a good criticism say which goal succeeds?..
I think there is a difference tho between saying something succeeds and not fail. Cuz if you think about the error that the criticism is pointing out, according to that criticism, errors are failing a certain amount of goals. It could say that the error is not making a certain goal fail. That goal could still fail cuz of another error.
4th sentence of the quote im replying to:
I think you can think about the quote above when you’re thinking about many clear goals maybe? You can do it when you’re trying to find an error that’s important? If you look for goals that fail cuz of an error and you find some, is that a criticism? I think in a way yeah. The reason the error causes failure for the goal maybe is cuz it didn’t pass the quick check. Idk
I see there are other things you can use criticisms for not just ideas. You can do it for actions or plans too. I think an example for actions would be in sports. You can probably use criticisms to say why certain actions there fail at a goal.
Also, you don’t just have to say why an action/idea/plan fails at a goal. They could fail at a purpose or objective. When an idea fails at a purpose that sounds like stuff for science and theory.
I don’t use plans/ideas/actions for objectives/purposes/plans much, at least not be really aware of that stuff. I think it may be kind of hard to use criticisms cuz i won’t know much about what im criticizing.
5th sentence of the quote Im replying to:
“that” I think means criticisms or knowing about criticisms.
I see how the quote above is about the topic of knowing which error is important to work on. How’s the quote related? Cuz if you’re dealing with errors then you can deal with criticisms too. If you use criticisms for pointing out errors then you’ll know which goals you’re gonna fail at or not. I think maybe you use criticism when you think of a lot of binary goals. Idk
When the quote says this:
Idk how this works. How will using criticisms help you judge whether a criticism is important to you or not. I think there’s a lot of words in the quote above that are used i think that I don’t know the meaning of. What does “enable” mean? “Whether”? What does it mean when a criticism/error is important to you? I think it’s important to you if you have that goal/objective/purpose.
How do you get enabled like it says in the quote?
I think I see how you can tell which error/criticism is important to you. If you had a goal that you wanted to succeed at then you could find the criticism that says what error is going to mess up your goal. You know how criticisms work so you should be kind of set to find which error is important to you.
The following is the first sentence of a paragraph after talking about what a criticism is:
“This perspective” I think is about using criticism to help you decide which errors are important.
That perspective has requirements if you want it to work well. You gotta divide big goals into separate pieces.
I wonder what a big goal is, how many big goals I have, and what makes a big goal big? I think if you split big goals into separate pieces they’ll become smaller goals. Why say divide them “into separate pieces”? Is it cuz they’re individual things you can work with now? You can work with one piece and only one? Like maybe only one piece needs some work?
Also, what does it mean for the perspective to “works well”? Does that mean for it to be successful? For it to not have a big bottleneck?
The following sentence comes after one about splitting big goals into separate pieces:
This sentence is connected to the last one to show the reader an example of a big goal. It shows them what happens to big goals when criticism is applied to it. There’s a problem with only using big goals. Separating the big goal into pieces helps solve the problem.
The following sentence comes after the one talking about the problem of criticism not being specific enough for big goals:
The sentence says “Instead” because that’s what you could do in place of having one big goal. Instead of having one big idea that criticism can’t be specific with, you can do what’s said in the quote above.
How does separating goals into pieces make criticism more specific? How does separating a goal like “do x and y and z” let criticism be more specific? I think if you talk about each letter as an individual goal then your criticism can point out a specific error.
I think the sentence is connected with the last sentence to say that if you want criticism to be effective then you’re gonna want to separate big goals into pieces. Idk
The sentence provides an alternative to only having a big goal. You as a reader already got a picture in mind of a big goal like “do x and y and z”. Now you can picture separating the goals like “Do x. Do y. Do z.” After that you can see that instead of criticism commenting on one big goal, it could be more specific and comment on individual sentences.
Paragraph Im gonna write about:
First sentence:
What does, “When you actually act” mean? Is that when you go through with the plan/idea/action to accomplish the goal? Or is that when you criticize the goals?
I’m thinking when you have multiple goals it’s a tree structure? When you have multiple goals are they separate things you do in succession?
I see that having multiple goals is equivalent to having a combined goal with “and” in it multiple times. If the combined goal had “or” in it then it wouldn’t equal to having multiple goals. You can skip out on a goal there and still be successful.
Having multiple goals and combined goals seems like units you can convert between. It’s like saying one mile is equivalent to 5280 feet. It’s also like saying one meter is equal to 10 decimeters.
Why is the sentence written the way it is? What is it for? I think it lets the reader know that you’re not giving up on your big goal if you separate it into individual goals. Now it gives the reader an idea what they have to work with. They can apply criticism to their multiple goals. How tho?
I’m gonna write about the second sentence of the following paragraph:
The sentence:
What is the “But” there for? I think it’s to contrast two things. It’s for contrasting between maybe focusing criticism on sub-goals vs. big goals?
Does having multiple goals equal having sub-goals or having minimally-sized goals? How many goals is multiple? 3? More?
I think sub-goals is equal to dividing big goals into separate pieces.
Third sentence:
I think the sentence above is an exception in a way to using criticism on the group of three goals.
I see that now we’re saying that the goals are in a group. So does that mean a group of goals = a combined goal with “and” in it a lot of times = a big goal?.. Oh wait, I see that the group is actually made of three things not goals. I don’t know why I thought it said goals
Could “things” mean ideas/action/plan?
“all three together.” Sounds like combined goals with “and” in it multiple times. It also sounds like a goal like ‘do x and y and z’.
I see if you succeed at the first and second thing together then maybe it wouldn’t make sense to criticize doing all three together. My question is why is your criticism grouping all three things together?
What if you can do the all three things individually does that necessarily mean you can already do them together? Is that what criticizing a group is for?
What if you don’t know about succeeding at any of the three things? Can you criticize all three together there? Do you gotta find like a common pattern? You can talk about three things as a whole and why it fails at a goal?
No. You could be able to walk or juggle independently, but you can’t walk and juggle at the same time. The goal could be to entertain someone and you know they would only be entertained if you could walk and juggle at the same time. So you’ll fail.
Because like I illustrated above, each idea is not necessarily independent of each other. Each idea might succeed individually but they fail when put into a single plan.
Another possibility is that you succeed at some of the sub-goals but fail at others. Like you know how to walk but you don’t know how to juggle. In that case you should aim the criticism at the sub-goal that is failing.
Criticism should only be aimed at a group of three things if it actually means that you won’t be able to succeed at all three together.
@Elliot, if I’m understanding this correctly you’re talking about when the ideas succeed independently but not together? Otherwise aim the criticism at the failing sub-goals, not the group.
Yea that paints a better picture. You got idea 1 to juggle and idea 2 to walk. You can do either with not really any errors. We combine the goal so tht we have to do idea 1 and 2 together.
I wonder what problems will happen in that goal. What makes it hard to do both actions at the same time?
For me I dont really juggle three objects but I could do two, if that counts. I dont think i can confidently judge doing that singular action well, but I think I can walk easily. Can I do both at the same time? I dont know. I think ill know if I try it. I just think walking is so automatic, i won’t really have to focus on fixing it rather than the juggling.
Them not being entertained could be the failure criteria.
I see how you can combine the actions to achieve a higher goal like entertain someone. I was thinking about the higher goal being the two actions combined only. There’s a higher level thing you can achieve there
Maybe a criticism of the group could be about the timing of the actions like there’s too much of a delay between the two. Or maybe you’re not doing the actions fast enough. I think tho u should be careful applying a general criticism like tht
I know when I try to do somethings at the same time, it’s hard to get a thing right like it fails cuz ure doing something else too. Idk if doing something else is why, but is that where u use group criticism? Criticizing is more effective tho when it’s more specific.
Yes. In general, if A fails, you should criticize A rather than A&B&C. You should usually aim criticism at the more narrow thing it applies to.