5 ms·

So did you? I'm not endorsing that minimal feedback technique, but it would certainly make me think pretty hard about how to improve the paper. Bang-bang contro

So did you? I'm not endorsing that minimal feedback technique, but it would certainly make me think pretty hard about how to improve the paper. Bang-bang control can work. If you're the boss of any enterprise, and you want to make things good ('excellent') the first time, you only have your instincts and experience to go on.

gwbas1c 10y ago
But in the poster's context, "excellent" is a non-objective undefined term. In an enterprise, the incentive is for you to define how your subordinates do their jobs. So, it's a different subject altogether. This actually gets at what the paper describes as the problem with defining what "excellence" means. (I read about half the paper.) Everyone defines it differently, so excellence basically just means that it's judged well by whoever is doing the judging.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  This is an old chestnut of a philosophical problem that many youngsters of my generation first experienced in the form of 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. There's no solving it. And yet we all know that differences in quality are real. This is not an argument I want to engage in. My question was, did the GP learn anything from being told 'not good enough, do it again'? They imply not, but I bet they did. I've learned lots of things that way. Grant proposals, job applications, asking someone out on a date: lots of things you try out and don't get feedback beyond 'nope'.
jboggan 10y ago
I think part of the problem was that the person who had been writing all of his research papers for him the last several years had left the lab unexpectedly and the advisor had no feedback to give. I don't know, I became pretty demoralized when each attempt to write up my research got that kind of response. The advisor was super enthusiastic about me when I started and told me that my research was so good that my first paper was going in Science or Nature. He kind of built me up and let me crush myself with high expectations. It was an interesting education.

gwbas1c 10y ago

But in the poster's context, "excellent" is a non-objective undefined term. In an enterprise, the incentive is for you to define how your subordinates do their jobs. So, it's a different subject altogether. This actually gets at what the paper describes as the problem with defining what "excellence" means. (I read about half the paper.) Everyone defines it differently, so excellence basically just means that it's judged well by whoever is doing the judging.

robotresearcher 10y ago
This is an old chestnut of a philosophical problem that many youngsters of my generation first experienced in the form of 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. There's no solving it. And yet we all know that differences in quality are real. This is not an argument I want to engage in. My question was, did the GP learn anything from being told 'not good enough, do it again'? They imply not, but I bet they did. I've learned lots of things that way. Grant proposals, job applications, asking someone out on a date: lots of things you try out and don't get feedback beyond 'nope'.

jboggan 10y ago

I think part of the problem was that the person who had been writing all of his research papers for him the last several years had left the lab unexpectedly and the advisor had no feedback to give. I don't know, I became pretty demoralized when each attempt to write up my research got that kind of response. The advisor was super enthusiastic about me when I started and told me that my research was so good that my first paper was going in Science or Nature. He kind of built me up and let me crush myself with high expectations. It was an interesting education.