"A goal is a statement describing a broad or abstract intent, state, or condition." Yes, I strongly agree. We can state our goal with what we want to achieve, without stating how we are going to reach it. Thus, to me, stating a goal is simple, but stating an objective to support the goal is hard as we need to consider many factors that restrict our achievement.
The text teaches us to differentiate fuzzies. As what I have understood, fuzzies are abstract, are something 'in there'. One could understand a fuzzy but might not be able to explain it clearly with concrete examples that determine the exact meanings. A very simple and straightforward way to differentiate fuzzies from specifics is to think whether there is a single behaviour or a class of behaviours that could indicate the presence of the perfomance.
However, there are still some confusion and controversy in identifying fuzzies from specifics. Let's take the examples from the text - understanding computers and know how to compare prices. The term 'understanding' is abstract, yes it sure is. But computers are dead objects. If you understand a computer, it has different meanings with understand a person. You can show how u understand a computer, by using it to perform tasks successfully and easily. But for a person, there is no specific performance could determine how deep or how far u understand him/her. Anyway, I do not think that the term 'understand' being used on dead objects like computers. is appropriate Imagine people start saying, "Yes, I understand my bed." or "I know my handphone." Don't they sound weird? Dead objects have no feelings nor emotions to be understood in the first place!
The latter example which I brought up, know how to compare prices. It is classified as a fuzzy by the author. But he mentioned that 'adding numbers' is NOT a fuzzy althought the performance might not be visible with the action of adding could not be seen. The performance involved might be writing out the correct answer after adding. Doesn't this apply similarly to comparing? Can't it be shown by writing down the compared evaluation, say higher or lower, increased or decresed etc.? I believe the word 'know' causes the confusion over here. But still, with it is being used along with 'compare', there is specific performance to identify it from fuzzies.
Just my thoughts after the reading. I might be wrong though, correct me then.
The text teaches us to differentiate fuzzies. As what I have understood, fuzzies are abstract, are something 'in there'. One could understand a fuzzy but might not be able to explain it clearly with concrete examples that determine the exact meanings. A very simple and straightforward way to differentiate fuzzies from specifics is to think whether there is a single behaviour or a class of behaviours that could indicate the presence of the perfomance.
However, there are still some confusion and controversy in identifying fuzzies from specifics. Let's take the examples from the text - understanding computers and know how to compare prices. The term 'understanding' is abstract, yes it sure is. But computers are dead objects. If you understand a computer, it has different meanings with understand a person. You can show how u understand a computer, by using it to perform tasks successfully and easily. But for a person, there is no specific performance could determine how deep or how far u understand him/her. Anyway, I do not think that the term 'understand' being used on dead objects like computers. is appropriate Imagine people start saying, "Yes, I understand my bed." or "I know my handphone." Don't they sound weird? Dead objects have no feelings nor emotions to be understood in the first place!
The latter example which I brought up, know how to compare prices. It is classified as a fuzzy by the author. But he mentioned that 'adding numbers' is NOT a fuzzy althought the performance might not be visible with the action of adding could not be seen. The performance involved might be writing out the correct answer after adding. Doesn't this apply similarly to comparing? Can't it be shown by writing down the compared evaluation, say higher or lower, increased or decresed etc.? I believe the word 'know' causes the confusion over here. But still, with it is being used along with 'compare', there is specific performance to identify it from fuzzies.
Just my thoughts after the reading. I might be wrong though, correct me then.
No comments:
Post a Comment