Other measurement quality criteria. What is a criterion? Types of performance evaluation criteria General plan of the exercise

For some people, personal pleasure or entertainment is so important that they never achieve much. For others, success is so important that they never take the time to relax and enjoy life. Words like "pleasure" and "success" indicate criteria - standards for evaluation that can be applied in a variety of situations. Many various activities can give you "pleasure", and many more can bring you "success". Some activities can even give you both. The criteria is for what you are doing something. These are nominalizations - such as "learning", "usefulness", "beauty", etc. - that can be used to evaluate results in a variety of contexts. Criteria give us a useful way to organize our lives through generalizations.

It happens that the criterion is too or not important enough. Often, criteria like “being right,” “being liked by others,” or “power” take on such significance in a person’s life that he becomes unbalanced and experiences personal difficulties or constant dissatisfaction with others.

Criteria Shift is a powerful technique for changing the importance of a criterion. When you work with beliefs, quite often you change a limiting belief to its opposite. The person says "I guess I can't learn" and you switch it to "I guess I I can learn" - a discrete shift. However, when dealing with a person's criteria, you very rarely want to reverse them completely. The exact opposite is usually neither needed nor desirable. Instead, you regulate relative the importance of the criteria, making them more or less important. You make "being right" less important or "having fun" more important - analog shift. This allows you to fine-tune the basis of behavior as we all behave in a way that fulfills the criteria we deem important.

Yesterday someone said that people either work to meet their criteria or don't work at all. This is a strong statement, but it is true. If an activity doesn't meet any of your criteria, it won't be of interest to you. Think of all the things that others willingly do that you find trivial or obscure. These activities must somehow meet some of their criteria, but not yours.

Often problems arise in situations where two criteria come into conflict. For example, you are faced with a choice - to please others or to do what seems best to you. It is in such cases that the ability to refine the criteria can be very important.

Before you can adjust the criteria, you need to get an idea of ​​how the human brain knows which is important. How does the human brain encode criteria so that when a person thinks about "study" or "fun" they automatically know how important it is and their behavior is sequenced without conscious thought about it? To find out, the first step is to identify hierarchy of criteria: multiple criteria listed in order of importance. The second step is to study the submodal differences between these criteria, and the third is to use these encodings to adjust the problematic criterion. Since identifying criteria may be new to some of you, we will demonstrate it. Even if you have done this before, I suggest you pay close attention to it; some people do it differently, not in the way that we suggest you learn.

Revealing the hierarchy of criteria

Who would like their hierarchy of criteria to be revealed?

Thank you, Chris. I want you to think of something trivial that you could do but won't. For example: "I could stand on this chair, but I won't," or "I could throw a piece of chalk across the room, but I won't." Can you think of something relatively trivial like this?

Okay. You could pick up a man, but you won't. But what's stopping you from picking it up?

Chris: A foreman who worked for me once picked up a man on the road who made him drive two hundred miles with a gun at gunpoint; And I don't want the same thing to happen to me.

Thus, the criterion that is involved here can be called "safety" or "survival". This is a much higher criterion than what I wanted to start with. Since we're already dealing with life and death, we're probably near the top of Chris' hierarchy. For the sake of demonstration, let's change the content. think of something much more trivial, like you could stand on a chair or pick your nose in front of people, but you won't.

Chris: I could drink coffee, but I won't.

So, won't that take us back to the top of your hierarchy? For some people, drinking coffee is like drinking arsenic; it violates the criterion that includes health, which is just at the top of their hierarchy - so they don't do it. Is coffee consumption really low enough for you?

Chris: Okay, I can think of something below that; I could wash the dishes today, but I won't.

Fine, that sounds low enough. "Washing dishes" is a specific behavior. The next step is to identify the value criteria that keeps him from taking this action. So, Chris, what's stopping you from doing the dishes?

Chris: Not enough dishes to wash.

OK, we still don't have a criterion, so I'll ask the question differently. Chris, what do you achieve by not washing the dishes?

Chris: Well, it builds up to a reasonable amount and then I wash it all at once.

And what do you achieve by washing all the dishes at once?

Chris: It saves time.

OK, so the significant criterion is "saving time." Note that he formulated the criterion positively - as what he will save or achieve, and not avoid. The same criterion could be formulated as "do not waste time". It is important that all criteria be formulated positively, without any negatives. We will discuss the reasons for this later.

Now let's move on to the next step. I want to find out what is more important to Chris than saving time. Chris, what would make you wash the dishes today anyway, even though doing so would be "wasting your time"?

Chris: If I was waiting for some stranger to visit.

And again he offers you a situation, an event, a circumstance: "Some stranger comes to visit." For Chris it's that extra context, which conditions that he will wash the dishes. Well, what would you achieve by washing dishes in this situation? What is important to you here?

Chris: The perception of me as my guest will start on neutral ground.

Would it be correct to say something like, "I would make a certain impression?" (Chris frowns.) How could you rephrase that so it's accurate for you? You can see that he didn't like the way I put it. It doesn't fit for him.

Chris: No, I don't want to deliberately create any impression, positive or negative. Anyone who comes to my apartment must accept it for what it is. However, dirty dishes fall below my neutrality criterion of being neither too neat nor too sloppy.

Okay, let's call this criteria "start with a neutral impression." (Mmm-hmm.) It's a bit long; I like to use one or two words if possible - but I think it will get the point across. He didn't like the way I phrased it, and I definitely want to use something that makes sense to him. His first criterion is "saving time", the second is "starting with a neutral impression":

Now we need to identify an even higher criterion. By keeping the context unchanged, we again subject the behavior to denial. Note that the context is cumulative: there are still only a few dirty dishes, and further a stranger comes to visit. You can do something every time add context - but you are not allowed to change what has already been defined. Chris, given the context, what would make you not wash dishes, even if, without washing them, you would risk not starting on neutral ground?

Chris: Oh, if I were cooking.

And under this condition, what would you achieve by leaving the dishes unwashed?

Chris: Well, if someone comes and the food is being prepared, I don't try to wash all the dishes so that everything is sparkling clean, because I like to serve the weight hot.

Okay. What is the importance of serving everything hot? We haven't received the criteria yet.

Chris: Cooking excellence: I'm a good cook.

Now we have a criterion. And I suspect that "perfection" in general is more important to you than "starting on neutral ground" with people - which in turn is more important than "saving time."

Now remember that we still have only a few dirty dishes, and some stranger is going to visit, and further you are cooking. In this context, what would make you want to wash the dishes, even though it would violate the criterion of "perfect cooking"?

Chris: If only there was something unhygienic about leaving dishes unwashed.

"Unhygienic" is a negative, so I want to change it to something positive, like "keep hygienic" - if this change of wording is acceptable to Chris. (Yes OK. Now, what would make you leave the dishes unwashed, even though it would be unhygienic?

Chris (long pause): If there was something emergency nearby, like a fire in the building where my apartment is located.

We are now approaching a criterion with a high value. Okay, what would you save or achieve by responding to such an incident?

Chris: Saving a life.

We have achieved "preservation of life". It usually ranks quite high on the list.

Chris: Saving a Life is actually a little high. It's more about "preserving safety", the safety of others.

Okay, you're "keep safe" by responding to an incident instead of washing dishes. The stakes on washing dishes or not washing dishes are clearly rising! Now, Chris, what would make you still wash dishes, even if for this you will not be able to protect the safety of others when there is an incident?

Chris: If the scale of the incident exceeded my ability to influence it.

Note that this answer does not lead to a more important criterion; it simply takes away the meaning of "preserve security" by changing the existing context. You have turned the incident into something that you have no control over. What more you will have to add to the context we already have at the moment - a small amount of dirty dishes, a stranger coming in, cooking and further incident - so that you neglect "preserving safety"?

Chris: I guess I wouldn't do the dishes if I could have some part in overcoming the crisis.

That's right, we've already installed it. What would make you wash dishes, even if you could somehow take part in overcoming the crisis?

Chris: If, miraculously, there were people more competent at managing a crisis than me, then I would start washing dishes.

Notice that Chris still doesn't move up to the higher level criterion. He continues to build his behavior in such a way that his criterion of "preservation of safety" is satisfied. We will know that he has moved to a higher level criterion when he thinks about something. more important for what he will donate"preservation of safety". I usually try to get the person to think about it first before suggesting an option, but right now we're close to the top anyway. Most people foam their own life is above the safety of other people. So Chris, let's say someone holds you at gunpoint and says, "If you get involved in this crisis, I'll blow your brains out!" Could it make you do the dishes?

Chris. Could.

Could?! (laughter) What if your family were in danger if you didn't do the dishes?

Chris: I don't have a family right now. I live alone. And someone is putting a gun to my head at their own risk, so I don't know if I'll wash the dishes even then.

Well, what if you got a phone call and said that the whole city of New York would be blown up if you didn't do the dishes? You must clean it up, ignoring the crisis, or New York will cease to exist.

Chris: Oh ok...

I won't go any further because we are very high now; whether we are on top its hierarchy or close to it, for our purposes we are high enough. My belief in this is based on his reaction. For some people, this will not be the top. For them, the safety of others is not really that important; but if it comes to their own lives, then they will be concerned. And even a person's life may not be as important as principles, such as "honor", "doing the right thing", or "morality". This is one of the factors that make self-sacrifice or war possible. Chris certainly has many other criteria that will fall in between the ones we've identified here. For our purposes, however, you don't need to work out each criterion in turn, because you only need three for the next step in the exercise: one that's completely unimportant, one in the middle, and one that's very important. After you identify them, we will show you how to shift the criterion.

The exercise

Divide into groups of three and identify your partner's criteria hierarchy, just as I did with Chris. Be sure to start with something really trivial. What is so insignificant that he could do but won't? His non-verbal reaction will give you an idea of ​​how trivial or important this behavior is to him. It's important that you don't impose your own criteria on what he does. Other people's hierarchies will sometimes be very different from yours - and you need to find out what it is exactly. this person. When your partner chooses some trivial behavior, keep changing the conditions under which he will or will not perform it in order to sequentially identify criteria for higher levels.

The key is to keep him going up the hierarchy. Find out what is important enough for him - what will make him sacrifice the last criterion identified. I asked Chris: "What would make you wash the dishes anyway, even though that by doing so you would be violating the criterion just identified? Then Chris added into the context of the new element. I then asked questions to find criteria that fit this new context: “What gave would you achieve this?" We then reversed the question:

"What would make you not wash the dishes, even if, by not washing them, you would have to violate this last criterion?

Chris' Criteria Hierarchy Diagram below shows how the context is cumulative. At every step we add context, but never subtract anything from what is already there. It's a way of finding out what's important enough to Chris that it would cause him to violate the previous criterion.

Man: Could you move on to the next criterion by asking, "Well, what's more important than that?"

Yes, but many people will say, “Oh, a lot!” (laughter) When you ask someone to think in such an abstract way, they have to guess, but without the right context, they can be wrong. When you offer a specific scenario, people are much faster at identifying the criteria that really influence their behavior - as opposed to the criteria they think that those should influence their behavior. A specific scenario is much better at activating unconscious resources and protecting against intellectualization.

Make sure the weight criteria are formulated positively. Ask your partner what the criterion preserves or provides, not what it avoids. Good way to figure it out is to ask what exactly gives it any particular behavior. “What will give it value?”, “ for what you do it?"

Sometimes people will give you their criteria a little out of order, because they are thinking about an experience that violates or satisfies only a small part of the criterion, not most of it, and this can affect the determination of its position relative to the rest of the criteria. A small amount of dirty dishes does not disturb the “cleanliness” to the same extent as a dismantled car engine in your living room. Once you have your hierarchy in place, choose for the next step the three criteria that you firmly believe are in the correct order. Pick one trivial, one average, and one major criterion, and look for verbal and non-verbal congruence. For Chris, I would take: "time saving", "perfection" and "safety keeping". I'm pretty sure these three criteria are in the right order so I can use them.

Next, note how these criteria are represented, and then identify the submodal differences that characterize them. If we were doing this with Chris, I would ask him to think about the "saving time" criterion. How does he represent "saving time"? How about "perfection" and "keep others safe"? What does he see/hear/feel when he thinks about each of these criteria? Then he can compare these three representations with each other, just as you compared the past, present and future, revealing your timeline. We want you to figure out which submodalities are used to order these three criteria into continuum. There may be discrete differences, but for the time being they do not interest us. We only need analog submodalities that change continuously. You may find two or three different submodalities, but often one key will be the most powerful.

Now it's just mark which analog submodalities seem to be the main way to encode the relative importance of these three criteria. Later, after Once your partner decides which criterion he wants to shift, you will test these submodalities. Shifting criteria is surprisingly easy, and we don't want you to do it by accident.

If any of you finish quickly, you can explore the submodal differences between the same criterion when it is stated positively and vice versa negatively.

Man: By positive, do you mean "save time" and not "don't waste time"?

Quite right. People move towards positively formulated criteria and away from negatively formulated ones. If you have a bit of both, it will confuse you. The submodal encodings referring to "moving to" and "moving from" are interesting, but they differ from how people hierarchize their criteria. When you eliminate the consequences of "moving towards" and "moving away" by formulating all criteria in the same way, you are much more likely to find only those submodalities that belong to the hierarchy itself.

Man: What about people who are more motivated by avoidance than attraction? What if a person is actually motivated to avoid certain things in life?

With some people, it may be easier to get a negative wording of all criteria. Do this only if you find it really difficult to reorient the person to the positive.

I would like to expand the box by asking the following question: if someone is really primarily motivated by avoidance, do you want to leave him with this orientation, or do you want to refocus his attention on where he wants to go? Every time you move away from something, you must also move. towards something else. If your attention is focused on what you are moving away from, then you will not notice what you are approaching. The phrase "out of the fire and into the fire" aptly expresses this problem - when you do not notice what you are moving towards. Focusing that person's attention on what they want can be much more generative and beneficial than changing their hierarchy of what to avoid.

There are things in life that are definitely worth avoiding. Sometimes it's very good to use "planning for the worst" and some people get in a lot of trouble when they don't. However, in general, well-formulated results in NLP are stated positively - because you are much more likely to get where you want to go if you focus on it. This is the number one fundamental rule in professional training. You can do "worst-case planning" only after how you framed a positive outcome to make sure you achieve that outcome in a sustainable way.

Sometimes it is difficult for people to decide whether something is really a criterion, or if it is part of the context. The main test is that the criterion is a nominalization that can be applied to many various contexts. One of the criteria for buying a car may be the desire to have a car with single seats. This is too specific to be transferred to another context; but "physical comfort" or "the approval of others" can apply to a car as well as to a wide range of other contexts. You also need to state the criterion as concisely as possible; often one or two words will suffice. One person had the criterion of "corresponding to other people." It's a little long, but it can clearly apply to a wide range of situations and to a wide range of behaviors. These indications are sufficient for now; you can start the exercise.

Discussion

Glad to see you again! What did you discover? Some of you are starting to notice amazing proportions. For example, some groups observed links between the criteria hierarchy and the timeline.

Neville: Yes, Tom's timeline and his criteria hierarchy matched exactly. What was least important to Tom was at the place in his timeline that Tom uses for the past, and the more important the criterion, the farther into the future he was. His criteria were placed along the timeline.

Right. Although we don't know the content, it shows that Tom is very future-oriented. I look like him. I tend to ignore the past, so my criteria hierarchy starts where I represent the present and continues straight into the future. You can expect a person to value the future if they use the same submodalities to encode the future tense and high-value criteria, as Tom and I do.

And vice versa, the one who encodes the past and highly valuable criteria with the same submodalities, apparently, remembers a lot and would like to go back to the “good old days”. “Now the nostalgia is not what it used to be.” (laugh)

Joe: It was difficult for us to identify a criterion for money, because money itself is perceived as a measure of value.

Money undoubtedly converts into many things. At the same time, money usually means something quite concrete for a person. You may ask: “What does money give you? What is the importance of having money? For some people, money means "security" and that's the value they endow it with. For other people, they mean "power" or "freedom." What is money for, what is important or useful in it? - this question will give you a criterion. Sometimes someone seeks money on their own, forgetting that they want money for something else. This is what miserly people do: they save money, but they never use it. Sometimes money itself turns out to be a key criterion for a person: “Just money; that's all I want." If so, it's a case of redirecting it to other targets.

Bill: Conniray, since your timeline and your value system are so closely correlated, is it possible to say that the criterion associated on the timeline with the present, in any way dominates the rest of your values?

No, not for me. Now my behavior is much more motivated by the future, and rather by the long-term than by the immediate future; I will put up with today's difficulties in order to get results in the future.

Many of you have found that your value hierarchy is spatially ordered. Your criteria are sorted in space - top to bottom, near to far, left to right, etc. Many of us talk about our criteria as "highly" valuable, and that's literally how we organize our hierarchies; some criteria are higher, others are lower.

However, some people do the opposite: the lower one is more important to them. These people are more likely to talk about "fundamental" or "underlying" values.

Rita used proximity: certain values ​​were more "foreground" than others, and she spoke of them as "close" values. Another person ranked their criteria by size. Everything was in one place, but what more was a picture, the more he appreciated it.

Carol: I seem to be the exception. My timeline runs from left to right, but all of my criteria are right in front of me.

Are they all at the same point or do they go off into the distance?

Carol: They are all at the same point.

Then how can you say that one is more important than the other?

Caral: My least important criterion is like a flat piece of paper. The one in the middle is the associated color film, and the important criterion is purely auditory - I don't have any pictures for it at all.

It sounds as if these three criteria had no common submodalities. To have hierarchy, you need to have submodalities in the form of a continuum. Some people have only two discrete categories: something or important, or No. People who think in terms of "black and white", "right or wrong" often structure their experience in discrete categories of "either-or". Others may have three or more categories. I met one woman who only had three levels of criteria. It was very easy for her to make decisions because all criteria at the same level were equally important, if she had a choice between alternatives that met two different criteria at the same level, she simply chose one of them at random.

It is possible that Carol only has three discrete categories of how important something can be; but she doesn't look like that type of person, so I doubt it. Carol, here's something you can try on your own. Take these three criteria and make sure they are all in the same representational system. To find a submodality that changes along a continuum, you need all your criteria to be represented in the same system. You won't get a continuum if they jump from the auditory system to the visual system and so on. In fact, you may have one way of ordering criteria auditory and another visual, but in this exercise, do not confuse the two systems.

Bob: We started by trying to find visual submodalities for each criterion and got completely confused. We couldn't find anything, so we decided to leave that and move on to the auditory system. We also used vague hypnotic language such as "Apprehend this experience." He really got auditory differences, and demonstrated them to us with his voice and rhythm of speech. But whenever he wasn't focusing on the paintings, he also had a perfectly distinct continuum in the form of a downward gaze movement.

Fabulous. An interesting observation. So you ended up with a pretty hierarchy, even though he didn't realize it. Always keep your eyes and ears open.

Tom: We were struck by the congruence between the localization of criteria and the verbal and body language used to describe them.

Yes. You can use this information in two powerful ways: implicitly detecting how someone orders criteria, and using body language to help someone adjust their criteria more easily, which is the next step.

Choosing a criterion to change

Now that you have all identified the submodalities that allow your brain to know which criteria are more important or less important to you, the next step is to use the information you have received to fit the criterion that you feel is out of place.

With this technique, people did very worthwhile things; let me give you some examples. One clinical psychologist achieved an important shift in his relationship with his wife. He found himself constantly correcting her minor mistakes. She would say, "Well, last Wednesday when you went to the movies..." and he would say, "No, it was Thursday." While doing this, he immediately realized that he was obnoxious and unnecessarily annoyed his wife, but these corrections just popped out of his mouth! He was aware of the damage he was doing, but he couldn't change anything. Here is a conscious insight for you!

After examining his criteria, he found that he was responding to his highly valued criterion of "accuracy." He wanted his wife to be right. Of course, by correcting her, he made her wrong, but these things often work that way! His representation of wanting her to be right was a picture of a pointing finger, which he made less important by moving it down. As she moved down, she spontaneously turned white and transformed into a painting of dancing figures. At that moment, his entire posture softened, and tears welled up in his eyes. The representation of the criterion itself spontaneously transformed into a completely different content. He was amazed at how great feelings he now felt for his wife when he thought of her making a mistake.

I did a few shifts of the criterion on myself. For example, one day I was just about to go to Boston for a seminar when I felt the signs of an approaching cold or flu. I knew that I was getting sick, and I also knew that it was not right to get sick at this very moment. At first I tried to do a little reframing. I withdrew into myself and tried to promise my body: “Okay, I will take a break as soon as I get back from there - I just need these four days to conduct a seminar. Leave me in peace, and then I'll rest!" (Laugh). This approach had worked before, but I felt it didn't work this time because I wasn't getting any response from my body.

When I checked the objections - what's keeping me from feeling good - the significance of my relationship with Steve surfaced. We had a lot of things to do; it was important for him to do them all, and I wanted to contribute. It was only my the perception that he wants me not to rest, but to work on all this. In fact, he probably would have advised me to take it easy and take care of my health. However, unconsciously I thought about it that my relationship with Steve was more important than physical health; so the promise to rest if my body remained healthy for the Boston seminar conflicted with my desire to work hard after my return and get things done. With this information, I delved into myself and shifted the importance of my physical health, making it more more important than my relationship with Steve. I got a different physical reaction and instantly knew that I would be healthy.

Man: Was this shift in criteria temporary, just until the end of your seminar?

No, it has become permanent. I thought it was a good idea that my physical health should always be more important. Being healthy actually improves my relationship with Steve in the long run. You cannot have a very good relationship with anyone if you are sick or if you work so hard that you die young. So this is another example of how criteria shifting can be useful.

Now let's consider the following situation. For one seminar participant, "being right" was a highly valued criterion, which got him into trouble. He found himself constantly trying to prove how resourceful he was and to demonstrate that he was right about everything. At the same time, he understood that this created problems for him; so he decided to adjust the importance of the "being right" criterion, making it less important.

When you make a criterion shift, you can either adjust one criterion, or, by making one criterion less significant, at the same time make the other more significant. This is especially important when a person perceives another criterion as a complementary opposition. For example, many people perceive the criterion of "pleasing others" as balancing "pleasing yourself." Since simply deleting something is often unsustainable, what do you think we might want to make more important if we made "being right" less important to that person?

Man: Help others.

This is an option. You could get the person to think about the importance of "being right" and get a representation of that. Then have him move that representation down or further away from himself, or make it smaller - or anything else that would make it less important - while moving "help others" up. For some people this might work. What else might work?

Man: "Being right" sounds like he needs external approval for his behavior. What if he switched to the inner knowing that he was right, without the need for feedback from those around you?

I think you are on the right track. One possible danger is that he may end up "knowing" that he is right and not being open to outside feedback when he is in fact wrong.

Woman: How about replacing "being right" with "having a balanced relationship"?

So instead of needing to be in control by always being right, it would be more important for him to cooperate with other people - to have a symmetrical relationship.

Man: How about "being loved" instead of "being right"?

This is an option, although “being loved” also emphasizes the need to get reactions from other people. This can keep the client in a very vulnerable position. What else could you do? Most of you are intuitively concerned with what you think of others. result which might be useful to him. One way to identify such an outcome is to ask him, "What does it get you to be right?" This may provide a criterion that can be used in place of "being right". Or we can ask him what he wants to have as more important.

Woman: And if you replace "being right" with "being congenial"?

Yes, or maybe "perceive the reactions of others" or "make a graceful impression." Or else he can make a need prove that he is right, less important. When someone spends time proving that he is right, he is less likely to be right - because he spends so much time trying to prove it.

Man: “Being right” is perceived as a state, and “proving that you are right” is perceived as a process. So what about replacing it with another process?

That way, instead of proving himself right, he could focus on the importance of learning - or even learning with joy. Sometimes you can add criteria like "interest", "pleasure" and "surprise" to the main criteria you are adjusting.

There is a bunch of things that can take the place of "being right". When you help other people refine criteria, be careful not to impose what you consider it the most important thing in the world. Sometimes a person comes to you with some kind of result, and you think: “Well, this is not a very worthwhile thing!” When this happens, don't forget that the criteria shift is done to help people adjust their own criteria - to get more of what they want in life. They may want to be completely different from what you want to be. As long as the change does not violate your ethical principles and is congruent with their other goals and criteria, help them make it.

When I work with someone, I don't try to prescribe what he should substitute for a particular criterion. I make suggestions and comments to help him figure out what is sustainable for him and I discuss ecological problems. For example, if he chooses to "be loved," I will say, "Well, do you really want to be so dominated by other people's behavior?" He can then look for something else. There is no single correct answer, as the correct answer will be determined by the person who wants to change. If you offer a lot of options, you can see what the person is responding to. The elements we've discussed give you some ways to help a client make a really good change.

Criteria shift demonstration

(The following transcript is taken from a training session given by Connirae in Dallas, Texas in January 1986. The transcript has been slightly edited for ease of reading.)

Would you like to watch me quickly demonstrate an example change? OK. Who has already sorted their hierarchy, firstly? And, secondly, you know something that you want to make either more or less important. Thinking about it, think about all the information that you personally have, and think what other people have said to you Is there anything that other people think you could make more or less important? obliged but this is the source of information. You can look at it and decide if you you is it a good idea or not.

David (quickly): OK. What do you need?

This person is effective when you need to get down to business! OK, what is your hierarchy? How do you code it in terms of submodalities?

David: As far as submodalities, I have a "pleasure" (gestures left hand far forward and slightly to the left). Then "personal cultivation" (pointing about 2 feet straight ahead), and then "family" (pointing with both hands near the chest), and I'm in it.

And what is more important?

David: Family.

Ok, I suspected that. So he has “close” criteria. I always talk about “high-value” criteria, and this is really the usual way to talk about them. Some people have “close” criteria, and others have “basic "values, OK, so his criteria are on a line that goes a little to the left with one criterion in the distance and more important criteria closer. Now, is there anything in your mind that you want to make more or less important?

David: Uh-huh.

Do you want to tell us about it or not? You don't have to. It does not matter.

David: Well, I have a problem here. When you recently spoke, it was connected with something that has been digesting in me for some time. I allow myself to get to the point where I get sick, working myself to death - and only then do I take care of personal needs. I need bring closer this (pointing with both hands towards the chest) in importance.

"Take care of personal needs." (That's right.) OK. Now you need to somehow understand where a person wants his criterion to end up; otherwise you can make it more important than life itself without having time to come to your senses: “Wait wait a minute, that's not so important". So, do you want it to be "as important as" or "more important than"?

David: More important than being worked to death.

A good choice. (Laughter) I can't say anything.

David: It's very hard for me to say "No" in a work environment. I can be so sick that it's time to go to bed, but I will continue without stopping.

Okay. Now we will do an environmental audit. In general, this sounds good. I want to make sure that the way in which he himself this interprets will be effective for him. So if you imagine that you will begin to respond to personal needs as more important than work, finishing things, and the like ... Imagine how your life will change. And just check if there are any problems in such a life?

David: Hmm. It will be very differ. It's kind of like there's some part that asks "How is it will?»

"I'd like to know". Yes, that is, you may not know completely - and this may mean that later, after we make this change, you will want to adapt it a bit; you may need to add or subtract or move something.

David: Well, the general nature of efficiency comes up all the time. If I take better care of myself, I will definitely be more efficient in my work environment.

It's right. So those things don't really conflict with each other. (That's right.) And now that you're thinking about taking care of your personal needs, where do you see it now?

David: Over there. (He points with his right hand straight ahead and up.) Long away in that direction (both hands).

Long away in that direction, OK. That's the key. Is it on the same line with the rest of your criteria, or is it out of line?

David: Hmm, it's pretty central and taller and...

I ask if it lies on the line

David: - It's about the same distance as Allen (Allen is sitting at the end of the room), but higher, about the line of the ceiling.

I see what you mean by bringing it closer! (Allen raises both hands).

David: Thanks! (He waves to Allen and gives him the OK sign.)

Allen, could you please move forward when I signal you? (jokingly)

David: Put your hands out and bring it to me (laughter).

Okay. Well, where is the "response to work"?

David: Okay. Work. Something like down there. (He points straight ahead and down, slightly to the right.)

And how far from you?

David: Just this side of the TV. Right down there.

Down near the TV, OK, now let's do a little test. These two criteria are in a different place than the first three; it's not just a straight line. I want to check and find out if top or bottom matters. So take the criterion associated with work, (OK.)

If you lift it, we'll put it back in place, but if you lift it (David shakes his head) for a while, does it look more or less important?

David: (His arm moves left-right in the direction of the work-related criterion.) There's a lot - it works... (He laughs and waves his right hand away from him and up) he moves away when this one rises (gestures towards the criterion "personal needs"). Oh, it's just like there.

O! That is, he is on the same trajectory with that other criterion. OK. Give it back, (OK.) Now I would like you to take the one that is responsible for personal needs. (Allen raises his hands as David laughs and points at Allen) This is your signal. Allen! .. And now I want you to move this criterion closer. You do this technique slowly - you don't do it quickly - so that you can notice the effect as you move it closer. You can do something like an internal check. Usually people somehow feel when the criterion is in the right place. You also have an end goal. You know you wish it was more important than work. So let the picture come closer and you can see the impact it has as it becomes more important and just catch the feeling when it's in the right place... (David makes an inquiring sound.) Wow. (He waves his left hand, showing uncertainty or uncertainty).

Move it back and forth a little if you're not quite sure. Check.

David: Oh, if I move it even closer, OK.

Okay. And when you do that with people, there seems to be an interesting phenomenon that when the criterion hits the right place, it sort of pops. (David nods his head, "Yes," and gestures with both hands, "Of course") Especially if you're telling people it's going to happen (laughter). (David's hands move like they're putting something in place.) He's just sort of settling in there... hitting the right spot. Cotton technique, OK, and let me know when it seems to you that he has fallen into the right place.

David: Okay. Something like that. (Something like?) Well, you know, I'm not used to (He pulls back) for it to be this close. It's kind of like "Wow" .. .(hand touches chin in a "thinking" position) I also notice some other things related to this.

Do you notice anything that you might want to adjust? Here at the top you can see it more clearly. Perhaps you weren't sure what was in this painting when it was far away.

David: That's what I'm noticing now.

You might want to change the content a bit now that it's closer and you can see everything that's there...

David: Hmmm... Yes, it's extremely difficult.

Is that good or...

David: Amazing.

Okay. Difficult in what respect?

David: Well, when I thought about all these "personal needs", I thought about physical illness, but that seems to be just a small part of the whole. (The thumb and forefinger of his left hand make a small pointing gesture.) You know, this is... (His left hand draws a large circle in space around the previous gesture.)

Some part of your brain connected a bunch of different things there.

David: Yes, because the content, you know, like physical health (That's one part, OK) is just in this little one (both index fingers draw a small rectangle in the center of the circle.)

Now I want you to check out the rest of the parts you didn't know existed before and make sure you're quite happy with them in their proper place.

David: OK, when you said that, stuff started moving around.

Okay. There may be parts of this picture that you want to move further away; or there may be parts you want to move even closer...

David (nodding): They moved in, OK. Everything is great now, OK.

Okay. Now that you look at the configuration, does it feel like it will work for you? Or is there more clarification?

David: It feels like something isn't quite right - it's kind of really close, but not quite there.

Okay, so take the time to make it clearly visible. Just look through the whole thing.

David (laughs): Hey Allen! You're not quite there, but... I'll use your right shoulder as her corner... OK (closes eyes)

While you're at it, I'll tell the group some things you already know... Here's what I'd like to say: When you're doing this process, turning on the patterns of hypnotic language makes things a lot easier for the person. You say something like. "You can allow approach this image, and notice when he finds the right position.” (David nods) so you presuppose certain things you don't want to question - that would make the procedure more difficult for the person than necessary. It's a lot easier than asking, "Is he in the right place?" because then they'll start to doubt...

David: OK. When I let it work, the screen over there expanded (he draws a large rectangle in front of him with both hands) into a large rectangle divided into parts. (He makes sharp vertical movements with his hand, moving it from left to right) ... So it's like - (His right hand makes a sweeping motion from left to right in front of him as he whistles softly).

That is, it has expanded.

David: Yes. It's pretty cool.

Did it fit?..

David: Yes, after I let it… (spreads arms wide)…

Increase. (Uh-huh.) And it makes sense, because you can really look at it completely and find out what's in there.

David (nodding): Uh-huh. And I'm getting all sorts of weird kinesthetics now, (Both hands spin in alternating circles around my stomach.) kind of like, "Wow!" (His head and chest are pulled back.)

And the only thing to check is if "weird kinesthetics" is strange in the sense that "It's different, I've never had it before." (David nods, "Uh-huh") Because if it's kinesthetic saying, "Something's wrong," then you'll want to add more clarification. And David responds congruently to the message: "It's just something unfamiliar." Okay. This is the part on change.

Now we want to test. (OK.) This particular change is a little harder to test than others. If you can immediately come up with something real, check it this way. For example, one person lowered the importance of the opinions of others and increased the importance of doing what he himself considered right Immediately afterwards, someone in his group told him to do something: "Do this with your submodalities" and his immediate reaction was: "No, I don't think that's right. I need to do something." something else." It was an unplanned move, but then they realized that it turned out to be a great test. So this is one of the ways that you can sometimes check. With this particular change, we cannot do that, but we can always check in imagination "Imagine yourself in a situation where this difference could come in. (He closes his eyes.) That's the most general test you can make. Have them find the context in which this new configuration will cause a change...

David (nods and smiles, very relaxed): OK, there is.

What do you think? I think it looks good.

David: "No" came out really easy. It was a typical “I need you now” phone call and a really quick “No, you can call so-and-so” check. (He snaps his fingers.)

Fabulous. Yes, and that's the type of automatic shift you get when a person's criteria are placed in a new order. You don't need force act differently, it's just how you really are. OK, try a different context - I want to do a thorough check. (He closes his eyes, "OK, different context") Another context in which the presence of this new configuration will change ... (OK)

How about here?

David: Amazing (laughter)

Is it amazing and amazing or...?

David: Yes. I took the alternative where someone gave me the opportunity to go and do something for myself. Usually I refuse and say, "No, I don't have time." And here I was doing this and thinking: “What am I doing?” (Turns head and looks around) "This is not normal." So it's pretty nice.

Okay, fine. And if you can think of a third context as well... Three is the magic number in NLP...

David (raises his head and tilts it to the right): Well, it's something I haven't seen in a long time, (laughter) I mean, I haven't seen it in person, my last vacation was seven years ago.

You are even worse than us!

David: It's great. He just entered my calendar.

Okay, I like this, and the number three satisfies my criteria for good validation. So thanks.

David. Thank you.

Now, another thing I would take care of doing this kind of maneuver is make sure he doesn't go too far in the direction of "Now he's going to be on vacation 300 days a year and work 65" (laughter). I didn't get any indication from him that he would go that far. He decided: "I write down the days of vacation in my calendar, because I haven't had a vacation for seven years." It's not like, "I'm going to be out of work for five years." Then I would begin to think: “What have I done here?” So when you do a shift with someone, you can check the boundaries a little to make sure they haven't gone too far. If he stops working and the money stops coming in, then he will have difficulty taking a vacation.

Criteria shift exercise

Let's briefly repeat all the steps of shifting the criterion, and then you can do it.

1. First, take the submodal encodings you have already identified and determine how they create a continuum. For David, the most important submodality was distance: the more important the criterion, the closer he was to it.

2. Help your partner identify a criterion that he wants to make more or less important, and find out where it is in his hierarchy of criteria. Don't forget to check the environment.

3. Having determined the criterion that your partner is going to move, determine where he would like to stop. Does he want to make it more important just as important or less important than some other criterion? Find out where in the hierarchy this second criterion is located.

4. Then slowly change the criteria accordingly (proximity, size, brightness, color, etc.). Adjust the submodalities so that the criterion is coded to the degree of importance the person wants to have. For example, if moving up makes something more important and your partner wants to make something more important, have him take the representation of the criterion and let it slowly rise until it is in the right position. If he sorts by size, he can let the picture grow slowly until it is exactly the right size, which will let him know that this criterion is as important as he would like. If he sorts by auditory loudness, he can let the sound get louder until it reaches the right level.

Even if a person has not determined what he wants to make the new criterion more or less important in comparison with, when you ask him to move the criterion to the "right place" - usually he intuitively feels well where this place is. People also reported that if they move a new criterion too quickly, they immediately know that things are going too far and move it back to where they feel more comfortable. They can feel when he is out of place, and this feeling is usually a signal of environmental concern.

Remember that this change must be done slowly. You can use hand gestures to help the client, but don't go further or faster than he does. If he raises the criterion, don't let the criterion take off quickly - lest it become more important than life itself. If you do it too fast, then "being neat" may end up being more important than "staying alive"! (laughter) It's not sustainable!

When you ask a person to "approach a criterion", then that criterion approximates relative to other elements on its criteria hierarchy. This makes the method work. Sometimes I add to my preliminary instructions, “OK, now you may have the feeling that all your other criteria are there too and are part of a continuum.” You will learn more about how it all works when you do this exercise.

Testing

Do you have several possible ways checking your work. The first is to take a break and do something else for a while. Then ask the client to think about the criteria they shifted. How does he feel about it now? Is his position natural? Is it high enough, or is it close enough, or is it sufficient for whatever reason the client changed it for?

The second way of testing is especially important because it is also a synchronization with the future. Ask the client to think about the situation that the new criterion would change for him, and then place him in that context and find out what his experience is. Is this what he wants? This is the testing method I did with David. In any kind of testing, you are, of course, looking for non-verbal confirmation that the intervention resulted in a change. If you have any doubts, or if you want to be very thorough, check in multiple contexts.

The third possibility is to organize a behavioral test. Create a situation where you expect a change caused by a criterion shift and notice what happens.

Okay, start working. We will discuss everything at the end.

General exercise plan

1. Define a major submodality that will create a continuum for the criteria hierarchy.

2. Determine the criterion you are going to regulate and its current position on the continuum.

3. Determine the overall desired position of the criterion on the continuum.

4. Slowly adjust the criterion in the direction of the desired position until you feel it is the right position.

Discussion

Congratulations! I noticed that many of you have done very nice things with it. Let's listen to some acceptance speeches (laughter). As David told me, he realized that his brain kept making new permutations and refinements in order to line up the change we had made in a more expedient, conscious way.

David: I'm still checking. Things change here and there. And this change continues to be congruent to my timeline in both directions. I have a time belt that goes into the past (points to the left) and into the future (points to the right). And then my day goes from top to bottom, and everything falls into place on a continuum.

Okay. It's nice to see this kind of shift going on. When making this shift with yourself or with someone else, in any case, take the time to further clarify - do not immediately move on to another activity that would be incongruent - or make preparations that will allow them to occur on an unconscious level, as David does. . Make sure the conscious mind can be turned on and ready for whatever you are about to undertake.

Lea: Having defined the continuum for each member of the group, we all decided which criterion we want to change and in what direction. Then each gave instructions to his unconscious mind to make the appropriate changes. Later we checked and it worked great.

This is a great adaptation.

Ben: My least important criterion was close and in front of me, and the most important was far away! I reacted to what was close, even if it was trivial, and did not react to what was really important to me, but was far away! When I realized this, I said to myself:

“What nonsense,” and turned everything 180 degrees.

And it really changed his state. I visited Ben's group. Do you all understand what he did? Instead of just changing the position of a criterion among a bunch of others, he turned the whole bunch around an axis - so that it was congruent with what he wants his brain to recognize as important. What is important is now close, and trivial criteria are at a greater distance. It's great!

Ben: I also think I know how things came to be this way. Many years ago, I had an experience that didn't work for me, and it made me turn all my criteria around.

When Ben told me this earlier, I asked him to check the environment before shifting his criteria. I wanted him to check if there was anything in his previous organization that spawned this is an unpleasant experience, since in this case it would not be environmentally friendly to return to this organization again.

Ben: But it's not like that at all. What we have now will be very good.

Let me give you one interesting example. Chris made the "need to be right" less important - and, without any prior planning, "humor" popped up and took its place. I thought it was very good. Humor is great, and many of us could make a beneficial difference by making it more important in our lives.

Fred: I shifted the importance of "flexibility". As I began to make it more important, "flexibility" began to spread throughout the system all the way down to the bottom of my hierarchy. All of a sudden I got flexibility in all these various areas.

So you've built flexibility into many different criteria. Very good. It's similar to what that group over there did with "fun". This is an interesting variation: not just to change the criterion, but to allow it to pass through and affect the entire hierarchy.

David: In our group we used correlation between criteria and timeline. If Tim wanted something to be more important, he would move it here to the future and it would automatically fit into the slot. If he wanted something to be less important, he moved it to the past.

Bill: By doing this, I made eating carrots more important - and I got a "must". I felt that I "should" eat carrots and that it was really important - but I didn't like it.

Eating carrots is behavior, not a criterion. What is important to you about eating carrots? Is it something like health or fitness? (Yes.) So you might be thinking about making your overall health more important. This is the criterion. When you check this, I don't think you'll get a "should".

I've noticed that some of us have tried to make a particular behavior more important, instead of defining a general criterion that it satisfies and doing his more important. Behavior is concrete and woven into context, such as eating carrots or doing more housework. The value of defining and changing a criterion is that you get a shift that will affect the person in different contexts, and you have more freedom to choose which particular behavior meets that criterion.

You can think about what level of generalization you want to work on. If you only want to change a specific behavior, saving the environment is relatively easy. Criteria, however, are at the next higher level of generalization. As they pass through contexts, making a change at the criterion level will have a stronger and more sustainable impact. As a result, you need to be more careful

Detailed information on the application of the significance of difference criteria can be found in the following sources:

Ermolaev O.Yu. Mathematical statistics for psychologists: Textbook. - M .: Moscow Psychological and Social Institute: Flint, 2002 p. 59-63

Nasledov A.D. Mathematical methods of psychological research. Analysis and interpretation of data. Tutorial. - St. Petersburg: Speech, 2004. p. 93-110

Nasledov A.D. SPSS: Computer Data Analysis in Psychology and Social Sciences. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005 p. 169-172

Rubtsova N.E., Lenkov S.L. Statistical Methods in Psychology: Textbook - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M .: UMK "Psychology", 2005, p. 56-82

Sidorenko E.V. Methods of mathematical processing in psychology. - St. Petersburg: Rech LLC, 2001 p. 110-152

Correlation analysis

When conducting a study, you can examine not one, but several signs. One of the objectives of the study may be to test whether there is a relationship between the different variables under study. Check this connection, or relationship, it is possible with the help of correlation analysis, which shows how one sign changes when another changes (and vice versa).

The correlation coefficient (r) takes a value from 1 to -1, while r max =±1, r min =0. Those. the closer the correlation coefficient is to one (modulo), the stronger the relationship between the features, the closer to zero, the weaker the relationship. At r=0, there is no relationship between the features.

The sign of the correlation coefficient indicates the direction of the relationship. Negative correlation coefficient (–r) means negative correlation relationship, those. when the values ​​of one attribute increase, the values ​​of another decrease, or, conversely, when the values ​​of one attribute decrease, the values ​​of another increase. A positive correlation coefficient (r) means a positive correlation relationship, i.e. when one indicator increases, the values ​​of the second also increase, or when one indicator decreases, the values ​​of another also decrease.

Example: In a group of students, self-esteem, the level of claims and personal anxiety were studied. It is necessary to study whether there is a relationship between these features. H 0 – there is no relationship between variables, N 1 - there is a significant relationship.

The conclusions as a result of applying the correlation analysis can be as follows:

A positive correlation was found between self-esteem and the level of claims, i.e. the higher the level of self-esteem, the higher the level of claims.

A negative correlation was found between the level of claims and personal anxiety, i.e. the higher the level of claims, the lower the level of personal anxiety.

The most common methods of correlation analysis are Pearson's linear correlation method and Spearman's rank correlation method. The first method is designed to measure the strength of the linear correlation of quantitative traits and assumes that the distribution of the trait in each case corresponds to a normal distribution. The second method allows you to determine the strength and direction of the correlation between two features or two hierarchies of features and allows you to correlate data presented in rank and nominative scales, while the distribution of the feature can be any.

More information about correlation analysis can be found in the following literature:

Ermolaev O.Yu. Mathematical statistics for psychologists: Textbook. - M .: Moscow Psychological and Social Institute: Flint, 2002 p. 202-250

Nasledov A.D. Mathematical methods of psychological research. Analysis and interpretation of data. Tutorial. - St. Petersburg: Speech, 2004. p. 147-161

Nasledov A.D. SPSS: Computer Data Analysis in Psychology and Social Sciences. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005 p. 126-137

Rubtsova N.E., Lenkov S.L. Statistical Methods in Psychology: Textbook - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M .: UMK "Psychology", 2005, p. 116-128

Sidorenko E.V. Methods of mathematical processing in psychology. - St. Petersburg: Rech LLC, 2001 p. 200-224

SPSS: The Art of Information Processing. Analysis of statistical data and restoration of hidden patterns: Per. from German / Achim Buyul, Peter Zöfel - St. Petersburg: DiaSoftUP LLC, 2002 p. 256-269

Along with the three most important criteria for the quality of measurement, other criteria are also mentioned in the literature. Leenert distinguishes, for example, the following:

a) rationing test, which allows to include the results of individual testing in the system of correlative concepts.

b) comparability test, possible due to parallel forms or due to tests with the same validity. In this case, the test can be compared with its "twin" or "twin". In addition, in group studies in school classes, parallel forms make it difficult to cheat;

v) economy a test that takes place if, for testing and data processing, it does not require a lot of time and money, if the test is simple and can be used in groups;

G) utility test, which is the maximum if there is a great practical need to study this behavior and if too few methods have not yet been developed for this purpose, or if too few methods have been developed. In pedagogy, in this case, it would be necessary to check the pedagogical significance of the goals of the study. The more significant the behavior under study, the higher the requirements should be placed on the method.

In addition, in pedagogy, it is necessary to take into account, as an important additional criterion for the quality of measurement, the conformity of the instruments pedagogical tasks. If we want to learn to understand relationships, then we cannot be content with checking isolated facts. These considerations include the question of what impact certain forms of testing have on the student. We still know very little about this.

SUMMARY

The most important methodological criteria required for measurements in the social sciences are objectivity, reliability and validity.

Objectivity in relation to the measurement technique, it means the elimination of the influence of subjective factors on the part of the persons conducting the study. The results of the educational process should be studied by various researchers who carry out measurements under the most unified conditions (objectivity of measurements). Different persons processing the received data, with the established identity of the actual material, should come to the same results (objectivity of data processing), and the interpretation of the results should be free from extraneous subjective influences (objectivity of interpretation).

The research method is considered reliable or relatable in the event that it accurately measures the feature that is to be measured, i.e., if the repeated measurement of the same feature gives the same results. Only objective methods can be reliable and lead to the same results (with a known tolerance) when measured again (if the effect of training can be excluded).

For a practitioner, the most important consequence of the definition of reliability is the ability to calculate measurement error. The measurement error contains information about the limits within which the "true" value of the student's performance lies with a certain probability. Knowing the measurement error will prevent us from interpreting random differences between multiple measurements as genuine changes in behavior and will not lead to false conclusions.

The most important methodological criterion is reliability, or validity, method. A tool is considered valid if it measures what should be measured, and not something else.

With regard to school conditions, the validity of the content (curricular validity), the validity of the correspondence and the validity of the forecast are of particular importance, while the validity of the construct is important primarily for psychological methods.

No method has inherent validity at all, but always only specific and empirically proven validity.

NORM

In pedagogical diagnostics, we collect information that we consider important for assessing a particular student. Suppose that the information we have collected contains the following data: the number of mistakes made in the dictation, the number of correct solutions from the work in mathematics, the number of spontaneous answers received during three lessons, the number of correctly completed tasks from the test that measures intelligence. This information, however, is not very informative. We lack correlative moments, criteria, norms. Even if we know that someone made 12 mistakes in the dictation, this information can only be interpreted if we know the level of difficulty of the dictation. In addition, we would have to know how other students who were in similar conditions coped with the dictation, or how many mistakes are considered acceptable in order to recognize the learning goal as achieved. In other words, a comparative analysis is required.

The result of the student's individual performance we can compare:

With the results of other students = social relative norm

With previous results of the same student = individual relative norm

With the set learning goals (criteria) = subject relative norm

Despite the fact that in this case it is not a criterion that is meant, but the direction in which the comparison is carried out, its purpose, the expression "correlative norm".

In none of these cases will the number of errors in the dictation be sufficient for interpretation. Even when comparing individual results, it will not help us to know that the student made 16 mistakes in the previous dictation, and 12 in the last one. As long as we do not know anything about the degree of difficulty of the dictation, we cannot draw conclusions about a possible improvement or deterioration results. For social and individual comparison, comparative norms are the best support for interpretation.

To conduct a subject comparison, it is also desirable to obtain information on the degree of difficulty of individual words by comparing data and only then determine the minimum necessary to achieve the learning goal, say, 10 errors in dictation. Normally, norms have been developed to make mainly social and individual comparisons. They must perform the following tasks:

1. Correctly and whenever possible visually mark individual results with the help of numbers.

2. Ensure the comparability of the data obtained with the results of other individuals, if such a comparison seems necessary and correct.

3. Facilitate comparison with the results of the same individual achieved by him at another time.

Information about the number of errors, marks on the scales, data on the frequency of this or that indicator, etc., by themselves are not able to perform these tasks. They must be correlated with other data. You can normalize class work, observations, questionnaires, etc. In this book, the concept of a norm will be explained using the example of norms for tests, that is, the illustrative material is borrowed from the area where the concept of a norm is used most often.

In the country. Some target criteria may overlap with those of other groups. This is due to the fact that criteria of this type are used

When identifying information about the relative importance for two groups of criteria, the following circumstance should be taken into account. Theorem 3.1 states that the greater importance of criteria group A over group B implies the greater importance of a group wider than A than a group narrower than B. Roughly speaking, a more important group can always be extended, and a less important group - narrow down. By virtue of what has been said, when revealing information about the relative importance of one group in comparison with another, one should always strive to ensure that the more important group is as narrow as possible, and the less important one is as wide as possible. Then information about the relative importance of one group of criteria compared to another will be the most meaningful, and the subsequent use of this information can lead to a significant narrowing of the area of ​​trade-offs. In this sense, the best option is when one criterion is more important than a group of all other criteria.

The composition of the target criteria is determined by the socio-economic situation in the country. Some target criteria may overlap with those of other groups. This is due to the fact that criteria of this type are used only at the stage of selecting priority areas for investment.

The situation of incommensurability of criteria among themselves is due to many reasons. Among them, we single out formal differences a) in the units of their quantitative expression (for example, it is difficult to reliably compare tons of different products, rubles, cubic meters, etc.), b) in the scale of measurement even with the same unit of measurement, for example, the income of the system in million rubles and the site of the enterprise in thousand rubles. In addition to the formal aspects, it is difficult to reduce the entire spectrum of criteria to any one because of the differences in the speed and direction of the trends of each criterion. So, often in the group of criteria under consideration, two subgroups can be distinguished that have opposite tendencies, i.e., when the criteria of one subgroup are maximized, the criteria of the other subgroup will have values ​​that are far from their maximum values, and vice versa. It is said that the criteria belonging to different subgroups are in the opposite direction or are contradictory. It is possible to select subgroups of criteria with a parallel direction or parallel criteria, when, when maximizing the criteria of one subgroup, the values ​​of the criteria of another subgroup automatically increase, perhaps only at a different rate. Another important factor in the incommensurability of various criteria is the situation of independence of some criteria among themselves or their weak dependence.

In addition, criterion constraints (3.3) may be imposed. In another group of methods, the criteria are reduced based on the assignment of unattainable goals / while the optimization problem has the form

Evaluation of employees should be determined by such criteria as absenteeism, morale, attitude to production, activity in the group, the development of other specialties and attitude to change.

There is no formal criterion here - each fact can be attributed to one or another group based on one's own ideas about the benefit, and the opinion about one FCD can change over time.

The analysis of homogeneous (SEI method) and industrial groups (FRS method) showed that under both criteria for the formation of groups - by total return or by price dynamics - shares can be grouped into groups that differ significantly from each other. We also saw that group performance is not stable and varies from cycle to cycle.

What is the meaning of the statement that one criterion (or one group of criteria) is more important than another criterion (another group of criteria) How can the available information on the relative importance of criteria be used in the decision-making process Are there and if so, what are the principal limits of use an arbitrary set of this kind of information when solving questions of choosing decisions

The notion of relative importance of criteria proposed in the previous chapter is here extended to the general case of two groups of criteria. Its simplest properties are studied and it is shown how to take into account information that one group of criteria is more important than another group with a certain set of relative importance coefficients . This account, as in the case of two criteria, is reduced to the construction of the Pareto set with respect to the new vector criterion . But at the same time, the dimension of the latter can be significantly higher than the dimension of the original criterion.

The ratio between the numbers w and w, as in the case of two criteria, allows us to quantify the degree of importance of one group of criteria compared to another group.

In addition, it is possible to determine the ratio of incomparable importance of one group of criteria compared to another group. Namely, if any positive number 90 e (O, I) (for all / e Au] e B) is for the group of criteria A in comparison with the group of criteria B, then in this case we will say that the first group of criteria is incomparably more important than the second groups.

An equivalent simpler definition of relative importance for two groups of criteria. In order to check, in accordance with Definition 3.1, whether one group of criteria is really more important than another group, it is necessary to offer an DM for comparison an infinite number of pairs of vectors y, y" e Rm, satisfying relations (3.1) for some positive parameters wj, w. Obviously, that in practice such a check is impossible due to the infinite number of compared pairs of vectors. In fact, as in the case of two criteria (see Theorem 2.4), such a check is not required under the conditions of invariance of the preference relation. It suffices to verify that the relations ( 3.1) only for some one fixed pair of vectors y, y". Witness to this

The case when one criterion is more important than the other two. If several messages about the relative importance of criteria are used at once to narrow the Pareto set, then the following circumstance should be taken into account. Let the i-Vi criterion be more important than the Y-th one with a coefficient of relative importance 6Y and, in addition, the i-criterion is more important than someone to j) with a coefficient of relative importance Qik. Thus, there is a set of two indicated messages about the relative importance of the criteria, and this situation outwardly resembles the one in which /-and the criterion is more important than the group of criteria j, k with relative importance coefficients Bi and Bik.

The problem of convex analysis. It is easy to understand that the above cases of using a set of information about the relative importance of criteria are far from exhausting all possible options. Of course, this applies to sets of information that are not mutually independent. For example, formulas were not given above for recalculating a new criterion for the case when one group of criteria is more important than another group of criteria, and the second, in turn, is more important than the first. A situation awaits resolution in which one criterion is more important than each of a certain set of more than two criteria separately. And this list can be easily continued.

In accordance with definition 3.3, the availability of information about the relative importance of one group of criteria compared to another group means that a vector u e Nm is indicated that has

Sometimes, for an increase on one very important criterion, the decision maker agrees to take losses on several criteria at once. In other cases, a loss in some less important criterion cannot be compensated by an increase in only one more important criterion, but only simultaneously in several criteria. In the general case, there can be two groups of criteria , whose numbers belong to non-intersecting sets A and B, and such that for an increase in the amount of w units for all more important criteria / (for which / e A), the decision maker agrees to lose w units for all less important criteria fj

In addition, a comparison was made of the performance of all four groups of companies. The comparison was carried out according to two criteria - the value of the return on invested capital, given according to the company's representative, and the company's efficiency in comparison with the main competitors. The value of income for companies that adhered to the marketing philosophy was much higher than for others. The performance of companies that limit their marketing activity to the marketing department occupies an intermediate position in the sample. And the effectiveness of companies in which marketing is seen as a means to support the sale of sales, and companies with a lack of a specific attitude to marketing, is much worse. The results of the activities of the supporters of the marketing philosophy are much better than those of other groups of companies. And when using a competitor-related criterion, the marketing philosophists are the best, followed by companies that reduce marketing to the functions of their respective departments.

From the foregoing, it follows that competent segmentation should give, figuratively speaking, groups of consumers that are significantly "separated" from each other. Under conditions of "effective segmentation" it is possible to create goods, each of which will have its own distinctive features and address affiliation for a specific segment of consumers. On the contrary, "inefficient segmentation", in which the characteristics of the groups "overlap", initially deprives the manufacturer of the opportunity to create a "segment-distinguishable" product, in fact, brings it to the same "average" level. In addition, the experience of practical segmentation shows that excessive passion for the number of variables is not always justified. First, because an extreme deepening of segmentation can drastically reduce the size of the market within the segment itself and, accordingly, reduce the company's income. And this is the most important criterion for choosing a segment. Secondly, the multiplicity of segmentation characteristics complicates the information support of the process, lengthens its time, increases labor intensity and cost.

The image allows you to determine how people perceive a particular organization, its relevance and ability to meet the needs for specific educational services, the attitude of competing organizations towards it. The image, for example, of pedagogical universities is measured and evaluated by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation according to a number of criteria for their activities in a certain period of time. The image is also assessed for other groups of professional educational organizations.

It is also obvious that if the function f is scalar, then the solution of problem (2) will not cause any special difficulties. However, it is not possible to determine the RSD based on the value of only one criterion, because the approximation of some coefficients to the optimal value may lead to a sharp deterioration in the coefficients of another group. Therefore, a decision in the ZOSB must be made, taking into account the values ​​of all the parameters entered (Kp, Kp, ..., K45L, and it is desirable to choose such an RSD that will correspond to the best, that is, closest to the standard values, parameter values ​​\u200b\u200b(Kc, Kp,. ... IQs) Such problems are related to multiobjective problems (vector optimization problems).

SHTS, despite their relatively small capacity as intra-company organizational structures and short term to comprehend this phenomenon by management theory, they are developing along the path of giving them greater powers and responsibilities. the most profitable part of the company's budget As the strategy improved, SCC transferred a new product (group of products) to production departments. This scheme of functioning clearly separated kx from direct participation in the formation of profits, reduced responsibility for the quality of developments and the strategy for bringing them to the market. Presumably, therefore, the evolution of the SCC was in the direction of including production and marketing departments, as well as cost accounting centers in their composition. This objectively expanded their area of ​​responsibility to the end result - making a profit. Thus, along with the main criterion for the formation of SCC - the effective development of the company in a specific strategic direction - other criteria have been introduced that ensure both the optimal use of technologies, and high level profitability.

The norms of the first group are contained, in particular, in the organic law of December 22, 1976 No. on the Federal Public Administration of Mexico. Defining the competence of the Ministry of Finance and State Credit, the law assigns to this state body the right to decide, along with others, the following issues: a) levy federal taxes, fees, natural and income taxes services and tax police d) carry out in-

Three-criteria problem of general form. In a two-criteria problem, information about relative importance can only take such a form when a group from one criterion is more important than a group from another criterion. In this case, the number of new criteria (the number p) will coincide with the number of old criteria, i.e., p = 2. Thus, in a two-criteria problem, taking into account information about the relative importance of the criteria does not lead to an increase in the criteria (in fact, the same conclusion can be obtain and from the results of the previous chapter).

There are no other possibilities for grouping criteria by importance, so we can draw the following conclusion in a three-criteria problem, taking into account information about the relative importance of criteria for two arbitrary groups of criteria can lead to an increase in criteria by only one unit and only if two criteria are more important than the remaining third criterion . local criterion of optimality and its area of ​​feasible solutions), as well as some coordinating means (general technological and resource constraints, rules for balancing relationships between subsystems, etc.). Some authors identify this concept with the concept of equilibrium models, while others refer the first to planning processes, the second to the analysis of the functioning of economic systems (see Equilibrium).

In order to measure the values ​​represented by the listed criteria, it is necessary to select a specific tool - "drag" with which we will be able to reflect the data obtained in a form acceptable to perception. This task is very extraordinary. If the first group of factors of being is essentially statistical and their While the definition does not raise serious problems, the other two groups dealing with the attitudes, motives and possible actions of buyers are very difficult.The difficulty lies in the fact that the buyer himself will rarely be able to formulate the reason why he does this, and not otherwise, or why he suddenly spontaneously made a purchase or a certain action Probably any reader from his own experience will remember this.

For some people, personal pleasure or entertainment is so important that they never achieve much. For others, success is so important that they never take the time to relax and enjoy life. Words like "pleasure" and "success" indicate criteria - standards for evaluation that can be applied in a variety of situations. Many different activities can give you "pleasure", and many more can bring you "success". Some activities can even give you both. Criteria is what you do something for. These are nominalizations - such as "learning", "usefulness", "beauty", etc. - that can be used to evaluate results in a variety of contexts. Criteria give us a useful way to organize our lives through generalizations.

It happens that the criterion is too or not important enough. Often, criteria like “being right,” “being liked by others,” or “power” take on such significance in a person’s life that he becomes unbalanced and experiences personal difficulties or constant dissatisfaction with others.

Criteria Shift is a powerful technique for changing the importance of a criterion. When you work with beliefs, quite often you change a limiting belief to its opposite. The person says "I guess I can't learn" and you switch it to "I guess I can learn" - a discrete shift. However, when dealing with a person's criteria, you very rarely want to reverse them completely. The exact opposite is usually neither needed nor desirable. Instead, you adjust the relative importance of the criteria by making them more or less important. You make "being right" less important or "having fun" more important - analog shift. This allows you to fine-tune the basis of behavior as we all behave in a way that fulfills the criteria we deem important.

Yesterday someone said that people either work to meet their criteria or don't work at all. This is a strong statement, but it is true. If an activity doesn't meet any of your criteria, it won't be of interest to you. Think of all the things others do willingly that you find trivial or obscure. These activities must somehow meet some of their criteria, but not yours.

Often problems arise in situations where two criteria come into conflict. For example, you are faced with a choice - to please others or to do what seems best to you. It is in such cases that the ability to refine the criteria can be very important.

Before you can adjust criteria, you need to get an idea of ​​how the human brain knows what is important. How does the human brain encode criteria so that when a person thinks about "study" or "fun" they automatically know how important it is and their behavior is sequenced without conscious thought about it? To figure this out, the first step is to identify a hierarchy of criteria: several criteria listed in order of importance. The second step is to study the submodal differences between these criteria, and the third is to use these encodings to adjust the problematic criterion. Since identifying criteria may be new to some of you, we will demonstrate it. Even if you have done this before, I suggest you pay close attention to it; some people do it differently, not in the way that we suggest you learn.