Feedback has the express purpose of facilitating optimization through revisions with both humans and computers alike.
1) Why is it that feedback for humans ignores the above premise entirely?(Positive feedback is only good for establishing standards under this view.)
2) Why are people so afraid of hurting people’s feelings with negative feedback specifically? (It seems to me that negative feedback should be more encouraging then discouraging since now you have a weakness to work on instead of a problem with no known solution.)
3) Why do systems like the sandwich method exist when all they accomplish is diluting the critical feedback?(Giving a positive and a negative is counterproductive as it drastically reduces the need to accurate feedback.)
4) Why is feedback so infrequent when that isn’t a good process for any system computers included? (Chess engines the gold standard for effective feedback loops require clock cycles in the millions to be as effective as they are so it stands to reason yearly reviews are far less useful then weekly reviews yet as we revise systems we keep making feedback less and less frequent and this baffles me)
5) Why is suggesting someone practice more even considered a type of feedback? (Practice is a feedback loop and practicing more either the wrong way or without feedback to go along with the practice is akin to not practicing at all at best.)