There is no such thing as "I" in a situation where context does not exist｜Social Roles and Context Dependence

The "I" is context dependent.
Some may be of an age to find themselves, while others may have finished there.

Value can only be determined by the premise.
You may review your self in the course of self-analysis and thinking about what you want to do.
It comes out in both good and bad cases.

But there is always an "I" based on that prerequisite.
Even if there is an "I" in the bad sense, it is still somewhat fluid.

A reputation that doesn't change no matter where you go?

In one personnel evaluation situation, I once overheard Mr. A harshly criticizing Mr. B, saying that he was not good enough to go anywhere.
If you live past a quarter of a century, Mr. B., it certainly doesn't fundamentally change the way you live your life.

If you want to say that Mr. B's way of life is not that much different and cannot be changed, then some of it will fit.

But it's hard to prove if it won't work wherever you go.

First, where will Mr. B go next?
Is it that place of employment or is it an independent business?
It is difficult to give all the cases.

Also, who decides if it works or not?
Will it be your next boss or a business partner after you become independent?
At least not Mr. A.

Even in the present moment it is difficult to evaluate, yet in many situations it is difficult to predict the combined evaluations of others.

Where is the measure of goodness or badness?

The evaluation of good or bad has been difficult in the past.

When Socrates spoke with Protagoras, Protagoras takes the human scale theory.
In layman's terms, the theory is that "the measure of goodness depends on what people think is good or bad.

It is a view that seems to have a general will.

However, as we move forward into the modern era, individualism is the prevailing trend.
I feel that phenomenology is being touted.

Whether it is Nietzsche or others preaching about the mind of a baby, or Heidegger or others criticizing Das Mann, the individual's story is the main subject there.
Which view is correct is not something we will discuss in depth here.
What I want to say is that good or bad is not something that has already converged, but something that we do not yet understand as an argument.

I'd like to see them re-partitioned after receiving a bad rating.

One intention of this paper is to encourage those of you who have received bad evaluations at some workplace or on some project to move on and not worry about that.

The stone you fail to jump over now will reappear to you in the future.
They will regret not having jumped over it in the past.

may look good, but the evidence is thin.
What you can't do now, you won't be able to do in the future.
In other words, it is a method of inductively viewing the situation up to the present and inferring what will happen in the future.
Those of us who have discovered Black Swan understand that this idea, while correct in many cases, is not absolutely correct.

Even if you re-partition and receive a bad evaluation, it is in the context of your previous workplace.
It will not be evaluated in the same way in the next new context.

The "I" is being evaluated under the context of the workplace or project in which it exists.

Those who are doing well can use it as ammunition.
Be confident.

Even if you are not doing well, there is no need to think that this will continue forever.
The evaluation is non-continuous.
It is possible that it feels like a continuous process because you drag yourself out of that evaluation and move on to the next.

Understand that the context has changed, be confident, and move on.