Why do you believe that "developing teams" are truly attempting to develop... or particularly to develop something? As well as, how do you quantify the unit of your so-called "development?" Is there any measure of equalness of it to something or not?
If you think about it deeper, the problem of "ethical merits" may not be seen as a problem at all, but rather as an outmoded outcome of previously actioned and tested conditional bounds by those who you refer to as developing teams... Doesn't it all make sense? If that's the case, are you really following me here?
I apologise for not expanding on the definitions and concepts, thus creating confusion on the framework I am using to analyse developing teams. The developing teams is a misnomer, it doesn't mean to develop as such, we instead put each team into unique distribution created to compare units, our distribution for understanding purposes can be in visioned as a simple poisson distribution (f(x) = P(X=x) = (e^(-λ) λ^x )/x!) for each team overlapped with other teams creating a a range relative of skill, with the expected outcome so each team is a assigned a 'development factor score'. Developing team has been defined as a x>0.05σ, thus 'developing teams' is a concrete defined metric rather then a philosophical concept.
Although it is true we can only look at teams as outmoded outcome of their previous tested bounds created from our metric, this is still enough to create a model capable of allowing rational decision makers to compare 'development factor score' for teams to maximise utility for rule utilitarianism. If you do not ascribe to the same axioms for rule utilitarianism then you aren't intelligent enough to understand what I've said anyway,
I believe I've made myself clear and answered your queries.
Oh, bruv... it's a MESS!
I'll leave out the rest... for now.... but please finish this phrase for me because I can't seem to discover any definitions or ideas that you've studied:
Developing teams is a misnomer; it does not imply development as such... ---> But what precisely is a "misnomer"... what is the variable's value? Is it a qual or a quant value, given that you opened your mouth on factor scores... then where are the reliability test results and the entire factor analysis (ethical merits do not measure in quant values but qual)... but then what does it mean to develop? How does this relate to the framework that you'd never explained?
Please keep on topic of defining your conflicting variable "misnomer" and its relationship to the framework... by the way, in brief framework or theoretical framework - findings on the examined phenomena that have already been explored by others. Frameworks define and fully present all variables/factors or metrics in specific sections of research papers, if you will, and OF COURSE its model(s) as well... the question ---> what sources/references do you have to support your thesis??? There are non ... i.e. that poor poisson dist. formula that you even wrote incorrectly should have been studied in those papers, and presented as a significant distribution for such sampling method** ... yet nothing from you... Why did you select the poisson distribution over others such as the normal distribution etc?
You: "I believe I've made myself clear and answered your queries."
Me: "NO, YOU HAVE NOT... as advise, if you by any chance study those topics at university, then get your shit together and sit down to study - you are all over the place... no cap"
P.S. Econ/Math grad here ;)
Discord