> Fred Nickols writes:
>
> "'Competent' and 'incompetent' are labels, attributions,
> judgments we make about others. The basis of these judgments
> might range from up close, sustained observation to repeated
> instances of hearsay. In any event, those are labels
> deriving from judgments we make."
> "At first blush, Ben's posting reads as though he's making some pretty
> broad-brush general judgments about people. Personally, I
> take a slightly
> more fine-grained approach (e.g., Person A might be competent at X but
> incompetent at Y)."
I have the sense that the word "label" as used above implies that it is
inappropriate or meaningless to apply the terms "competent" or
"incompetent" to a person as a whole. Instead, we should say a person is
competent or incompetent at a particular task. Saying someone is
incompetent is more an insult--like saying someone is stupid--than it is a
valid description.
It seems obvious that even people who are bad at some things are good at
some things. But what about people who are bad at most things, including
things that, to the outside observer, appear to be well within the range
of their native abilities?
I think the real debate here is not whether it is nice or not to say that
some people are incompetent.
I would formulate the underlying issue as:
Is incompetence usually a result of characterological or moral failings?
And I'd like to expand the discussion by asking:
Is there such a thing as generalized incompetence (something analogus to g
for intelligence)? If so, what causes it? Is it genetic,
characterological, moral, environmental?
I think Ben Compton might agree with me that there is such a thing as
generalized incompetence, and that its roots are moral.
I think Fred Nickols is arguing that incompetence is more limited and
innocent.
I've encountered a lot of people in my life who aren't just incompetent AT
something, but incompetent at MOST EVERYTHING. I broad brush label these
people incompetent. By that, I mean, simply, that I expect them to screw
up next time just like they always do, even in areas where I've never seen
them screw up before. While calling such people incompetent may be mean,
it isn't predictively useless, and reminds me to steer clear of relying on
them.
If these people were a small subset of people I've known who suck at their
jobs, that would be one thing. But my observation is that most people who
suck at their jobs suck at everything.
Screw-ups screw things up because they are careless, lazy, stupid (which I
define as acting as if your IQ is 20 points lower than it really is), and
usually unethical. They become unethical because they repeatedly get
themselves in situations that require them not to be careless, lazy and
stupid to get out cleanly. Being a screw-up is a habit that's hard to turn
off at 5 o'clock.
> Ben Compton writes:
>
> Now admittedly there are things I'm not competent at. I do
> not know the first thing about auto mechanics or plumbing. So
> when my car has trouble or I have plumbing problems in my
> house I pay someone to come fix it. My incompetence in these
I don't know that much about those two subjects myself. But I don't think
I'm incompetent at them. Every time I try to fix a plumbing problem, I
either fix it or recognize I'm not having fun anymore, and call a plumber.
If I wanted to be a plumber, I could be a pretty good one, I'm sure.
>Ben Compton writes:
>
> necessary services, so it's no big deal. But I refused to
> learn to become a competent plumber, and had a job as a
> plumber, then I'd be incompetent and immoral.
This puts me in mind of something else: I seldom see incompetent people
who are trying hard and just not getting it. Yes, I've seen it, but
they're the minority. Most incompetent people make me want to kick their
butts, not hold their hands.
Perhaps incompetence could be redefined in this discussion as "being bad
at something that everyone has every right to expect you to be good at."
> "So, I'd like to ask Ben to expound a little more on his
> general notion of
> competent and incompetent people. More specifically, might
> he be willing
> to work with Person A on Task X, but not Person B and,
> conversely, work
> with Person B on Task Y, but not Person A? "
I think it's obvious this is true--that some people are better
trained/suited to some tasks than others--but I'm not sure it squarely
addresses the fundamental conflict here (whether there is a strong
tendency for incompetence to generalize itself inside a person, and
whether being generally incompetent is morally blameworthy and/or
characterological).
If my next door neighbor were a brain surgeon, and his hobby restoring
antique cars, and the ones he restored were sloppy and ugly, I wouldn't go
to him for brain surgery.
Mike Lee
Disclaimer: these are my personal opinions only, not those of my employer.
mailto:mike_lee@earthlink.net
--Michael Lee <mikelee@microsoft.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>