On 3 Apr 98 at 18:30, Michael Lee wrote:
> 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 guess we all have different takes. My sense of the issue is an applied
one, a learning one, a development one. What do we gain by using the terms
competent and incompetent in various settings?
How does their use encourage individuals to improve and learn?
How does their use impede learning and improvement?
How does their use affect an organization as a whole?
Those questions seem to have the potential to lead us somewhere
worthwhile.
I don' understand how some of the following lead us to someplace
worthwhile, so perhaps people can explain.
> Is incompetence usually a result of characterological or moral failings?
(how does the answer help us improve?)
> 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?
(same question)
> I think Ben Compton might agree with me that there is such a thing as
> generalized incompetence, and that its roots are moral.
How does that belief move us along somewhere useful?
Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
--"Robert Bacal" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>