In LO17642, I wrote...
>"'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."
In LO17649, Ben writes...
>Competent and incompetent are not merely labels. They are words used to
>describe moral concepts.
Your comment above about 'moral concepts' is an assertion on your part for
which I can find no evidence in my own grasp of the language nor in any
reference source available to me. You are, of course, free to use them in
any way you see fit. In any case, when applied to people those words no
longer refer to abstract moral concepts, they are labels reflecting
judgments about people. In your case, Ben, those words apparently reflect
judgments you make not just about competence in the sense it is ordinarily
used (i.e., skilled proficiency), but also about the moral character or
nature of the individual.
For what it's worth (and probably not much in this conversation), my copy
of Websters defines competent (an adjective) as follows:
1. well qualified; capable; fit [a competent doctor]
2. sufficient; adequate [a competent understanding of law]
3. permissible or properly belonging to [competent to judge]
4. legally qualified, authorized [competent to stand trial]
As one might expect, the dictionary definitions of "incompetent" (also an
adjective) are essentially the reverse of competent -- with one exception.
One definition of incompetent (as a noun) is given:
"an incompetent person; esp., one who is mentally retarded"
Ben also writes...
>If I hear what you're saying, it is that a person may be competent at
>*something* but unmotivated to demonstrate that competence in certain
>situations. Is that correct?
No, that's not correct. What I wrote was, "Person A might be competent at
X but incompetent at Y." I neither said nor inferred anything about
motivation.
Finally, I asked Ben to define his terms and he answered...
>In the context that I'm using the terms, I define competency as the
>ability to learn to do what is needed to produce the results that support
>the survival of the organization, and then do it effectively, thoroughly,
>and efficiently. Incompetence is either the inability or unwillingness to
>become competent.
That's helpful, Ben. With those definitions in mind, I can see where
you're coming from.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
nickols@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>