Why incompentants think they're awesome?
Or why the use generic, categoric, or the overly generalized use of the word incompetent should prevail.
Writer mentions here that often times without having identifiable metrics at hand for the purpose of scaling competence, likely ignorance and false assumptions might exist not withstanding what narcissism expressed of the otherwise assuming individual.
It seems with respect to competency, more often what could apply are those that in some way, neither weigh the social risks of expressing where those less competent wouldn't venture...compare and contrast this to the phrase, 'No question is a bad or stupid question even if it is born of some level of ignorance.' Then is competence measured by manner of personal desire alone or synonymous with narcissistic desire and personal gain alone. At best this sort of assessment seems quite shallow. For instance, consider whole groups of students failing exams in distinct economically and socially defined areas of a given society, could they all be called narcissistic by definition, or 'think they are awesome'?
If it weren't something undemocratic about one's culture, any number of dogma's having existed might have prevented the ability to express or question, and that sadly even having expressed something could be seen as inferior about one's level of knowledge, and then competencies assessment. Yes, if in the clearest sense one could say failing on subject matter, or clearly with purpose offer in equal reason where competency has not been provided, as in failure to answer questions with expected results, level of comprehension for a given subject matter, and so forth. But outside of the formal context of education or any given learning institutions having formalized structures in place having gauge and accurately measure competency, who and what individuals do this in the more informal context of social communication, for instance? Surely businesses could have any number of metrics at their disposal to evaluate the work and performance of their employees, and would any educator, business leader, manger alike consider the expression 'thnk they are great.' In so far as performance indicators. In many circumstances likely not. Likely they'd simply indicate by point failure either in performance, comprehension and what not focusing on inequities themselves having stronger direct relation and bearing. Offering here, that when admission or failure in competency results, likely in the formal context, 'thinking one were great.' may have little to do with success therein, unless social factors allow for the compensation of subject matter competency.
In any event, the word itself then either seems more reserved in the selective cases of schools, or businesses themselves. Likely you wouldn't hear children saying that other were incompetent, but you might hear a child say another is arrogant age permitting, or making more overt use of terms like: 'stupid', 'retard', or 'moron'. 'Incompetent' or 'incompetent fool' could be the more civil terminology. When one hears the broad form in its present categoric and generalized use, one should think that it were by design really to provide constructive use in feedback of anything. In the context of higher academics or businesses, it seems the word were more applied in the informal sense. Like the sort of informal chat which were the rumor mill discussion about why such and such employee exists in the position he or she existed, regardless of the truth of rumor, or the access to any number of performance evaluators that would make any such judgment accurate or not. Or in other words, I would offer more likely any measuring competency were doing so when something of inequity exists in a workplace or place of institutional learning. If only the lives or jobs were threatened, education perceived compromised, or any number of other social factors had existed which may or may not have had some bearing to the matter of another's competency. As in the formality of the expressed supposed 'academic' title, it seems terminology were pejorative in some way, or at least if academics, psychology or something of social science applied, 'incompetence' were described so much by a self assessed and self sensed nature? At least one should find even in those commanding in any number of degree incompetence in any number of subject matter, they would find some manner of competence regarding something in life, or in other words, given the whole and complexity of existence, why, other then by way of self feeling, should it be that people use the term 'incompetence' in the pejorative sense: like having failed in life?
I would admit being incompetent in so a countless number of subject matters, yet ironically all of this incompetence can't describe the condition of competence in something...in society though we find it more culturally permitting saying another is 'incompetent' if they have done clearly what? A competent individual need not know or learn of any other language other then their own in order to competently function. A competent individual need not understand Quantum mechanics, physics, or much of any maths, or science. Although our moral society might say competence entailed living a religiously observant life depending upon perspective, and others might generally be inclined to say successful in life in so far as careers, but even this later statement seems a bit off if circumstances beyond one's control have arisen such to temper or displace the successes of once aspired goals, and narcissism could have little to do with this. Unfortunately, it seems the culprit in recent thinking amongst social conservative groups are that 'incompetence' could be associated with 'laziness' and 'narcissism' which at times could be attempt to dodge or evade other sociological ramifications that displace cultural notions of what truly makes the 'competent' individual? If the pre requisite for survival defined 'competence' truly our biology would be an expression of competence, yet some of the wealthiest and most influential 'competent' individuals might be less competent to survive in age. What defines 'competence' here? Is it strictly the openness to absorb and learn always? Were the aged individual whom were less open with interests and receptivity to any present cultural system that much more narcissistic...had they thought they were great?
Then as to narcissism, if the purest in psychological converse existed, that all manner of receptivity and empathy were given to so much anything and everything of an environment, I would offer in terms of psychology that the condition's of 'competence' in living could be more strained and difficult. The idea of not relating to one's environment and having closed one's mind to it in terms of learning for instance, characterizes in some way in my mind, the natural order of any number of emotional mechanisms existing neither having compromised one's sense of existence. For instance, if one should not at some point have some order of self preservation in mind, empathic severance of one's relation to the abusive other may well be in order. Otherwise how might one in the long term survive, and are there cases where relationships of these types are unsustainable. It may well be that narcissism in some degree had provided some evolutionary advantage in allowing people to survive relative to the more empathic centers of mind? How we mind 'incompetence' to narcissism could be relative. At least for the example, narcissism might also play some role in providing role of survival and in some degrees providing 'competence' to one's emotional functioning?
The article's title might have been more competently titled 'Why some incompetents think they're awesome.' But that's my feedback, and at least I provide it sometimes.
Or why the use generic, categoric, or the overly generalized use of the word incompetent should prevail.
Writer mentions here that often times without having identifiable metrics at hand for the purpose of scaling competence, likely ignorance and false assumptions might exist not withstanding what narcissism expressed of the otherwise assuming individual.
It seems with respect to competency, more often what could apply are those that in some way, neither weigh the social risks of expressing where those less competent wouldn't venture...compare and contrast this to the phrase, 'No question is a bad or stupid question even if it is born of some level of ignorance.' Then is competence measured by manner of personal desire alone or synonymous with narcissistic desire and personal gain alone. At best this sort of assessment seems quite shallow. For instance, consider whole groups of students failing exams in distinct economically and socially defined areas of a given society, could they all be called narcissistic by definition, or 'think they are awesome'?
If it weren't something undemocratic about one's culture, any number of dogma's having existed might have prevented the ability to express or question, and that sadly even having expressed something could be seen as inferior about one's level of knowledge, and then competencies assessment. Yes, if in the clearest sense one could say failing on subject matter, or clearly with purpose offer in equal reason where competency has not been provided, as in failure to answer questions with expected results, level of comprehension for a given subject matter, and so forth. But outside of the formal context of education or any given learning institutions having formalized structures in place having gauge and accurately measure competency, who and what individuals do this in the more informal context of social communication, for instance? Surely businesses could have any number of metrics at their disposal to evaluate the work and performance of their employees, and would any educator, business leader, manger alike consider the expression 'thnk they are great.' In so far as performance indicators. In many circumstances likely not. Likely they'd simply indicate by point failure either in performance, comprehension and what not focusing on inequities themselves having stronger direct relation and bearing. Offering here, that when admission or failure in competency results, likely in the formal context, 'thinking one were great.' may have little to do with success therein, unless social factors allow for the compensation of subject matter competency.
In any event, the word itself then either seems more reserved in the selective cases of schools, or businesses themselves. Likely you wouldn't hear children saying that other were incompetent, but you might hear a child say another is arrogant age permitting, or making more overt use of terms like: 'stupid', 'retard', or 'moron'. 'Incompetent' or 'incompetent fool' could be the more civil terminology. When one hears the broad form in its present categoric and generalized use, one should think that it were by design really to provide constructive use in feedback of anything. In the context of higher academics or businesses, it seems the word were more applied in the informal sense. Like the sort of informal chat which were the rumor mill discussion about why such and such employee exists in the position he or she existed, regardless of the truth of rumor, or the access to any number of performance evaluators that would make any such judgment accurate or not. Or in other words, I would offer more likely any measuring competency were doing so when something of inequity exists in a workplace or place of institutional learning. If only the lives or jobs were threatened, education perceived compromised, or any number of other social factors had existed which may or may not have had some bearing to the matter of another's competency. As in the formality of the expressed supposed 'academic' title, it seems terminology were pejorative in some way, or at least if academics, psychology or something of social science applied, 'incompetence' were described so much by a self assessed and self sensed nature? At least one should find even in those commanding in any number of degree incompetence in any number of subject matter, they would find some manner of competence regarding something in life, or in other words, given the whole and complexity of existence, why, other then by way of self feeling, should it be that people use the term 'incompetence' in the pejorative sense: like having failed in life?
I would admit being incompetent in so a countless number of subject matters, yet ironically all of this incompetence can't describe the condition of competence in something...in society though we find it more culturally permitting saying another is 'incompetent' if they have done clearly what? A competent individual need not know or learn of any other language other then their own in order to competently function. A competent individual need not understand Quantum mechanics, physics, or much of any maths, or science. Although our moral society might say competence entailed living a religiously observant life depending upon perspective, and others might generally be inclined to say successful in life in so far as careers, but even this later statement seems a bit off if circumstances beyond one's control have arisen such to temper or displace the successes of once aspired goals, and narcissism could have little to do with this. Unfortunately, it seems the culprit in recent thinking amongst social conservative groups are that 'incompetence' could be associated with 'laziness' and 'narcissism' which at times could be attempt to dodge or evade other sociological ramifications that displace cultural notions of what truly makes the 'competent' individual? If the pre requisite for survival defined 'competence' truly our biology would be an expression of competence, yet some of the wealthiest and most influential 'competent' individuals might be less competent to survive in age. What defines 'competence' here? Is it strictly the openness to absorb and learn always? Were the aged individual whom were less open with interests and receptivity to any present cultural system that much more narcissistic...had they thought they were great?
Then as to narcissism, if the purest in psychological converse existed, that all manner of receptivity and empathy were given to so much anything and everything of an environment, I would offer in terms of psychology that the condition's of 'competence' in living could be more strained and difficult. The idea of not relating to one's environment and having closed one's mind to it in terms of learning for instance, characterizes in some way in my mind, the natural order of any number of emotional mechanisms existing neither having compromised one's sense of existence. For instance, if one should not at some point have some order of self preservation in mind, empathic severance of one's relation to the abusive other may well be in order. Otherwise how might one in the long term survive, and are there cases where relationships of these types are unsustainable. It may well be that narcissism in some degree had provided some evolutionary advantage in allowing people to survive relative to the more empathic centers of mind? How we mind 'incompetence' to narcissism could be relative. At least for the example, narcissism might also play some role in providing role of survival and in some degrees providing 'competence' to one's emotional functioning?
The article's title might have been more competently titled 'Why some incompetents think they're awesome.' But that's my feedback, and at least I provide it sometimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment