Dear John, dear LO'ers,
Thank you for other arguments that generated again my personal doubts
about my own thoughts. Maybe you will find some clarifications of these
doubts and some of your arguments in my contribution LO19625, which
unfortunately (unconsciously) passed eachother on this list. I have the
feeling that we do not disagree that much on this issue. Maybe I should
have stretched my doubting and hesitations more firmly, because I agree
with most of what you have written. That sounds maybe strange, but believe
me. Probably the only difference is that I was trying to sketch another
perspective or viewpoint to this issue.
I agree that one should always try to reach the competent side of the
matrix. If people don't set their goals to that direction, than no
progress is made. But the ultimate stage of competence is never reached;
it is possibly comparable with an asymptotic curve. If a person,
organization, nation questions its own level of competence, than it is ok.
I thought that this was also your message, but than I read:
> judgment of his own competence? What does it matter if someone else's
> criteria are met or not met, so long as his own criteria are?
I am not sure if I understand you well. But this sentence is exactly what
I saw from my viewpoint: the satisfaction of one's own competences and no
reason to improve further. And this was my warning for the possible result
of the con-comp quadrant. I see this attitude in my surroundings so often.
With youngsters at schools who are satisfied with their marks or diploma,
and not willing to learn further; organizations that are succesful, stick
on that level and are passed by the compatitors after some years;
politicians who are satisfied with their global politics and are not open
for changing their attitudes because the surrounding world has changed;
etc.
> I agree, however, that a third party could enter the picture and make
> their own judgments of how well Crusoe's work met Crusoe's criteria, and
> this person's judgment might differ from Crusoe's; and this person could
> also question whether Crusoe's criteria were the most relevant to Crusoe's
> condition. And all of this questioning could result in both better
> criteria and better "measurement" of Crusoe's efforts.
Here we are! And the most important: Crusoe should than develop
self-criticism, questioning his own competences. And thus realising that
he is not competent enough, and thus incompetent. Because in my mind one
is competent, or not. A littlebit competent does not exists; in that case
it is incompetent. As 'a littlebit pregnant' does not exist. You are, or
you are not.And since competency is the unreachable goal (but it should
however be the goal), one is incompetent. Maybe less incompetent than
others, but still incompetent.
And self-criticism is a sign of consciousness.
> Finally, I think you're simply confusing two parts of the model when you
> write:
> >So in the 2x2 matrix, the con-com square must be avoided. BE AWARE OF YOUR
> >INCOMPETENCE! And be conscious of your willing to learn.
>
> Here your are, I believe, actually sending a warning to people who are
> Unconscious Incompetent. Those are the people who need to become aware of
> their incompetence (and, presumably, do something about it.) By
> definition, Conscious Competents could not become aware of their
> incompetence -- because they are NOT incompetent!
So here we differ fundamentally. But I realise that it becomes a
discussion on definitions. In a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best), as
is used in the Netherlands on schools for marking the results of pupils, a
pupil could be competent in his eyes if he/she receives a 6, whereas a 4
means incompetent. (with a 6, the pupil will pass). But a 8 is more
competent than a 6. In most cases with youngsters at schools, they are
satisfied with a 6 mark since that means 'competent'. The will to get a
8-mark is lacking.
So maybe the message is that the level of satisfaction may differ. And my
fear is that a person who thinks he is in the conscious-competent
quadrant, is satisfied and does not open himself for further improvement.
> I would prefer to say that the Conscious Competent square is to be aspired
> to -- if one wants to attain and maintain competence or be able to help
> someone else attain it. The way to aspire to it, according to this model,
> depends on where you are at the moment. If you are competent, but
> unconscious of the reasons why, then the path leads through becoming are
> (conscious.) If you are incompetent, then you need to improve your
> competence. In any case, in order to improve you must be willing to
> learn. And the same holds true for those who are fortunate enough to be
> conscious competents: in order to maintain their competence, or get even
> better, they, too, must be willing to learn.
And here we meet eachother again!
> I hope this helps you get a better handle on what we intended when we used
> the model.
John, I realy hope that I clarified myself. The model is in your
interpretation perfect. I hope however, that using this model in courses,
you will realise that some of the audience may interpret it differently.
And if you are conscious of this possible different viewpoint, nothing is
wrong with it. Because we realy have the same message.
dr. Leo D. Minnigh
minnigh@library.tudelft.nl
Library Technical University Delft
PO BOX 98, 2600 MG Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: 31 15 2782226
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let your thoughts meander towards a sea of ideas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Leo Minnigh <L.D.Minnigh@library.tudelft.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>