I need to talk to the Bobs
At its most cynical—though it is also a logically inescapable conclusion—this is best expressed by the Peter Principle: people are inevitably promoted to a position that is just beyond their level of competence. If we accept the Peter Principle, then we must also accept the consequences of that. People who evaluate the performance of their underlings are likely to be incapable of such an evaluation.
Read the whole thing, it’s short and worth it. The most interesting bit is the assertion that one needs to be an expert in order to spot other experts; this seems obviously true in retrospect, but I hadn’t thought of it that way.
I think pretty highly of myself, but that’s only because I’m so good at things, generally, that I’m able to accurately self evaluate in many areas. In modesty, for example, I really excel.
Seriously though; that’s some good stuff there. When reading about the need for critical thinking skills, I was reminded of public education, which is a natural enemy of critical thinking skills. Widespread success in teaching critical thinking skills would mean the demise of public education as we know it.
There was a missing element in the piece though, as I see it– Conscience. I am beginning to see silliness in some of the detailed analysis, as it seems to dance around such a simple concept in favor of the complex. “Methinks thou doth analyze too much” comes to mind. At times the avoidance appears to be quite clever and determined. Is the person asked for a self-evaluation being honest with himself and others? Does that person have a clear concept of right and wrong, and does he make an effort to watch himself? “Critical thinking skills” go hand in hand with conscience. In some cases one might serve as the definition of the other.
As Douglas Adams put it so well; “To summarize the summary of the summary; people are a problem”.
Lyle
5 June 2012 at 17:30