The North Pole Paradox: How Perspective Defines Competence

Are you a con-man or are you competent? I guess you'll find out.

But then acting is all about faking. We're all very good at faking things that we have no competence with.

John Cleese

We need direction.

I just heard something that threw me a bit. I heard somebody say, "I know these people. They're very competent. But what they lack is perspective." And that got me thinking, what is being competent? In this case, in this scenario, and this context, he was talking about how they're able to do a certain job.

They're able to get things done. They move policy, start and complete projects and whatnot, in order to try to get towards the end goal of whatever it happens to be. I'm not going to get into the overall context of the conversation, but suffice to say, it was government-related. Which is fine. There are plenty of competent people in the government, obviously. Or, more accurately, probably.

But my question is, if you lack the proper perspective, or at least a proper-adjacent perspective that gets you going in some semblance of the proper direction, regardless of how well you can start things and get stuff moving, are you competent? Is that competence?

Can one be considered truly competent without the right perspective or at least a semblance of it that guides actions towards a meaningful goal? Competence, after all, isn't just about the ability to execute tasks; it's about doing so in a direction that aligns with the ultimate aim. If lacking this directional sense, does one's capacity to initiate and progress with tasks still qualify as competence?

Consider the scenario where your skill is running and your objective is to reach the North Pole. Ideally, the most efficient route is a direct line towards your goal. However, imagine if, instead of heading north, you set off in the opposite direction, southwards. Despite your proficiency in running, this deviation calls into question your competence for this specific mission. You might eventually circle the globe to reach your destination, but this indirect approach hardly seems competent.

A clearer illustration might be if your goal is the North Pole, yet you choose to run west. This direction will never lead you to your goal. This misalignment between your actions and the goal demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding or misinterpretation of how to achieve your objective. It's as if you've misjudged north to be in the direction you're facing, due to a skewed perception, perhaps influenced by how you're interpreting your surroundings or even misreading your compass while glancing over your left shoulder, causing you to veer off course significantly.

This example underscores a crucial point: Competence isn't solely about the ability to perform a task with skill and efficiency; it also critically depends on the direction of your efforts. If those efforts lead you away from your intended destination, despite your capabilities, it raises a question of true competence in achieving the set goal.

Confidence in planning is not enough if it's not aligned with the correct direction, stemming from an accurate perspective and comprehensive understanding. When you disregard essential information because it conflicts with your preconceived notions, you're operating under false assumptions that could easily be corrected with a broader view. This resistance to integrating opposing insights fundamentally undermines your competence.

You may be good at hitting the ground running. But if you're going in the wrong direction because you refuse to look at all the information to orient yourself properly, if you refuse to calibrate that GPS, then you're not competent. You lack the very foundation of competence. You lack the minimum necessary competence required to do anything of use.

Without proper orientation and a willingness to embrace discomfort or the possibility of being wrong, the only outcome is disruption. Such a stance leads to harming rather than aiding, and stalling or completely halting any progress that might have been achieved.

This often stems from an aversion to challenge or change due to fear of embarrassment, potential damage to one's reputation, or simply the discomfort of confronting opposing viewpoints. This mindset undermines the essence of competence across all fields, whether it be in the sciences, government, politics, literature, or even in the interpretation of texts and historical events.

Competence demands an openness to diverse perspectives, an understanding that no single translation or historical interpretation is absolute. It's about recognizing the value of dialogue, especially with those who hold differing opinions, as a fundamental component of growth and advancement. This approach not only fosters personal and professional development but is also crucial for innovation and progress in any endeavor, from creative arts to engineering and architecture.

So yes, going back to the beginning, they may be very good at writing something down that is project-adjacent or policy-adjacent or schematic-adjacent, saying that, "Hey, this is the way to do it." They're very confident. They're good at saying things with confidence. In fact, you could probably call them confidence men, aka con-men. If they’re unable to lay that foundation of competence or to sustain that foundation with dialogue, with dissent and disagreement and discussion, dialectic, then that's all they are.

You cannot be confident that something's going to work when you only have a small piece of information. It shouldn’t instill confidence when you only have one perspective when there are billions of perspectives. You're not going to get billions of perspectives; that's too many to decipher, to try and orient from. However, you could at least get some. You could at least try and parse out the most applicable, right? Or allow the market to do so.

Release your idea into the wild, despite the intimidation that comes with it. Gauge the feedback it receives to determine its merit. Valid criticism isn't about mere agreement or disagreement; it's about engaging thoughtfully with your concept, showing a deep grasp of your intentions. Superficial critiques, such as disliking personal attributes unrelated to the idea itself, hardly count. Such irrelevant feedback should be dismissed as you sift through responses to find genuine insight. Embracing discomfort is essential in this process, allowing you to gain a well-rounded view and establish your competence.

And so no, I completely disagree that somebody could be competent and have a completely one-sided, warped perspective on things. No, I refuse to believe that somebody can be competent and will not, even from their peers, listen to any kind of dissent or other side of the argument. Because they're not competent. They have not put themselves or their ideas to the fire and see if it can come through.

Yes, when you put your ideas through the fire, when you put yourself through it, there will be burns. You will come out burned. Your ideas will, too. But much like we need controlled burns in forests to keep them healthy and to prevent disaster, to prevent massive wildfires that destroy the forest, we need controlled burns with us and our ideas to see what's dead wood and to help what isn't grow, be healthy, and avoid self-immolation at a later date because it will happen. It will happen if that dead wood is left to sit there and build up.

No, they're not competent. They may be able to say pretty things. They may be able to write pretty things. But whatever. All the content, all the substance that's there, it's tragic. It's dead wood. Rot. There's no core. It is hollow. It is empty.

Be okay with being uncomfortable, be prepared to burn off that dead wood. Be prepared to separate the chaff from your wheat. Be prepared to hear things that go against what you believe and what you think. Be prepared to defend your ideas. Please defend your ideas. Don't just accept what the dissenting opinion is. Because all you're doing is swapping dead wood for dead wood at that point. I can guarantee you that they don't have all the best ideas, but you will have some great ones.

You need to hear somebody tell you no. To say “That's not right”. You need to hear somebody take your entire idea and rip it to shreds. And you need to be prepared to scrap the entire thing. You need to be prepared to say, in light of compelling evidence—not just somebody's word—to say, "You know what? That makes sense. Let me start over."

Of course, there's always going to be hope. There's always going to be positive. There is positive in doing this, in offering up your idea to the world with full understanding and acceptance it may be destroyed.

Iron sharpens iron, right? You cannot make armor without setting it on fire and beating the absolute shit out of a piece of metal over and over. You're not going to make the perfect clay pot without going through hundreds of initial iterations, of mistakes, of failures.

You don't want your workshop to be too damn cluttered and you probably won't be able to fit all of them in your house. Nobody's going to buy those pieces of shit anyway. Break the hell out of those clay pots.

As you continue to shape the pots, as you continue to shape that armor, as you continue to sharpen that iron, you get better at it. The iron gets sharper against the iron. The armor gets better as the blacksmith hammers. The clay pot becomes beauty. You are creating art and wonder and all. You’re creating happiness, joy, and hope.

Eventually.

That’s because you're willing to be uncomfortable and you're willing to do something poorly and you're willing to present an idea to the world, understanding that it may just be a bad idea, and that it's okay. It's okay to have a bad idea as long as you're willing to scrap it and try again.

Scrapping a bad idea is the second most important thing you can do and many, many people are unwilling or unable to do that. Which means they can't get to the ultimate point; they can't get to the most important thing you can do in life and, ultimately, for everyone. They can’t try again.

You must try again with what you learned. This has such a high level of importance because the world needs you to try again. It needs somebody that is willing to lose, to fail, and has the experience and understanding and the wisdom and the knowledge that comes with failing. That's what failing and trying again brings you.

Do you really think wise old men were always wise old men and they didn't do anything wrong? No, wise old men were once dumb, wild, rebellious boys, just crazy, doing the dumbest things. They were boys, jumping off roofs with feathers taped to their arms, thinking they could fly. They took those failures. They took those broken bones and they turned them into words, into beauty, and into love. The voluntary passing down of knowledge is nothing short of love.

Which ties into something else I heard this morning that I thought was wonderful, "I know that every loss comes with gain. Just like I know you can't make beauty without pain." Something along those lines, anyways. That’s definitely paraphrased.

Interestingly enough, it was a rapper, and it was Lil Wayne. So, remember that. Every loss comes with gain. You have to find it; you have to look for it. If you're ever confused about why they say, "When you're in the dark, you only need to remember to look around to find the light," right?

Or I believe Dumbledore said, "Happiness can be found, even in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light." Which is an odd thing for a wizard to say, considering magic. And lumos, the spell that creates light. But it’s cool, DumbleBro.

Loss and darkness are chaos. You thought one way and it didn't turn out to be that way. But you oriented yourself in the world based on that a priori supposition, right? Yet it isn't that way. It isn’t arranged in the way you supposed, the way you thought.

So, you're in chaos. That's what darkness is, chaos. It's unknown. You need to find the gain in the loss. You need to find the light in the darkness. You need to find a wand and say 'Lumos' in order to find your way again.

Because that loss, it's going to do far more to orient you if you could take advantage of it than never taking the chance with that idea in the first place. You can end up staying on the wrong path if you never take any chances. It will turn into disaster, eventually.

Which is why we cannot consider efficiency without direction competence. It only brings disaster sooner. And I, for one, would love to push that further back. Perhaps, then, we’ll have time to figure out how to avoid it altogether.

---

---

Found value in these words? Want to dive deeper into the raw, unfiltered truths of life as seen through a father's eyes?

🌟 Join the "Dad Explains" family today! Don’t Forget to share!🌟

Subscribe for free to get full access to our heartfelt, gritty, and honest explorations of life's ups and downs. Every subscription, free or paid, is a cherished support in our journey. For those who choose to contribute, know that your paid subscriptions play a vital role in keeping the quality high, helping cover costs for essential tools like Adobe and other editing software.

But more than that, your support keeps the spirit of "Dad Explains" alive and thriving, ensuring that every story, every lesson, and every piece of dad wisdom reaches you in its most authentic and polished form.

Got questions or thoughts to share? Feel free to drop a comment below or send me an email at dad@dadexplains.life. Your insights, stories, and questions are what make this community a rich tapestry of shared experiences and wisdom. Let's keep the conversation going!

Subscribe today and be a part of a community where every voice matters, every story counts, and every fatherly piece of advice is a step towards understanding the complexities of life.

---

Your support is the secret sauce in our family recipe – it's what keeps our kitchen cooking up wisdom and wackiness in equal measure.

Dad Explains – Navigating life’s twists and turns, one dad joke at a time. 🚗😄

---