July 3, 2023
How to Deal with Incompetence: The Role of Malice
You might have seen some memes going around claiming “Idiots, everywhere!” or something of the sort. As George Carlin famously said, imagine how dumb the average person is, then realize half of them are even dumber. But to deal with incompetence (which isn’t quite the same as stupidity, which isn’t quite the same as ignorance), we need to also take something else into consideration: the role of malice.
There is a world of difference between an incompetent person who, still, has good intentions, and one who is malevolent. In other words, the saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is seriously misleading.
Why?
But because benevolent incompetence will want to rectify its repercussions, whereas malevolent will not even recognize there is a problem.
Let’s try to categorize all this and come up with a theoretical framework, to see where (if anywhere!) it gets us.
To Deal with Incompetence, Identify It
To properly deal with incompetence, we need to know what we’re facing. I see four possible scenarios here:
- Incompetence and Malevolence, or “Everyday Dictator”. These are all the frustrating, toxic people we have to deal with daily in all sorts of places. They are incompetent, mediocre, but they are arrogant and think they can boss you around and overall make your life miserable. Mind you, this has nothing to do with education or intelligence. The academia is full of incompetent malevolence.
- Incompetence and Benevolence, or “Newbie”. Assuming we’re not arrogant pricks, this describes all of us. We are all ignorant in an infinite number of things, but if we have good intentions – that is, we are open to acknowledging our shortcomings and working accordingly, trying to cause the least amount of damage in the process – then we fall under this.
- Competence and Malevolence, or “Evil Genius”. There are many highly, highly competent people in the world, in a large variety of fields, who use their expertise in a way that causes harm to others. The best black-hat hackers would obviously belong to this group.
- Competence and Benevolence, or “a 20-percenter”. The 20% is a reference to the “vital few” of the Pareto principle, claiming that 20% of the causes are responsible for 80% of the consequences. In our context, I use it to refer to those competent but benevolent people who basically keep society going. From underpaid nurses to engineers expanding our knowledge, and from underappreciated teachers to activists who put their lives on the line for our rights, we’d be screwed without them.
Here’s an interesting detail about the above, which you might have realized already: You can be two at the same time, in different areas of your life. But can you be three?
Can You Be Both Benevolent and Malevolent?
It should be self-evident that a person can be competent in X and Y, while they are incompetent in W and Z. It should be also clear that competence and incompetence is not a binary condition; it has degrees and it is subjective.
In other words, I can be “somewhat competent” when it comes to making simple webapps, whereas I am “very competent” when you want an analysis of the Gothic mode. This also depends on who’s making the assessment. An 80-year-old grandma who has never used a computer might consider me a wizard of programming and would call me “very competent”. Yet if she were a professor of Gothic studies, perhaps she’d consider me only “somewhat competent” as a Gothic scholar!
But there’s another issue at play here.
If we accept that a person can be competent in one thing and incompetent in another, can they also be benevolent in one and malevolent in another?
Malevolence Isn’t Scope-Dependent
Once again, let’s identify the possible pair scenarios, where one would be both malevolent and benevolent in two fields/activities, X and Y:
- incompetent and benevolent (in X), competent and malevolent (in Y)
- incompetent and malevolent (in X), competent and benevolent (in Y)
Essentially, the first case describes someone who is helpful and cooperative when they feel they don’t know something very well, yet also scheming and devious when they feel they do; the second case, on the other hand, describes someone who is an arrogant, mischievous know-it-all when they actually don’t know something (hello Dunning-Kruger), yet also a supportive team-player when they do.
I must say, though certainly both cases are likely and even common, I would tend to think they must be far less common than the alternative scenario: A person is benevolent (or malevolent) regardless of competence.
In other words, generally speaking, I would argue malevolence is not scope-dependent. I confess this is only a hypothesis, based on neither data nor any research on the matter. Take it with a huge pinch of salt.
So, how Do We Deal with Incompetence?
Based on the above, it would seem that the first step would be precisely to identify whether the person’s incompetence – and again, recall the gradations and subjectivity involved – is accompanied by malevolence or benevolence.
We should support and guide someone who is incompetent but benevolent, genuinely wanting to help but not quite knowing what to do. As I said, we are all ignorant in an essentially infinite number of things. Believe it or not, I didn’t know anything before I learned it – crazy, right?
On the other hand, when we deal with incompetence that is motivated by and expressed as malevolence, things are trickier. Sometimes, what is expressed as malevolence might be the symptom/mask of something else – for instance, fear or anger. Sometimes, the exchange of information, opinions, and, in plain terms, a little chitchat, might clarify some things and be beneficial for everyone involved.
Nonetheless, and call me cynical if you want, I think most people are beyond help. Ultimately, no matter what might lurk beneath one’s behavior, it cannot count as justification. In plain terms, being afraid or angry isn’t an excuse to be an asshole.
Incompetence and malice is a socially damaging, highly toxic combo, and one should try to avoid it as much as possible.
2 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
Morning Chris. I think I’ve been arguing with a competent malevolent the last week or so. Initially, I assumed incompetent-benevolent, but after a great deal of digital chit chat, I’ve had to revise that assessment. I don’t know enough about the person involved to guess at cultural or personal reasons for his stance, but essentially it’s summed up by ‘he knew what he was doing so he deserved what he got’. Sadly, none of the logical, moral, or even legal arguments I raised budged him from this victim blaming position.
I tend to assume that people with a modicum of intelligence will be open to changing their minds if the case is strong enough. Not so. It’s depressing.
I’m not sure that malevolence is the root cause. I suspect it’s conditioning applied at an age that’s pre-reason. Once a mindset is cemented in, it’s almost impossible to shift, even assuming a benevolent desire to do so. 🙁
Though malevolence is easier to detect, competence is trickier (for reasons I explained in the post). With that said, competent malevolence doesn’t change its mind about the competence part because it doesn’t need to and about the malevolence part because it doesn’t want to.
Still, let’s not forget that incompetent malevolence assumes competence. In other words, such a person wouldn’t admit they don’t know what they’re doing. That’s the most frustrating part!