Conversations

Without getting political but just focusing on the qualifications of the two candidates it appears to me that South Carolina elected Anne Andrews for the U.S. Senate over Darlene Graham as one who is perhaps competent over someone who is “uncompetent” (as opposed to incompetent).

ChatGPT said:

Your distinction between incompetent and uncompetent is interesting, particularly because you’re using the latter to describe someone who may lack the qualifications for a job rather than someone who has demonstrated an inability to perform it.

I think your proposed word has a useful purpose, even though unqualified or unproven would be more conventional English.

Not quite. An incompetent person causes harm whereas someone who is uncompetent simply doesn’t perform.

ChatGPT said:

Ah, that’s a more consequential distinction than I understood. You’re distinguishing between failure to accomplish something and actively making things worse.

One complication is that in ordinary English, incompetent doesn’t necessarily imply causing harm, and uncompetent is uncommon. But as a deliberately defined pair of terms, yours makes a distinction that ordinary usage tends to overlook.

You’re not very deep today. I fully realize I am using competence in an unconventional manner, but it is necessary because “incompetence” is more nuanced than what fits this situation. A person who is uncompetent may very well be active, i.e., not doing nothing but mediocre would be high praise.

Yes, we have traditionally called this person incompetent, but we also call people incompetent when everything they do goes wrong. I see no evidence that Senator Darlene has done anything above or perhaps approaching mediocrity including the short time she was in the Senate.

ChatGPT said:

I see the distinction now, and I was missing its most important element.

You aren’t distinguishing between someone who acts and someone who doesn’t. You’re distinguishing between two different kinds of failure, both of which can involve considerable activity.

In your proposed vocabulary:

Uncompetent describes someone who goes through the motions, performs the duties, makes decisions, attends meetings, and perhaps even works diligently, but produces little of value. Such a person may occupy a position for years without accomplishing anything particularly worthwhile. Mediocrity might indeed be an aspirational standard.

Incompetent, in the stronger sense you’re proposing, describes someone whose exercise of responsibility produces damaging results. The person doesn’t merely fail to contribute; the person makes matters worse.

You’re arguing that our conventional use of incompetent conceals an important difference in the consequences of inadequate performance. We use the same word for the person whose efforts accomplish almost nothing and the person whose efforts leave a trail of damage. Those are fundamentally different failures, particularly when someone exercises considerable authority.

And your concept of uncompetence doesn’t require laziness, stupidity, or even a lack of good intentions. Someone can be conscientious, busy, personable, and thoroughly uncompetent.

That makes it a potentially useful word, especially in institutions where activity, seniority, and achievement are too easily confused.

You’re doing better. Senator Darlene Graham may well have risen to her government positions as a result of her brother’s influence. It is unclear, at least to me.

ChatGPT said:

That introduces another distinction worth making: the ability to obtain a position is not evidence of the ability to perform it.

I think the strongest part of your argument is its insistence on separating credentials, connections, activity, and accomplishment. They’re four different things, yet public discussion routinely treats the first three as evidence of the fourth.

Your concept of uncompetence challenges precisely that assumption. A lengthy résumé might tell us where someone has been without telling us whether anything was better because they were there.

It’s not just about possible influence. Andrews’ academic credentials far surpass Graham’s, not just in degrees but in subject matter and institution. And my original statement uses the phrase, “perhaps competent” in relationship to Andrews.

ChatGPT said:

You’re right to emphasize “perhaps competent.” That qualification was deliberate, and I’ve repeatedly weakened your argument by treating it as though you were declaring Andrews competent rather than identifying evidence that she might be.

There are substantial differences in the academic preparation represented here, particularly in the rigor and research components of medical training. But the significance of those differences to Senate performance remains an inference, not a demonstrated outcome.

And that brings me back to your original statement. You are applying different standards of evidence to the two candidates, rather than simply contrasting their credentials.

The interesting asymmetry is that you are willing to infer potential from demonstrated achievement but unwilling to infer achievement merely from having occupied positions of authority.

That is a much more demanding argument than saying that one candidate has better credentials than another.

It also makes your invented term uncompetent more interesting. You’re trying to name a category of public servant whose activity and tenure may be perfectly real, yet whose contribution remains negligible—without necessarily alleging the destructive failures that you associate with incompetence.

Perhaps uncompetent is a word we need beyond politics. We’ve all encountered people who are busy, conscientious, and perhaps even well regarded, yet somehow accomplish remarkably little. We call them incompetent, but that seems unfair to the truly incompetent, who can be counted on to make matters worse.

And perhaps we’ve occasionally been uncompetent ourselves. It’s considerably easier to recognize in someone else.