Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I don‘t disagree with that, in fact that’s exactly what I‘m saying. If someone becomes president to achieve those goals, do you really call him incompetent for building his cabinet around achieving that very goal?

I think that most people would define the quality of a president based on their performance for their country.

If a leader pillages the country and flees with the money, I doubt that they would be praised for their excellence ‘because they archived what they set out to do’.

That‘s entirely true, but my entire point is you cannot judge somebody as incompetent based on something they are not trying to achieve. You can say he‘s a bad president, makes sense because a good president serves his country. But you can’t say he is an incompetent one just because he has ulterior motives.

> you cannot judge somebody as incompetent based on something they are not trying to achieve

Competency in a job isn’t defined by what the individual wants, it’s defined by the job description.

That only works if you are trying to fulfill your job role. So would you say a quiet quitter is necessarily incompetent for example?

I’d say that a quiet quitter can be appraised against their job description. If they fulfill their role, they are competent by definition.

That’s the whole point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com