Objective and non-objective capabilities

I think there is no such thing as competence objectively, but rather competence of a different objectivity.

For example, my ability to pick up sushi with chopsticks is highly objective because I can prove it as soon as you provide me with chopsticks and sushi.

I can also prove rather easily that I am capable of writing a Python script to convert numeric data in a CSV into a histogram image.

The ability to write a larger program is becoming increasingly difficult to verify.

• The larger the task, the higher the cost of verification.
• The word “program” has lost its resolution.
  • Is it Python, Haskell, or Clojure?

Whether the research is competent or not

• The word “research” is extremely low-resolution language.
• If you measure it by the KPI of “writing a paper,” then you’re not capable because you don’t write one.
  • Current employers are not measured by that KPI.
• If I had to measure it by degrees, I’d say I got a doctorate and then a second master’s degree as a working student.
• Personally, I don’t think either is an appropriate KPI.
  • I understand there’s a “community based on shared values” with the former as a KPI, but I’m not one of them.

If it can’t be objectively verified, it’s subjective.

• In other words, behavior that subjectively leads people to believe that they are “competent”.

• Lecture at Toyota Technological University.

  • Evaluation of people and their ability to output

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/客観的な能力とそうでない能力 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.