It’s difficult to disentangle my thoughts from said responses regarding #112, but the idea of competency handcuffs seems interesting to explore further at a later (and healthier) time. Competent Elites keeps coming up as a counterpoint when I try to think about the possibility of competency handcuffs. It’s possible that competency is not specific enough for the phenomena I’m pointing at.
This is hard, because one may learn concrete, valuable skills from most any job, that build on & interact with each other in interesting ways. Clear & concise communication as a skill cluster has been valuable in every single job I’ve worked. A brief stint in retail taught a lesson about product placement & design which meshes well with what I’ve read theoretically about design and complements “the art of the desk setup” type work I implement on a daily basis for customers in IT.
I wonder if competency handcuffs is less an outright trap and more of a conceptual or “rigidity of thought patterns” type trap? If you combine identifying the specific skills needed to succeed in X other job with identifying the specific skills & proficiency skills thereof in Y current job, perhaps you get a sense of what skills are (metaphorically speaking) associative and/or commutative enough to transfer between job domains. Thus even while doing Y job you could figure out how compatible your skillset would be for X job. (I’m not sure the properties of mathematics metaphor works, “transferable” may be fine)
fwiw I think the OP seemed like a reasonable model to apply sometimes (I think it’s good to notice when your generators are trauma-responses tho)
It’s difficult to disentangle my thoughts from said responses regarding #112, but the idea of competency handcuffs seems interesting to explore further at a later (and healthier) time. Competent Elites keeps coming up as a counterpoint when I try to think about the possibility of competency handcuffs. It’s possible that competency is not specific enough for the phenomena I’m pointing at.
This is hard, because one may learn concrete, valuable skills from most any job, that build on & interact with each other in interesting ways. Clear & concise communication as a skill cluster has been valuable in every single job I’ve worked. A brief stint in retail taught a lesson about product placement & design which meshes well with what I’ve read theoretically about design and complements “the art of the desk setup” type work I implement on a daily basis for customers in IT.
I wonder if competency handcuffs is less an outright trap and more of a conceptual or “rigidity of thought patterns” type trap? If you combine identifying the specific skills needed to succeed in X other job with identifying the specific skills & proficiency skills thereof in Y current job, perhaps you get a sense of what skills are (metaphorically speaking) associative and/or commutative enough to transfer between job domains. Thus even while doing Y job you could figure out how compatible your skillset would be for X job. (I’m not sure the properties of mathematics metaphor works, “transferable” may be fine)