COMPETENCE & REALM KNOWLEDGE
by F Richard Singer III edition date 11/07/07
website: www.conceptualstudy.org email: richardsinger3@sbcglobal.net
edition date 11/01/2004
Overview: This it a conceptual paper, which uses epistemic concepts from my book entitled A Personal Approach to Conceptual Philosophy. These concepts are not presupposed, but introduced as needed. It does presuppose basic concepts from Descriptive Psychology. This paper was motivated by some comments by Paul Zeiger about the relationship between competence and realm knowledge. He saw them as more closely related than I did. Our apparent differences might be because our use of the same terms disguised the fact that we were been using the same terms for somewhat different concepts. Altho our concepts are close enough for many ordinary purposes, they are fluid enough that it would be surprising if there would be no differences in the way we would use them. He is using concepts from Descriptive Psychology, and since I am unclear about how the concept of competence is used there, I may be using this term more broadly. I use a competence concept in a way that allows a competence to include both cognitive and non-cognitive components. On the other hand, I am use the term knowledge for a concept that only includes cognitive components. I classify knowledge using 3 basic types. P’s informational knowledge includes any information that P finds believable and that P is willing to use as a basis for any type of action. P’s process knowledge includes the cognitive aspects of P’s action capabilities. P’s process knowledge for a realm includes the cognitive aspects of everything P that P is familiar enough with to apply with a high degree of reliability. In trying to articulate the distinctions I make between the concepts of competence and realm knowledge that I am using, I realized my use of them is less precise than I implicitly had supposed. The purpose of this paper is to bring these concepts into clearer focus and to relate them to other concepts within my master net.
Process Knowledge and Competence: Altho process knowledge and ability to perform a process are related, they are conceptually distinct. A coach can have more process knowledge about basketball than a player has, even when the player has far greater competence in playing the game. My tree climbing process knowledge has diminished much less that my competence in tree climbing. In general knowing how to do something does not always translate in the ability to do it. Moreover we can often do something even when do not understand what is involved in our knowing how to do it. Hopefully this illustrates the conceptual distinction between competence and process knowledge.
Realm Knowledge: Realm knowledge is the kind of knowledge I have about my tools. This kind knowledge is much broader than knowing a lot of information about them or even knowing how to use them. It involves familiarity with them and a kind of intimacy. It is the kind of knowledge acquired by living with these tools, and so the term realm knowledge. Some realms that I realm knowledge fairly well include, Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, the members of my family, elementary calculus, the area around Barbin Hollow, applications of arithmetic, routes from my home to Washington University, my persona, derivation of the quadratic formula and the ideas motivating it, mathematical proofs, applications of the law of the lever, etc. Before illustrating realm knowledge to competence, I want to develop this concept in more detail.
Example: One
day my granddaughter Angela and I spent several uninterrupted hours channeling
the flow of our creek. We moved rocks and dug out sand and gravel. We
communicated about how to make an S shaped channel, where and why we wanted a
new channel, etc. I know that Angela and I work well together, that we had
supplementary ideas about channeling, that she is a persistent ally. However,
no account of informational knowledge can tell what I learned about Angela thru
this and other rich experiences with her. My knowledge of Angela is essentially
the realm knowledge type, and all my informational knowledge about her is
feeble in comparison. Likewise, while I can state many facts about our creek,
it is my realm knowledge of this creek that is the essence of my knowledge.
More on Realm Knowledge Realm knowledge always includes informational components, and often contains process components. However, it is too fluid to be reduced to these types of knowledge. I have difficulty imagining that any one could think of realm knowledge as just an accumulation of information. I find realm knowledge the primary way of learning thru experience and informational knowledge something that occurs by focusing on some very limited feature of realm knowledge.
Because realm knowledge is such a complex form of
knowledge, I want to stress that it is conceptualized only as knowledge. It
does not include any other powers, altho as with any form of knowledge other
powers such as values and abilities affect the acquisition and use of realm
knowledge. Nor does realm knowledge include any dispositions or derivatives,
altho these can also affect its acquisition and use. This way of conceptualizing
realm knowledge is similar to the way we normally conceptualize process
knowledge. To say that I know how to split various types of logs does not mean
that I am interested in splitting logs, altho without this disposition I would
not have acquired this process knowledge. Nevertheless, the process knowledge
will not be diminished if I lose interest. This process knowledge is also
conceptually different from my ability to split logs. While recuperating from
my back injury this ability was nil, altho I do not think of my process
knowledge as significantly diminished. Altho conceptually distinct, process
knowledge and ability are often paraceptually linked.
Competence and Realm Knowledge: The concept of competence that motivated this paper was fuzzier than my realm knowledge concept. In spite of this, I think I can articulate the main way in which I would compare and contrast them. Realm knowledge is a complex type of knowledge about some realm. It is a personal state of the power type. Competence is an even more complex personal state involving dispositions and powers and derivatives. A major specialized competence always involves realm knowledge of one or more realms as one of its components, and in many cases realm knowledge is one of its most crucial components. However, almost every example of a competence that I have imagined involves more than knowledge. Moreover, almost any characteristic can be a component of competence. Before elaborating, I will give one personal instance in which realm knowledge is a crucial component.
Instance 0: Let C denote my competence in designing manifest materials that can be used to understand ordinary fractions. C includes realm knowledge of both the realm of elementary mathematics and the realm of learning elementary mathematics. It also involves realm knowledge of contemporary mathematics. Altho perhaps not as noteworthy, C involves process knowledge in relation to using a word processor. To see this, I need only reflect on the fact that C is much greater than it was before I acquired this process knowledge. C also involves other powers. My ability to imagine links between manifest and more remote concepts is a major component of C, and this ability goes beyond my realm knowledge of the realm of mathematics. The value I place on helping a broad audience understand mathematics is another component of C. In addition to powers, C includes a number of dispositions. An important one is interest. C has decreased somewhat from its peak, now that my fractions book has been completed. Should I decide to add some material to my fraction’s book, it seems likely that I would not do as well as before. Another crucial disposition is my attitude about examples. I polish my example again-and-again. This disposition is by no means limited to examples in my fraction’s book, but it is certainly an aspect of C. C may also include derivatives, altho none that I consider noteworthy.
Notation: The
letter P is a variable ranging over the set of persons.
Successful Action: Closely related to my concept of competence is my concept of successful action. An action is successful to the extent that the primary component of the want parameter is satisfied and how well it is satisfied and to what extent the significance parameter is enhanced. It is barely successful if the primary component of the want parameter is minimally satisfied by the achievement parameter and the significance parameter is not enhanced.
Scope and Level: A specialized competence is competence in some realm. The scope of such a realm can vary from limited to extensive. A specialized competence can also be at various levels. Altho conceptually distinct, scope and level tend to be paraceptually related. It is easier to obtain a high level of competence in the limited realm of opening moves in chess than it is to obtain a high level of competence in the more extensive realm of chess.
Noteworthy: A characteristic is noteworthy in relation to a behavior description if omitting it would involve a major lack of perspective for the purposes of that description. (see the appendix).
General Paradigm Case: A specialized competence for a person P in relation to some realm R is a a set C of noteworthy characteristics. Characteristics in C are of various kinds. Critical ones are power characteristics. The knowledge involved consists of substantial realm knowledge for R. Other noteworthy characteristics include various types of dispositions. Some derivatives are also noteworthy. A specialized competence is also a relation involving a person P and R. Moreover, C has played a major role in enabling P to obtain a history H of many successful actions in R. Specific acts in this history may depend on all or only some of the elements of C. Many types of actions are included in H.
Allowable Transformations: The paradigm case is of a high-level specialized competence in an extensive realm of interest. Some allowable transformations produce other high-level extensive cases. Others may lead to specialized competence in more limited realms. Extensive and limited are more like poles on a continuum than a dichotomy. They relate to the scope of R. Using transformations tends to move toward cases that are not as extensive. Likewise weakening types of transformations may produce cases of competence that are at a lower level than competences in a paradigm case.
A. Change ‘C has played a major role’ to ‘C could reasonably be expected to play a major role'. This might be classified as untested competence.
B. Weaken H by reducing the quantity or quality involved. Clearly, this type of transformation relates to the level of competence.
C. Reduce the number of action types so that there may be only a few types or even to a single type.
D. Reduce the number or kinds of characteristics in C.
E. Change ‘critical’ to ‘noteworthy’.
F. Change ‘substantial realm knowledge’ to ‘some realm knowledge’ or even omit realm knowledge.
Non-Allowable Transformations:
X. Omit the history of actions.
Y. Omit all power type characteristics.
Z. Reduce the number of action types to 0.
Note on Paradigm Case Formulations: In principle a complete paradigm case formulation would only need to specify allowable transformations, since any transformation not listed as allowable would not be allowed. However, there are many concepts for which it would be difficult to give a complete formulation, and so it is often to useful to include a list of some non-allowable transformations. Their use enables an incomplete formulation to eliminate cases we definitely want to exclude.
Comment: As
formulated, the concept of competence is precise enough for most purposes. One
way to add precision (if desired) would be to clarify where to draw the line
between what-to-include and what-not-to-include in C. Moreover, almost any characteristic might be
involved in some action. Having hands is a characteristic that plays a major
role in hitting a home run, but not one I would include as part of a competence
in the realm of baseball. This is avoided by restricting C to noteworthy
characteristics for a behavior description of an action in the history. However
while some characteristics would clearly seem noteworthy and some would not,
there is no clearly formulated criteria as to what is to be considered as
noteworthy, nor should there be. Persons give behavior descriptions, and the
same behavior can be adequately described by different descriptions. This is
appropriate because different descriptions serve different purposes.
Routine Competence:
P has routine competence to the extent that P’s specialized competencies include
those needed to engage in the ordinary social practices of the communities to
which P belongs. A minimal level of routine competence is what is meant by
being legally competent to stand trial, to manage one’s affairs, etc.
Broad Competence: P has broad competence to the extent that P has routine competence and a multitude of specialized competencies of a wide variety of types.
Metacompetence:
Metacompetence is any complex of characteristics that enable a person to
acquire and enhance specialized competencies. This involves the ability not
only to cultivate components of a competence, but also to counter
characteristics that would interfere with these components.
Comment: Altho broad competence and metacompetence are conceptually distinct, considerable paraceptual linkage might be expected.
Instances of Specialized Competence: An adequate paradigm case formulation of a concept provides criteria for its use. This can be an initial step in understanding a concept, but more is usually involved. Altho a paradigm case is typical, it will have features that are not common to all instances in which the concept is used. Using allowable transformations on the general paradigm case gives other general cases. These are not rigorously developed. I merely give the instance I have in mind, indicating some of the most relevant transformations and some of the values of the variables.
Instance 1: This is a paradigm instance, i.e. it can be obtained without using any of the allowable transformation and by only giving values for variables from the general paradigm case. In this instance, R is the Senate and Jan is a highly competent senator in the minority party. Action types include motivating her staff to do excellent background research, working with other senators behind the scene, using senate rules to move legislation forward, effectively using the committee structure. She has a history of highly successful action in these and many other relevant types of action. C includes a wide variety of personal characteristics. A crucial element of C is her extensive realm knowledge of R and comprehension of relations both within this knowledge and of its relation to other matters. For example, she knows how to relate this realm knowledge to understanding of certain attitudes of the Secretary of State. Other power type elements of C include a number of values and abilities, a noteworthy value being that of integrity. C also includes her attitude towards compromising, and a number of other noteworthy dispositions. C also includes her personal appearance and her ability to use her appearance in an elegant manner. As with any specialized competence, other senators may have a high level of competence in R that involved at least some different types of successful actions and some different characteristics. In particular, a senator with less realm knowledge of R has an even better history of successful action due in some major way to appearing senatorial and to his ability to raise money for the majority party. Whether this greater success is due to a higher level of competence in R or other factors could be debated.
Instance 2: Max is 45 year old and has type 2 diabetes. R is the realm of his own personal diabetes management. The general case for this instance involves transformations {C, D, F}. I do not consider this extensive enough to be classified as a major realm, but others might. At any rate, I would classify this as a limited type of competence, altho an extremely important competence for Max. Four main action types are taking correct and timely blood sugar readings, suitable diet management, obtaining enough exercise, taking appropriate medication. Max has no particular interest in understanding diabetes. He merely follows professional advice, and altho a variety of knowledge is involved in his success, the most important characteristics for this success involve values an attitudes and traits. C includes the high value he places on physical wellbeing, a high level of self-discipline, the attitude he developed towards testing blood sugar, etc. Various knowledge characteristics are involved. He knows how to use the testing device. He knows that a reading of below 80 indicates a level that is too low and knows what to do if this occurs. He knows what medication to take, and when to take it. He knows the diet plan that P was given and the exercise program prescribed. Since all this knowledge is fairly easy to master using readily available information and very ordinary abilities, I would not consider this knowledge as noteworthy in describing actions of the types in his history. For Max, realm knowledge is not involved in a noteworthy manner, and thus would not be included in C.
Note: One reason I constructed Instance 2 was to stress how the concept of competence differs from the realm knowledge concept. Clearly, someone with much greater realm knowledge in the above realm can fail to have a history of successful action in managing diabetes. Without some additional characteristics, this person may not even begin to engage in such a history. Incidentally, one of the reasons for transformation A is because I would say that Max was competent to manage his diabetes as soon as he acquired the necessary professional advice. Obviously, evidence for a specialized competence is easier to muster after a history of successful action. This involves showing that the success is most likely due to characteristics rather than other factors. Prior to a history of successful action we could still give evidence that would make the conjecture that a person would acquire such a history seem highly plausible to anyone who understood that person fairly well.
Instance 3: R
is the realm of baseball.
Note: What constitutes a type of action is a matter of choice. Given almost any type of action, we could usually reclassify it into component types. Closing games without losing the lead could include success in keeping opposing batters from scoring runs, which could include success in striking out batters and success in getting batters to hit into double plays. These are not what I think most people would classify as main types of action in this context.
Instance 4: R is the realm of deceiving men. Jill is an ordinary liar who, altho often is caught, is still able to achieve a significant number of her ordinary wants. Using all the transformations except A, I would classify Jill as very competent in R. H includes two main type of action, namely telling convincing lies about ordinary matters and seeming contrite when caught. C includes being extremely attractive, having a friendly innocent face, having a great deal of charm, the ability to appear very contrite when caught, an ability to recall the lie in a consistent manner, etc.
Instance 5: R is the realm of winning money by playing the lottery. Brent plays these lotteries on a regular basis and has a history of small winnings along with two big ones. Transformations {C, D, F} can be used to consider Brent’s competence in R. He claims that his competence involves only one type of action and one crucial characteristic of the power type, namely the ability to use a limited form of precognition. A friend with a physicalistic cosmic version claims that Brent also has a special type of embodiment that is critical, namely a brain that makes precognition possible. Some other dispositions might be noteworthy, such as an interest in money. There is also some knowledge involved, such as knowing where to buy lottery tickets, but none that seems noteworthy. For those of us who find the existence of such a competence at most barely plausible, I would remark that a number of people who play the lottery believe that winning is not merely a matter of chance. They may even believe that some much lower level of competence will help them beat the odds. If confronted with the existence of such an extraordinary degree of success, I might be inclined to find the existence of a competence in picking winning lottery numbers at least slightly plausible. However, I would be more inclined to suspect that the success was based on an extremely high level of competence in performing a very special kind of fraud. Such a competence would involve much more extensive realm knowledge and would most likely be an instance of the paradigm case.