Yeah. That's what I kept thinking the entire time I was reading this. Overloading competent with this extra meaning was mildly uncomfortable. Rigid, process oriented, (and only sometimes reliable because of those things) would have been better. Blindly trusting process is like fake competence, a plastic, cartoon version of the real thing.

Real competence is the ability to deal gracefully with exactly the kind of change the article talks about.

That's the point of the article. He isn't bundling it in with the word. He's bundling it in with the concept.

What he is saying is that 'competence' as defined by those defining it, is tied to process oriented reliability. That that is where competence comes from. You can disagree with that if you want, but it's not overloading the word with extra meaning it's claiming a relationship.

I've always used the word "professional." I think it captures it better.

I think he's got half of an idea; people who focus entirely on polish are going to be more resistant to change. Bob Dylan certainly isn't polished. But you can be unpolished and still be a professional. It just means knowing WHEN you're unpolished and trying again.

Bob Dylan isn't predictable, but he still had to learn how to cross-pick and play harmonica like everyone else. It is the appearance of shabby carelessness that creates the effect the author is talking about, not lack of competence.

I get that he does practice, but, at the same time...

He isn't a good singer. That's not to say I don't love his singing. He isn't a dazzling guitarist, or more than a decent harmonica player. What makes him good isn't that he's competent - though I don't doubt that he is. It's his ability to innovate musically and lyrically that makes his music so acclaimed and adored.

I've worked with and been friends with all sorts of artists, writers, programmers. I find that the ones I feel have the most potential aren't the ones who are necessarily the most competent. In fact, a lot of people who AREN'T competent have an edge because if they're there, it's because they're really passionate about what they're doing, not just because they CAN do it. A competent programmer can do what he's told and churn out okay ideas. It's the incompetent ones, though, that want to program because they've got IDEAS. And while they can't be trusted in the same way, they've got a much better chance of turning out something worth keeping.

Not saying the article doesn't do a terrible job of explaining itself, but I think that Seth is TRYING to get at a good idea.

Indeed. This article is an abuse of language writ large. In addition to abusing "competent", it's also abusing "incompetent" to dubious effect. Replace "incompetent" with its synonym "unskilled" and watch the argument implode.