#58844 Competent Man

[Tao]

Link. I've recently become quite a fan of Heinlein, I'd be interested to get the boardboard's input on what it takes to be a competent man. Also, would you say that such competency is a valid goal for an individual?

[Whistler]

Well, it's the reason I want to learn lipreading and morse code.

[Kissables]

I would add knowing pressure points, being able to use a bow and arrow with relative accuracy, knowing how to relieve various pain and illnesses, knowing how to fix a computer, and how to remove stains.

[Unit of Energy]

I like a guy that can fix a car.

[NerdGirl]

I like a guy that appreciates Gilmore Girls. I was introduced to Gilmore Girls by one of my best (straight) guy friends, and all of my favorite guys appreciate that show.

[Craig Jessop]

I like a guy that appreciates Gilmore Girls. I was introduced to Gilmore Girls by one of my best (straight) guy friends, and all of my favorite guys appreciate that show.

I LOVE that show. I've seen every episode. And, yes, I have no problem admitting it. It's so fast and clever!

[C is for]

I've spent the day taking umbrage at this line:

The competent man, more often than not, is written without explaining how he achieved his wide range of skills and abilities, especially as true expertise typically suggests practical experience instead of learning through books or formalized education alone

and then the inclusion of the Doctor on that list, because he's 900-some-odd years old, he's had plenty of time to have the practical expertise the author of this Wikipedia article is so dubious about.

Also, I imagine that Lord Peter Wimsey, while a competent man, really did learn most of his stuff at school. Gymnastics and bell-ringing come to mind. The real competent man in those books is Bunter. He is very skilled and hasn't had nearly the same education as his master.

Anyway. I got tired of listing all the characteristics a competent man should have so I deleted them. I'll just say that being a competent man, if your list is realistic, would be a very good goal indeed. It would be fulfilling and fascinate the ladies.

[Kissables]

Is it strange for a girl to want to be a competent man? Not "man", but competent person I guess. I would say that it is definitely a goal of mine, I'm just not sure how to obtain it, and when I could consider myself a confident person.

[Tao]

Is it strange for a girl to want to be a competent man? Not "man", but competent person I guess. I would say that it is definitely a goal of mine, I'm just not sure how to obtain it, and when I could consider myself a confident person.

Not strange at all, I'd say. I did not mean to disclude the distaff in any way.

I've spent the day taking umbrage at this line:

The competent man, more often than not, is written without explaining how he achieved his wide range of skills and abilities, especially as true expertise typically suggests practical experience instead of learning through books or formalized education alone

and then the inclusion of the Doctor on that list, because he's 900-some-odd years old, he's had plenty of time to have the practical expertise the author of this Wikipedia article is so dubious about.

Isn't that addressed with the next line: "While not implausible with older or unusually long lived characters, when such characters are young it is often not adequately explained as to how they acquired so many skills at an early age."? The character from whom the quote comes is, like the Doctor, also in the "older or unusually long lived" category, as he is essentially immortal.

Why do you suppose we don't see many characters like this? While it may be my own lack of pop awareness, House was the only modern example I recognized.

[Katya]

Why do you suppose we don't see many characters like this? While it may be my own lack of pop awareness, House was the only modern example I recognized.

According to the Writing Excuses folks, such heroes are out of fashion. We currently like our heroes more flawed and vulnerable.

[vorpal blade]

I used to love reading Heinlein.

The main character in "Groundhog Day" seemed to have learned a lot of skills while stuck in his endless repeat of Groundhog day. Not nearly as many skills, I suppose, as a "competent man."

I do prefer my escape reading to be about a competent man, rather than an incompetent, or flawed and vulnerable man. I think it is extremely unrealistic to think anyone could ever be competent like the man described by Humble Master.

[Whistler]

oh, what about Bones (from the TV show Bones)? She knows like, martial arts and random stuff along with forensic anthropology.

[Katya]

Link. I've recently become quite a fan of Heinlein, I'd be interested to get the boardboard's input on what it takes to be a competent man. Also, would you say that such competency is a valid goal for an individual?

Two questions:

1. Is this competency goal-directed, or is it just about assembling a collection of cool skills?

2. What's the opportunity cost of spending time and resources in pursuit of such competency?

[Kissables]

1- Just about assembling an arsenal of cool skills.

[Tao]

1. Is this competency goal-directed, or is it just about assembling a collection of cool skills?

2. What's the opportunity cost of spending time and resources in pursuit of such competency?

1. Could you elucidate?

2. Very good question. In the end, I'd think the cost of variety is the depth that comes with singularity. This is not always a bad thing, as we all spread our attentions, else we'd be as focused as Rainman in each of our endeavors. But to take the variety to the level Heinlein seems to urge us to strive for would demand a debt of significant focus and time. Each individual will pay this balance differently, sure. The excellent characters listed often are portrayed as so brilliant that the exchange rate was nigh infinite. Reality usually dictates we pay a more noticeable cost. The problem with assessing this cost is one intrinsic to any economics: how does one assign value? Is the market currently such that society is more benefited by a specialist or a generalist? How about the individual?

[Humble Master]

Generally in American popular culture we highlight a kind of hero referred to sometimes as "The Outlaw Hero" but that I prefer to call "The Outsider Hero." These heroes operate outside the bounds of society, but do so in order to protect society. Thus, they may break the rules of established order, but it is for a perceived greater good. Outsider heroes serve as a boundary between order and chaos, savagery and civilization, and possess elements of both. Typically in narratives civilization is represented by women and children, while savagery is represented by groups of men.

Think of the classic western motif, set on the literal boundary of wilderness and civilization. A family, often just a woman and children because the husband is either traveling for work or has died recently, is threatened by a gang of outlaws. In rides the cowboy to save civilization, but he uses savage methods to do so. Then he rides off into the sunset because he does not belong, but he'll come back and save the town anytime he's needed.

You can track these kinds of heroes in popular culture starting with the frontiersmen in dime novels (perhaps Natty Bumpo/Hawkeye in The Leatherstocking Tales is the first version of this), then onto cowboys, then private eyes (the woman comes into his office because the police (civilization) can't help her, he uses his underworld (savage) contacts to help him solve the case, but in the end he never settles down with the woman because he doesn't fit into polite society), then pulp action heroes, then some comic book superheroes (Batman=Outsider hero, Superman=Establishment hero), then spies and secret agents (James Bond, more recently Jack Bauer), rogues in science fiction (Han Solo), and now we find versions of these characters in procedural shows (House is a medical outsider hero, every cop show has one of these).

I think the outsider hero tends to fit the competent man role (they will always get the job done) but with a serious flaw Katya mentioned (preventing them from fitting into established and orderly society).

[Katya]

1. Is this competency goal-directed, or is it just about assembling a collection of cool skills?

1. Could you elucidate?

E.g., the skills that Bruce Wayne acquired to become Batman were directed towards the goal of fighting crime as an underworld vigilante. The skills that James Bond has are directed towards the goal of being a spy and a ladies' man.

Maybe it's more helpful to think of the skills that such a hero is unlikely to possess. Does Batman know how to write a sonnet? Does James Bond know how to knit a scarf? It's not impossible for either character to possess such a skill, but it seems unlikely (and I'm guessing neither one has ever demonstrated knowledge of those respective skills in any incarnation).

On the other hand, the idea behind being a Renaissance man (or woman) is to be generally cultured and educated, but without a specific goal in mind. I'm reminded of the definition of an "accomplished woman" from Pride and Prejudice:

"A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half-deserved."

"All this she must possess," added Darcy, "and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading."

[Katya]

These heroes operate outside the bounds of society, but do so in order to protect society. Thus, they may break the rules of established order, but it is for a perceived greater good. Outsider heroes serve as a boundary between order and chaos, savagery and civilization, and possess elements of both.

How similar is this to Neutral Good alignment?

[Gimgimno]

These heroes operate outside the bounds of society, but do so in order to protect society. Thus, they may break the rules of established order, but it is for a perceived greater good. Outsider heroes serve as a boundary between order and chaos, savagery and civilization, and possess elements of both.

How similar is this to Neutral Good alignment?

50 points to Gryffindor for spouting role-playing jargon on a whim. I'm so proud of you!

[Katya]

These heroes operate outside the bounds of society, but do so in order to protect society. Thus, they may break the rules of established order, but it is for a perceived greater good. Outsider heroes serve as a boundary between order and chaos, savagery and civilization, and possess elements of both.

How similar is this to Neutral Good alignment?

50 points to Gryffindor for spouting role-playing jargon on a whim. I'm so proud of you!

Ha! Well, -25 points (at least) for knowing the jargon because of TV Tropes, not because of RPGs.