Rank and level of mastery ​

Nothing can be said about the work interests of the chief: they wander to the extent of the agent-in-position understanding their responsibilities. Similarly, nothing can be said about the work interests of the agent (most often a person) as the bearer of a title. Words like "professor," "PhD," "colonel," or "Red Banner Division" tell us nothing more than that the person or division has some experience in some unclear activity. A production workshop of advanced culture, like a Red Banner regiment: one cannot talk about the methods of work (what the workshop or regiment is engaged in), which roles they perform in these methods, the subject area remains unknown (Genetics? Artillery? Air transportation? Suppression of uprisings?). The title "People's Artist" does not clarify whether it refers to playing the role of Hamlet or Petrushka in completely different productions. It is a general characteristic of the actor-agent, but not a specification of the content specificity of the role itself, not an indication of the role's working method.

But the "degree of mastery"/qualification/competence of an executor in some role is important. We specifically talk about the degree, not the level of mastery, to avoid confusion with completely different levels (ontological in the hierarchy of types/meta-models, systemic in the hierarchy of system sizes considering their nesting). Levels usually refer to hierarchies, degrees refer to the manifestation of a certain property. Although language does not strictly follow these distinctions, for example, "volume level," even though there are no hierarchies based on volume, or "water level," where hierarchy is also absent. Nevertheless, we will talk about the degree of mastery and not the level, recognizing that in life, these terms will be synonyms.

Today, qualification is not seen as a set of individual knowledge, skills, and abilities, but as a set of competencies sufficient to play a role. Competence means that the performer of the role with this competence can successfully perform tasks not only on an exam but in real life, in a real project. Competence in a method includes not only knowledge-skills-abilities but also a personal attitude towards this method, taking on professional role responsibility, self-identification in the role for this method.

In fact, the traditional criteria of knowledge-skills-abilities (KSA) used in Russian and Soviet pedagogy do not include the skills of setting tasks in non-greenhouse conditions of real life, while competence involves task setting in real life for further solution—finding objects of interest in the role in life, the method master for which is the agent, the ability to maintain the role among the hustle and bustle and an abundance of irrelevant details for role-playing in life. Mastery is a part of personality. Personality--- it is the sum of the mastery of the agent, who besides personality ("mastery in some working methods") also has an organism ("equipment for the personality as a set of mastery") and can even be considered tools that enhance the capabilities of the personality in terms of certain methods (for example, a notebook as a memory enhancer for thinking mastery).

The personality manifests itself in the behavior extended by the agent's organism with tools. Of course, mastery of "performing a certain method"/"playing a role according to the script/algorithm of the method" in particular, and the personality as a whole as the sum of all such masteries, are functional entities that represent achievable constructs of an agent (brain, computer, and human or robot body in general, plus additional method tools---considering the agent with its tools)---creators/constructors who act according to the algorithms of their working methods as "transformation algorithms" (remember that constructor theory provides us with a theoretical generalization of universal computers/computers informational results according to some algorithms to universal converters of the physical environment to certain material results according to some algorithms). More about personality and its mastery, mastery training (personality development), and mastery assessment will be covered in the course "Engineering of Personality."

An actor who has the degree of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) mastery for the role of Prince Hamlet will be able to play Prince Hamlet at rehearsals and at most, at the final performance with strictly selected viewers. We can only guess how he will behave during tours in some rural backwater, not necessarily in his home country. A competent actor in playing the role of Prince Hamlet will be able to portray Prince Hamlet somewhere in a dense crowd amidst chaos (standard conditions in projects!), and when it is necessary to communicate with Yorick's skull, in the absence of the skull, he will even adapt some item, maybe a potato, or at least a paper with a drawn skull---and he will make this "skull" himself, figuring out how to do it. But most importantly, an individual with a mastery degree will find the missing members among the crowd to organize their role dialogues, rallying everyone around them!

He knows how to fit his work in the role into the collective's work while playing the role-playing game (we call such qualification/competence "practices"), and ultimately---to organize the collective to carry out new tasks. We call this qualification "master," although it is a narrow sense of the term "master." A broader concept is a "bearer of mastery." More meanings of the word "master" will be described in our courses in the course "Engineering of Personality."

Mastery includes some applied/narrow intelligence for the subject area of mastery. We have already noted that fundamental intelligence does not depend on the subject area, but in fairly broad subject areas, the number of possible objects of attention and actions that can be performed with them is large enough for the agent-in-role to have a general ability to deal with the situation, a "narrow but intelligent" one. Mastery in some broad field usually includes the ability to cope with tasks in the subject area of a certain method that neither the master as the bearer of mastery nor his teacher have encountered. In simple terms, if a situation arises in the play/game where a replica is needed that was not in the script for the role (in the project---perform an operation that was not taught in the course), the master will deliver this line (in the project---execute an operation that he was not taught), even if it means changing the type of mastery (if your car's engine stalls or its electric drive breaks, the driver's mastery won't help, you need to figure out how to shift to the mechanic's mastery, or call an agent who has this mastery). In applied mastery, intelligence (both applied/narrow and fundamental/universal) plays a significant role because you always have to be on your guard: in life, when performing a method, things regularly do not go "as planned" in knowledge/theory/explanations of that method, and you need to quickly understand what to do in that case.

You can then move away from pedagogical jargon (both old with knowledge-skills-abilities and new "competency-based") and simply talk about the mastery of performing a method, the mastery of playing a specific role, the mastery in an occupied (professional) position. A chief who began (often unnoticed to himself) to play a specific command professional/functional role (for example, a system architect, as he noticed that this role was not being performed, and there are already several groups of developers whose work needs urgent organizing in terms of interface organization between the autonomous modules of the system being created) may be a master in this field, a well-trained novice, or may not understand system architecture at all. It is important to understand not only what role a person plays but the degree of mastery in performing the method of that role. Because if there is no mastery, then in the project, you will have to find someone who can perform tasks using the method and, therefore, can play this role effectively, otherwise, there will be no successful project. You cannot look for a "performer of the required role"; you need to find someone who can work in the required method, possessing a high degree of mastery in working according to the required method---then appoint him as the role executor, and even engage leadership::method to ensure that the appointed role executor actually performs task methods and collaborates with other role executors. You need to achieve results; this is done by executing tasks according to some methods, not just any work. You don't just need to have a "role player"; you need them to be able to work according to the method of that role!

Questions about methods and the selection of people-role players for these methods are different issues! First, you have to say, "we need precise measurements; these methods are practiced in metrology," then "this means we need a metrologist," and only then select people for the role based on the degree of their mastery in performing precise measurements. Thus, the "degree of mastery"/qualification/competence of Maria in precise measurements, that is, as a metrologist, is zero; Petya has never performed tasks in metrology, but he studied metrology in college five years ago (so he has a somewhat non-zero mastery in metrology), but Aristarkh Nikanorovich defended his doctoral dissertation in metrology a month ago---his mastery in metrology is higher than required for the work of a metrologist in the current project.