When you see someone not doing work they really should be doing, the natural inclination is to say "He's lazy."
And if someone is putting in excellent, diligent, highly productive work -- you say, "She's really excellent."
But how much of these are really attributes of the people involved, and how much of it is how well their mechanics are in harmony with their environment?
It seems to me that saying a person is lazy or unskilled isn't very useful most of the time in terms of understanding that person.
The judgments seem to be, like, the equivalent of the stories we read to 5-year-olds.
"Look, there's the big bad ogre! Don't be like that!"
But it's actually not very helpful or descriptive to say someone is a bad person if they do something bad, nor to say someone is an idiot if they do something that seems foolish, or even that someone is selfish if they do something that imposes on others.
That self-absorbed person, quite simply, has mechanics that aggravate others. The person doing foolish things has not gotten a solid practical grasp and implementation of what Charlie Munger would call "elementary worldly wisdom." Even "bad" people are rarely evil so much as they're running flawed mechanics.
This doesn't excuse behavior, least of all your own. Radical personal responsibility is great for anyone reading this, and is a very good personal framework to build on. But when looking in the world, attaching labels to individuals after observing conduct you dislike -- seems counterproductive to getting results.
Real tangible example: "My boss is an idiot" becomes "My boss hasn't learned how to manage and motivate people to get the best out of them; or at least, I don't think I'm managed well."
The former? You're screwed. The latter? Well, you're still probably screwed. But there's a chance.
Note the quality of mechanics; work to improve the quality of the mechanics if you care; be careful inferring the quality of the person.