[bigred100]

If someone makes an effort to present themselves as extraordinarily competent I’ll start watching them to try and figure out whether it’s true. If they’re extraordinarily competent then there’s not much to conclude. If they’re just normal but exceedingly interested in looking competent, I know they’re self-promoters and not really trustworthy.

If they act normal and are of normal competence, then again there’s not much that you need to think about. If they’re very competent and act normal my guess is they can be trusted to give generally honest assessments of different situations without worrying too much about looking good.

[twic]

Overt signals of competence are a huge red flag to me. I've been lucky enough to work with some brilliant people, and most of them seem like baffled slobs when one first meets them.

[yebyen]

One who is especially talented may often have the appearance of not knowing what they are doing, if you watch them closely while they are learning the behavior of a system. I've seen it suggested that there is a certain pattern of inquisitive behavior that can be seen in this kind of person, that has almost the appearance of a "random walk."

This may appear to the untrained eye as incompetence, maybe imagine the dumbest possible way to navigate an interface, but in the thought process of someone who learns a thing inside and out, behaving in this way can actually promote a more complete understanding.

I mean to elaborate on the idea of "baffled slobs" – not sure if this is exactly what you meant.

[bigred100]

Paraphrase of a quotation of some guy’s high school wrestling coach I read many years ago:

Dumb athletes are better at the start because they’ll just do what their coach tells them, but smart ones eventually overtake them as they figure things out.