I agree that there is a (context-dependent) spectrum of usefulness of a skill.
But I don’t like the term “anti-skill” because “anti” implies the opposite of a skill—the inability to do something instead of a net negative effect. Additionally it is not clear what to call the neutral form. Also your examples are highly context sensitive—as you agree. I’d first like to see an example that is at least net-negative for the average case.
Instead I’d propose detach the usefulness from the word. Say advantagegous/neutral/disadvantageous skill.
I disagree with your preconceptions about the “anti” prefix. For example, an anti-hero is certainly a hero. I think it is reasonable to consider “anti” a contextually overloaded semantic negater whose scope does not have to be the naive interpretation: anti-X can refer to “opposite of X” or “opposite or lacking of a trait highly correlated with X” with the exact choice clear from context.
Hm, yes. “anti” can and is used in that way. I agree. But as always the readings of a word are disambiguated by context. And here I’m not so sure. But OK, I can live with anti-skill.
I used the term antiskill for parallelism with the concept of an antipattern. While I agree it is somewhat imprecise, I think the parallelism, ease of use in speech, and general aesthetic virtue of the term is enough for it to be better than “disadvantageous skill”—though I had considered that earlier and certainly think it’s a potentially valid choice
The martial arts example I provided in this comment may prove to your liking.
I agree that there is a (context-dependent) spectrum of usefulness of a skill.
But I don’t like the term “anti-skill” because “anti” implies the opposite of a skill—the inability to do something instead of a net negative effect. Additionally it is not clear what to call the neutral form. Also your examples are highly context sensitive—as you agree. I’d first like to see an example that is at least net-negative for the average case.
Instead I’d propose detach the usefulness from the word. Say advantagegous/neutral/disadvantageous skill.
I disagree with your preconceptions about the “anti” prefix. For example, an anti-hero is certainly a hero. I think it is reasonable to consider “anti” a contextually overloaded semantic negater whose scope does not have to be the naive interpretation: anti-X can refer to “opposite of X” or “opposite or lacking of a trait highly correlated with X” with the exact choice clear from context.
Hm, yes. “anti” can and is used in that way. I agree. But as always the readings of a word are disambiguated by context. And here I’m not so sure. But OK, I can live with anti-skill.
It feels good knowing you changed your mind in response to my rebuttal.
I used the term antiskill for parallelism with the concept of an antipattern. While I agree it is somewhat imprecise, I think the parallelism, ease of use in speech, and general aesthetic virtue of the term is enough for it to be better than “disadvantageous skill”—though I had considered that earlier and certainly think it’s a potentially valid choice
The martial arts example I provided in this comment may prove to your liking.
Indeed it does. I have to point out that even that skill strongly depends on context (albeit a specifc but very common context).