Thinking of it in the way you laid out with Joe, yes certainly competence and confidence should not be confused, or confidence inappropriately assigned. With Good Person Joe, on balance, that Goodness will, for me, encourage a confidence when compared to non-good person Joe. Here I don’t mean bad, but simply someone to whom Goodness is not first and foremost, not something they are particularly focused on and strive to be in everything they do. Thus, Good Joe would tend to be diligent and thorough and careful and so on. Also, more importantly, Good Joe would not take chances, especially where the safety of others is concerned. Even more importantly, since Humility and Modesty are so intertwined with the Good Persona and mindset, Good-Joe is unlikely to overestimate his abilities, more likely to underestimate, and thus, I typically would indeed have confidence in Good-Joe and the zip line. All conditional on Joe not being a Good fool. There are such. Like children who become immersed in beliefs which can lead to the overestimation of abilities and such problems. Thus in the case of Good Joe, a modicum of Sensibility is part of the assignment of Good. This was not my focus with the comment but it is interesting when thought through. I have actually used the Good Joe perspective with employees. I never bothered with qualifications much, If you were a good person, I’d hire you. No problem. Details could be learned. But lol, some good people could also get overwhelmed sometimes, unable to handle the trust placed on them, which really wasn’t much, and didn’t trust themselves to fulfil even the basic requirements on their own. They sometimes, purely via inappropriate imagination, created all sorts of stress for themselves because of extrapolating failure because they did not *specifically* know what to do. But that’s a separate long story.