Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#21

Post by mortivore » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

andreilys wrote: post #9

mortivore wrote: post #3

I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively. If something is popular, then it is good. Not to say it is without flaws. That is different. Take the example of spelling that another user brought up. They claimed it is objective, but that isn't really true. Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and the…

“I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively” The majority of Nazi Germany thought Nazi literature and art was good. Does that make nazi literature/art objectively good?

Yes. The culture decided it was so, and therefore it was. The majority of the United States seems to think the Bill of Rights is good, and therefore it is. The majority of Europeans seems to think the European Union is good, and therefore it is. Other cultures may not agree, but that doesn't matter.

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#22

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

mortivore wrote: post #3

I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively. If something is popular, then it is good. Not to say it is without flaws. That is different. Take the example of spelling that another user brought up. They claimed it is objective, but that isn't really true. Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and the…

> Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and therefore subjective.

This argument doesn't really work; it would be equally valid if you rephrased the question as "is the correct spelling 'thing' or 'thnig'?"

There is a difference of opinion on 'color', and none on 'thing', but they're equally "cultural".

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#23

Post by arodyginc » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

To be openly judged at something, you need to openly lay out your plans and then try to make it happen. If it worked out as expected - you're good at it.

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#24

Post by andyjohnson0 » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #14

Some kinds of performance are measurable. Tell me how long it takes you to run a 5K race and I can tell if you are a "good" runner. In the case of literature you can't stop someone from having a crackpot opinions such as "Tolkien sux because stories about 'other worlds' are escapist and distract workers from class struggles" or "I hate Tolkien because he inspired DanMachi and other sick anime that my boyfriend watche…

> He was a pagan

Tolkien was a pretty devout Roman Catholic [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien#Religion

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#25

Post by x87678r » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:15 PM UTC

Apreche wrote: post #7

Only if that something that someone does is objectively measurable. Usain Bolt, Michael Jordan, objectively the best at what they do.

Agreed Tolkein books are really boring and overly wordy. Shakespeare is worse.

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#26

Post by username90 » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:15 PM UTC

jasonv wrote: post #10

wilsonnb3 wrote: post #8

Yes, as long you properly define what it means to be good and make sure it's measurable. Tolkien is a good writer when we define 'good writer' as a writer whose stories are enjoyed by millions of people, or a writer who is capable of supporting themselves financially by writing fiction. One of the definitions of good is 'having the qualities required for a particular role', which is pretty explicit in requiring someo…

There are writers and artists whose work weren't discovered until after their death. Being a "good writer", IMO, is a technical determination.. whereas being a "good author" might be a tactical one -- sales, acclaim, popularity, etc. I think my answer to the OPs question is "yes".. but, just as I'm doing here, there are always detractors, and digressions available in these discussions.

> There are writers and artists whose work weren't discovered until after their death.

What does that have to do with whether we can call Tolkien an objectively good writer? Just because you can't apply that to everyone doesn't mean that you can never tell.

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#27

Post by lalaithion » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

Yes, you can be objectively good at simple tasks. You can be objectively good at typing, but not at writing. You can be good at dicing vegetables, but not at cooking. You can be good at knitting, but still knit nothing good if you lack the design choice to choose good things to knit.

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#28

Post by mortivore » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #22

mortivore wrote: post #3

I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively. If something is popular, then it is good. Not to say it is without flaws. That is different. Take the example of spelling that another user brought up. They claimed it is objective, but that isn't really true. Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and the…

> Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and therefore subjective. This argument doesn't really work; it would be equally valid if you rephrased the question as "is the correct spelling 'thing' or 'thnig'?" There is a difference of opinion on 'color', and none on 'thing', but they're equally "cultural".

That proves the argument. "Thing" is only considered correct because the culture has decided it is correct. If it changes to the alternative you proposed, then that would be correct. It wasn't even always "thing". It used to be different, and that was correct too.

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#29

Post by wilsonnb3 » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:19 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #12

wilsonnb3 wrote: post #8

Yes, as long you properly define what it means to be good and make sure it's measurable. Tolkien is a good writer when we define 'good writer' as a writer whose stories are enjoyed by millions of people, or a writer who is capable of supporting themselves financially by writing fiction. One of the definitions of good is 'having the qualities required for a particular role', which is pretty explicit in requiring someo…

> Yes, as long you properly define what it means to be good and make sure it's measurable. In this case it's no longer about being "good", it's just about "how does it measure according to a rule?" See Vincent van Gogh.

Yep, my point is that there is no 'good' without choosing rules to measure against.

Much like there is no 'moral' without choosing a set of philosophical rules to measure against.

Re: Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something?

#30

Post by Ancapistani » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

diehunde wrote: post #20

My opinion is that it is possible. But if you are rigorous about what "good" and "bad" means, then no because there's always going to be someone who thinks different. Can we say Mozart was a good composer? I'm pretty sure you can find music experts who would say no, even though the majority would say yes. I personally don't like the idea that art evaluation is completely subjective because then I can just spit on a c…

> [...] I can just spit on a canvas and say it's art and you don't have arguments to say it's bad art when in reality we "know" it's bad.

I'm no art historian, but I believe you just described Dada.