Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

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

#51

Post by uberman »

flexlikely wrote: post #13
flexlikely wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

counterpoint: intentional misspelling to convey a specific dialect or affect.

i.e., the subjective quality of the work is enhanced by intentional introduction of "inaccurate" or low-objective-quality spelling.

If we would otherwise say that someone is a good speller, but recognize for some artistic reason an author is intentionally misspelling some words then have they actually made an error?

Does the ability to do something intentionally wrong for artistic reasons reveal that you are objectively less skilled at a task or more skilled?

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

#52

Post by kazinator »

c22 wrote: post #48
kazinator wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"-our" endings are a fairly recent British concoction based on French envy. (French spells it "couleur".) French probably has a good reason to write it that way because it captures the phonetics. The extra "u" does nothing in English other than take up space and ink. The "color" spelling is: (1) shorter: absence of the superfluous is better than its presence; (2) etymologically correct, since the Latin original is "c…

By the same reasoning I see you've incorrectly spelled superfluus .

The reasoning is not the same at all.

Firstly, I'm not aware of a documented "superfluus" usage in English. Maybe we have to go back more than seven or eight hundred years to find it?

Secondly, "-ous" (like "-ose") functions generally as an adjective-forming suffix and is derived from the Latin "-ōsus"; it does not correspond to, and is not an expansion of the the "us" ending in "superfluus". "superflous" can be regarded as a derivation of "superfluus" that has been regularized with the "-ous" ending to make it recognizable as an adjective. This has happened with other words, like "continuus" and "contiguus". In contrast to these, many "-ous" words in fact some from ancient "-ōsus" counterparts, like "numerous" from "numerōsus".

The case for reviving "-ōsus" in English isn't very good; since neither of its "s"s are silent, it calls for a change in the actual spoken words, rather than merely spelling. Plus, it is unfamiliar to English speakers.

The case for creating a class of "-us" adjectives to restore Latin spellings like "contiguus" or "superfluus" is also not very good. It may be shorter, but adds to the proliferation of suffixes. To retain the pronunciations, we need "uu" to be rendered as the diphthong /yuə/ or /uə/, the precedent for which is scarce (being apparently limited to just "continuum"?) I'm not aware of any dialect of English in which such a restoration attempt has taken place, unlike "color" and "neighbor".

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

#53

Post by c22 »

kazinator wrote: post #52
c22 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the same reasoning I see you've incorrectly spelled superfluus .

The reasoning is not the same at all. Firstly, I'm not aware of a documented "superfluus" usage in English. Maybe we have to go back more than seven or eight hundred years to find it? Secondly, "-ous" (like "-ose") functions generally as an adjective-forming suffix and is derived from the Latin "-ōsus"; it does not correspond to, and is not an expansion of the the "us" ending in "superfluus". "superflous" can be rega…

Now you're applying different reasoning. You may be right, I don't speak latin.

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

#54

Post by trwhite »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41

"Objectively" means that someone should be able to unambiguously tell, without having to apply any judgment. And yes, it's possible. Am I objectively good at calculus? I passed the AP test. That's an objective measure. But it's not that simple, for at least two reasons. First, it's always possible to question the "objective measure". Is the AP test a good test of whether someone is good at calculus? AP says so, but t…

> There is a measure that can objectively be met or failed, but is it the right measure? How can you tell? Not objectively.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this. Thanks for responding.

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

#55

Post by cafard »

Well, that's one of the reasons that athletic competitions are popular. At the end of 100 meters, someone's in front. And within the sciences and technical fields, the limits of charlatanism are sooner reached. Plenty of writers go out of fashion pretty quickly, but it takes a Stalin to back a Lysenko.

I would say that there are better and worse writers, and I can offer my reasons where I offer an opinion. Yet I know that there have been ages that reversed the attributions of better and worse held now. Shakespeare was out of fashion for a good part of a century, to name an obvious example in the English-speaking world.

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

#56

Post by muzani »

username90 wrote: post #26
jasonv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think he makes the distinction that those people were good writers but not good authors. Tolkien was both a good writer and author.

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

#57

Post by muzani »

Cash is one way to judge talent. How much cash would people pay for a service? If you can make money off glass jewelry, you're a decent jeweler. An objectively great chef would have people booking his restaurant months in advance and charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for a meal. If you're not able to make a cent off it, you're not yet skilled enough.

In the classes I teach, I design the skills learned in terms of cash. A 3 day class will teach you enough to avoid paying a professional to do something, but not enough to get a job. A 3 month bootcamp will be enough to land you a nice job, but not $X salary.

With Patreon today, it's more directly correlated than ever. Even skills like birdwatching or poetry could pay out.

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

#58

Post by abhayhegde »

I don't think there is an absolute best. Everything is relative. Suppose somebody scores 100 out of 100 in a test. Is that supposed to be objectively good/best?

When we say someone is the best in their field, all we mean is that they seem to do something much better than everybody else in that domain or they possess some special quality that not many others have it.

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

#59

Post by gitgud »

Some people believe that if something can be judged subjectively, then it can only be judged subjectively. Modern art is often only critiqued in a subjective way, rather than objectively. But that's not necessarily always right.

For example; a good movie can be subjectively bad (you didn't like it), but objectively good (great filmography, original plot, consistent story mechanics). And vice versa.

I suppose subjective criticism is like your gut-instincts, whereas objective criticism is trying to quantify metrics which explain these instincts.

Yes, I believe you can be objectively good at anything if you practice enough and receive feedback/make an impact.

Can you be a great writer if nobody reads your work? Can you be a great artist if nobody sees your paintings? ...... I'm not sure you can be honestly good at something if there's no audience to witness it......

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

#60

Post by jasonv »

username90 wrote: post #26
jasonv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...and, actually, I thought I was replying to one of the other comments, not the OP. Would've made more sense if I placed my comment properly.. :-(
Post reply on HN