Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 62 posts

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

#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 that's not actually any help. College admissions departments think so, too. But grad school admissions people don't think so at all, and neither do math department hiring committees. This shows the problem: There is a measure that can objectively be met or failed, but is it the right measure? How can you tell? Not objectively.

Second, in many fields, there is no analog to the AP test. Is Tolkein a good writer? Is the Mona Lisa a good painting? There is no clearly objective measure. The only measure is that many people think so; more people than think, say, my daughter's watercolor is a good painting. That's subjective, but at least it has the merit of being subjectively shared by many people. And with something like Mona Lisa, it's shared by many people across many years - it's not just today's fad. That's still subjective, but it's at least a subjectivity that has widespread agreement to it.

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

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> "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.

Sure, but it's not correct now, despite being cultural.

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

#43

"good" is a subjective term by definition. What you mean by "objectively good at something" can at best mean "many people think the person is good at something". What's considered "good" also changes over time. "Earth is flat" was a "good" theory until people found out other possibilities, and so on.

It is only subjective in certain context. The arts are inherently subjective I think. On the other hand I struggle to find an argument where one can't define Olympic gold medalists as objectively "good" in in their respective pursuits. Or at the very least those medalists who are quantifiably greater than the competition by time or other metrics.

Diving, gymnastics, figure skating etc. are in some respects subjective arts.

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

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "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. Sure, but it's not correct now, despite being cultural.

Exactly. The culture is what determines good spelling.

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

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

That doesn’t make it an objective good. Just because the culture at large is under delusions and hysteria does not mean their assessment of reality maps to an objective good

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

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn’t make it an objective good. Just because the culture at large is under delusions and hysteria does not mean their assessment of reality maps to an objective good

Considering I'm saying the mapping for an objective good is popularity it does. What definition of objective good are you using?

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

#48

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…

"-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.

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

#49

Michael Jackson is a good basketball player. Wayne Gretzky is a good hockey player. Mike Tyson is a good boxer. I think we can easily say these unbelievable athletes are "good" at their respective sport.

I would add Michael Jordan as a good singer. ;)

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

#50
post #2

Writing is creative and typically produces a final product that is subjective. However there are components of writing such as spelling that are not subjective. It seems reasonable to me to say that he is a popular writer and subjectively good and that he is an objectively good speller.

> there are components of writing such as spelling that are not subjective I'm not sure this is the case, at least not in English. Which is correct: "color" or "colour"? They are both correct, of course, but for different dialects of English (en-US vs. en-UK) Another example that I recently came across that is not dialect/localization dependent: what is the word for "able to be parsed"? Is it "parseable" (with an "e"…

For an objective measure we expect/demand a measurement standard. There are standards that would say one way or the other is the only way, while there are other more relaxed standards that say either is acceptable. If you know the standard measure you can objectively say if "color" is correct or not.

For example, if we accept Merriam-Webster as our standard measure then in each case both spellings of color/colour and indexes/indices are acceptable. One might be preferred over the other but both are objectively correct.

We would then conclude that an author writing for a US audience (per the standard measure of Merriam-Webster) would not have erred in using colour (or color).

Post reply on HN