How Do You Know You're Good at Something?

[Such Irony]

To answer my own questions:

1. Do you go primarily by external validation? Do you feel you are good at something if you get complimented a lot?

Yes, external validation does play an important role. There have been times where I've thought I was doing fine, only to receive feedback suggesting the contrary. The things I get complimented on the most are likely to be the things I'm better at. Of course its important to evaluate the source of the feedback for reliability. I also think its useful to get feedback from multiple people rather than just one person.


2. Do you go by objective, measureable criteria? For example, do you conclude you're good at math because you get straight A's? Or you're good at baseball because you have a high batting average?

Yes, to the point where I'm kinda neurotic about it. In general, people may not always be truthful, but numbers rarely lie. In school, I was competitive in terms of GPA and class rank. I know IQ scores aren't everything but when I score high on an IQ test, it's a big ego booster for me. People can tell me I'm smart and I'm not always sure whether or not they really know what they are talking about.

3. Do you go primarily by internal standards? That is, you have criteria in your mind and if you satisfy those criteria, you consider yourself good? For example, you might consider yourself good at playing a certain musical instrument if you can master the songs you set out to master.

Yes, internal standards are important too. I think in order to truly feel like I'm good at something, I have to feel good about the result. Some skills are hard to numerically quantify and since some external sources can be dubious, this is where internal standards come in.

I think in order for me to truly feel like I'm good at something, I need to feel like all three of the above are satisfied.


4. Do do you think its futile to measure how good you are at something because so many different definitions exist, so why bother?

I've thought alot about this lately and wonder if it is even possible to define what good at something is. That's why I'm posting this thread. Yes, people are going to evaluate it differently. Yes, there's going to be disagreement. But even if there are differing ideas, I want to satisfy my own definition of being good at something, which takes into consideration a combination of external and internal criteria.


5. Or are you simply focused on doing what you like and rarely think about or notice how good or bad at it you are?

I wish I were more like that and didn't care about being good at it so much.

6. Do think different types use different criteria for determining whether they believe they are good or bad at something?

Yes. I think objective, measurable criteria correlates more with thinking. Feeling types probably use more subjective criteria like whether themselves or others are personally satisfied with it.

I'm guessing extraverted types seek more external validation? I could be wrong here.


7. Do you think some types are more inclined to care more about being good at stuff then other types?

I think all types want to feel like they are good at the things that matter to them. I think people value being good at doing things that pertain to their strong functions.

I'm interested to see how others will respond to these questions.

 

[Moiety]

It's something that never really concerned me, whether I'm good or something or not. It's more about enjoyment. If I enjoy something, I don't need any kind of external validation.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

External validation is da bomb. I get satisfaction out of meeting the requirements of a job with the least amount of effort, especially if others can't do the same. I view it as a competition, otherwise my motivation towards action is greatly hindered.

 

[INTP]

1. Do you go primarily by external validation? Do you feel you are good at something if you get complimented a lot?

external validation only offers other peoples opinion if i am good at something or not. their opinion is not necessarily same as mine.

2. Do you go by objective, measureable criteria? For example, do you conclude you're good at math because you get straight A's? Or you're good at baseball because you have a high batting average?

hmm. quite rarely there is an objective criteria that i can use to measure how good am i, so i dont use one usually.

3. Do you go primarily by internal standards? That is, you have criteria in your mind and if you satisfy those criteria, you consider yourself good? For example, you might consider yourself good at playing a certain musical instrument if you can master the songs you set out to master.

dunno, i dont really understand what you try to ask here. but i set my internal standards by comparing my work to peoples work that i think are good at it.

4. Do do you think its futile to measure how good you are at something because so many different definitions exist, so why bother?

i dont really care until i can say that i master something completely. usually it frustrates me if someone asks me if im good at something, because its a matter of opinion and if people ask my opinion, im always comparing myself to people who are better than me or else i couldnt get better at it.

5. Or are you simply focused on doing what you like and rarely think about or notice how good or bad at it you are?

im focusing on doing things the best way i can. i notice flaws in what i do and criticize my work, but that doesent mean that i think im bad, i do that even if i know that im better at it than 99% of people, i do it in order to get better by learning what i did wrong.

6. Do think different types use different criteria for determining whether they believe they are good or bad at something?

i dont think type has a strong influence about this, but there might be some correlation

7. Do you think some types are more inclined to care more about being good at stuff then other types?

i dont think type has a strong influence about this, but there might be some correlation

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

How Do You Know You're Good at Something?

You get better at it faster than anyone else.

For example: I could pick up a 15 strike Muay Thai combination in a single class.

 

[Blown Ghost]

when you don't have to ask this question

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

1. Do you go primarily by external validation? Do you feel you are good at something if you get complimented a lot?

Yeah, I think so. If you go purely by your own opinion, it's probably going to be subject to bias.

2. Do you go by objective, measureable criteria? For example, do you conclude you're good at math because you get straight A's? Or you're good at baseball because you have a high batting average?

Uh... To a degree. I don't know how to explain exactly what determines how good at things I think I am. Perhaps comparitive skill to those around me or other people practicing the skill. Nonetheless, scores tend to be a reasonably accurate way of assessment, if you take into account extra factors. Some skills are hard to score though, like creaticity. That sort of thing would rely on a mixture of others opinions and how I felt about it.


3. Do you go primarily by internal standards? That is, you have criteria in your mind and if you satisfy those criteria, you consider yourself good? For example, you might consider yourself good at playing a certain musical instrument if you can master the songs you set out to master.

Yes, them too. It's a mixture of both. You can't judge something purely by scores, as they can be innacurate, and you can't judge purely by how you feel about it, because you can be biased. An example of internal standards is actually this, when I realise I have been confusing topics or incorrectly understanding things, such as I have with MBTI a bit, it makes me feel like I've failed, and that I'm not good enough.

4. Do do you think its futile to measure how good you are at something because so many different definitions exist, so why bother?

Sort of. Skill is often difficult to quantify. There are the scores, the identifiable results and the personal benchmarks, but they are often rather imprecise, and there are so many factors that defne skill at something. That is why people often disagree on who is the best at something, because skill is a complex and dynamic system, not a solid meter.

5. Or are you simply focused on doing what you like and rarely think about or notice how good or bad at it you are?

I like to be good at what I like and can get very dissapointed in myself if I am not. However, I will still probably do something I like if I am not terribly good at it, or at least get a new interest. I think the fact that I'm doing what I like is more important than the skill I have in said thing, unless of course it makes an important difference to the world. Don't want to be a Homer Simpson, causing nuclear meltdowns.


6. Do think different types use different criteria for determining whether they believe they are good or bad at something?

Yes. Everyone's different and will have different types of standards.

7. Do you think some types are more inclined to care more about being good at stuff then other types?

Yes. EPs tend to be more just wanting to try things out, and the other types strive towards a somewhat more perfectionistic sense, though not always.

 

[INTP]

..it makes me feel like I've failed, and that I'm not good enough.

you should think it as you weren't good enough, instead of that you arent good enough

 

[animenagai]

I know I'm good at something using my own 'tests'. External validation is the bomb but that doesn't mean that I will believe I'm good at something because of it. It's just icing on the cake really, nothing more. At the end of the day, the only person that really knows my thought processes is myself. I know where I am with my skills, nothing else can ever tell me as much.

 

[skylights]

when you don't have to ask this question

^ succinct and true

1. Do you go primarily by external validation? Do you feel you are good at something if you get complimented a lot?

somewhat. i'm a big sucker for external validation, but i think that a lack of external validation is a more reliable indicator that i'm not as good as i'd thought/hoped at something than the presence of external validation is an indicator that i am good. i love it, but don't always trust it. most people are nice but some just have no idea what they're talking about in regards to certain subjects.

2. Do you go by objective, measureable criteria? For example, do you conclude you're good at math because you get straight A's? Or you're good at baseball because you have a high batting average?

more than validation from other people, yes. i still distrust numbers, because they're only as good as the people who created the criterion. like the example of the IQ test. i would hate to get a poor score on it (have never taken it), but fundamentally i think it's kind of a stupid test for anything but checking to see if a child could use extra assistance.

3. Do you go primarily by internal standards? That is, you have criteria in your mind and if you satisfy those criteria, you consider yourself good? For example, you might consider yourself good at playing a certain musical instrument if you can master the songs you set out to master.

yes. this is the most important factor for me, because it's the only one that ultimately matters.

4. Do do you think its futile to measure how good you are at something because so many different definitions exist, so why bother?

yes and no - i think to some extent judgments measurements are important, because we need an indicator of progress and comparison. otherwise you'd have little motivation to keep practicing, or to put in the work to excel. but ultimately i think what is most important is that you enjoy what you're doing.

5. Or are you simply focused on doing what you like and rarely think about or notice how good or bad at it you are?

i think it depends on what we're talking about. if it's something purely for the enjoyment of it, like a video game, i really don't care if i'm good at it. it's true that i basically want to be proficient at almost everything, but once i'm proficient, i don't care about mastery as much.

to be honest though, i think i care enough that i'm usually good at most things. i believe that i have the ability to be good at anything if i choose to put in enough work, so i'm rarely worried that i won't be good at something. and that means that usually i'm more focused on the fun of it, unless i have a specific reason to want to excel.

6. Do think different types use different criteria for determining whether they believe they are good or bad at something?

Yes. I think objective, measurable criteria correlates more with thinking. Feeling types probably use more subjective criteria like whether themselves or others are personally satisfied with it. I'm guessing extraverted types seek more external validation? I could be wrong here.

i agree with all this - though i also think objective/external criteria also correlate more with Fe and Te, while subjective/internal criteria correlate more with Ti and Fi.

i think Ne/Se doms are likely to enjoy but not use external validation, if that makes sense. we appreciate environmental feedback but if it doesn't align with our internal Judgments, then it's pleasant but irrelevant.

7. Do you think some types are more inclined to care more about being good at stuff then other types?

I think all types want to feel like they are good at the things that matter to them. I think people value being good at doing things that pertain to their strong functions.

agree. i also think certain types will exhibit their hangups about wanting to be good at things in different ways.

EPs tend to be more just wanting to try things out, and the other types strive towards a somewhat more perfectionistic sense, though not always.

actually, personally i am very perfectionistic, and i've heard similar things from other ENFPs too. i think that there shouldn't be any expectation to be good at something the first time you try it (though it's pleasant, certainly), and i try a lot of things out, but you'll almost always see that if i don't do it well the first time, i'm chomping at the bit to do it again. i hate walking away from a challenge. i also will work really hard on things like projects to make sure every single thing is right. i HATE typos, and i used to prefer to not turn in schoolwork at all than to turn it in poorly done or half-done (until i realized that was screwing up my grades). i've always gotten top marks in school and i beat myself up over it if i don't.

it's only a personal thing, though - i have really high standards of myself but i don't feel the same way about other people, so i feel like i don't come off as perfectionistic as some other types.

 

[rav3n]

Set standards and goals. Once you've attained those goals using internal standards, you're there.

 

[INTP]

Set standards and goals. Once you've attained those goals using internal standards, you're there.

thats just a waypoint where you start to look for new goals . if you set your standards and goals when you are a total newbie in something, those standards and goals wont do it when playing with the big boys

 

[rav3n]

thats just a waypoint where you start to look for new goals . if you set your standards and goals when you are a total newbie in something, those standards and goals wont do it when playing with the big boys

Nothing wrong with forwarding goal posts when the first goal has been attained. It doesn't mean you aren't good at something as an amateur.

 

[INTP]

Nothing wrong with forwarding goal posts when the first goal has been attained. It doesn't mean you aren't good at something as an amateur.

but you arent actually good at something if you are still an amateur

 

[rav3n]

but you arent actually good at something if you are still an amateur

Only if you're reliant on external comparisons and standards to confirm "good" or not.

E - To add to this by shifting perspective, there's an original assumption that internal standards and goals can't exceed external comparisons which isn't always true.

 

[Saslou]

The difference for be being good at something depends on if i am doing it alone or with someone else.

If i am working with a client, i get them to fill out a comment card at the end of the session and ask for honesty & constructive criticism so i am able to perform the next session with more accuracy. All but one card has been positive and it feels good especially when they write a comment about the service they received.

If i am working alone then i just go with what i think. For example i recently started a computerised accounts course, i've completed 4 sessions (2 practice papers) and i'm ready for the exam .. It's too easy even though i have never used sage 2011 previously and last did basic bookkeeping 7 years ago.

I know i'm great at interacting with strangers .. How? they walk away smiling, telling me to have a good day.

I have strengths and weaknesses and appreciate both. If i require assistance at work, i'll ask for it. At home is a different matter though, lol.