Mediocrity

[Tamske]

What do you think of mediocrity?
If you do something, do you always try to be the best at it?
Are you okay with a mediocre result if you don't have to work too hard?
Are you okay with a mediocre result even if you did the best you could?

I hate mediocrity. When I was a student, I strived for 100%, not for a passing grade. I still do. I don't want to be a mediocre teacher. I want to be a good one. One of the best.
The result is that I'd never get a mediocre result by a mediocre dedication - if I don't strive for 100%, I FAIL. I've done that a few times already.
And I'm very disappointed when "the best I can" is only mediocre.

I've got a few ideas about link with type. I'd like to use the poll to test them.

 

[Phantonym]

What do you think of mediocrity?

I don't really like it all that much but I guess I'm willing to put up with it at times. It's also subjective, so what I do/do not consider mediocrity in myself or in others might not be the same all the time, or for others.

If you do something, do you always try to be the best at it?

No. Well, it depends. Most of the time I try to keep my expectations low and do as much as is needed, and as little as possible. It's funny really, I don't feel that I've really put 100% of myself into anything and it doesn't bother me. Definitely not in situations where what I do doesn't mean all that much to me. However, anything I do has to fit my own definition of a "successful" result and the process leading to that result, and it is not the same in every situation. So, there are times when some things are just too important not to at least try to give your best at. I guess I've been spoiled by a lifetime of not really trying all that hard but still mostly getting very good results. I've definitely taken that for granted, so I'm waiting for a time when it will finally catch up with me in a negative way.

Are you okay with a mediocre result if you don't have to work too hard?

I believe so, but it is dependent on my own, I guess I could call it mood, at that particular moment. My definition of "working hard" at something is not constant either. So, it all depends.

Are you okay with a mediocre result even if you did the best you could?

No. In that case I feel like a failure because I've let myself down and it's devastating. It takes quite a long time to get over that.

 

[Falcon]

What do you think of mediocrity?

I don't mind it as long as it does not get in my way.

If you do something, do you always try to be the best at it?

No, I try my best at it, but I don't try to be the best. It's an important nuance.

Are you okay with a mediocre result if you don't have to work too hard?

If it's functional, yes - my result must have some sort of practical use or else I don't bother.

Are you okay with a mediocre result even if you did the best you could?

The result isn't what matters, if you failed something, you still learnt something. If I did the best I could, I would still try again and train until I get it right. Good results are about persistence.

 

[Eckhart]

What do you think of mediocrity?
If you do something, do you always try to be the best at it?
Are you okay with a mediocre result if you don't have to work too hard?
Are you okay with a mediocre result even if you did the best you could?

It always depends on what it is I am doing. About some things I just don't care much, and then I am okay with a mediocre result definitely. I know I could do better often, but I just don't see it worth investing more than necessary into it. If it is something which I care more about, or where I put more effort into it, it will bother me more and I usually try to do my best, but it is not the end of the world for me if it doesn't go all well every time.

 

[Udog]

What do you think of mediocrity?
If you do something, do you always try to be the best at it?
Are you okay with a mediocre result if you don't have to work too hard?
Are you okay with a mediocre result even if you did the best you could?

1. I'm disappointed by mediocrity, but I think that hatred is too strong of an emotion for something that deserves passing acknowledgment at best.

2. If I'm passionate about it. If I don't try my best, I need to evaluate if it's something I should be doing at all, or if I need to change my mental attitude.

3. This is a dangerous trap.

4. Yes, although I will be disappointed and a bit angry initially. However, in the end it just means I need to learn how to do it better next time.

 

[Such Irony]

I'm confused on my J/P status so I didn't vote in the poll.

What do you think of mediocrity?

I try to avoid it if at all possible.

If you do something, do you always try to be the best at it?

I don't have to be the absolute best at it but I do believe in giving it my full effort if its something I care about or needs to get done. I definitely don't want to be the worst at it and I really don't like being just average at it. I don't have to be the very best but I strive to be better at it then most people.

Are you okay with a mediocre result if you don't have to work too hard?

Depends. Generally yes if it's an area I didn't care all that much about anyway.

Are you okay with a mediocre result even if you did the best you could?

No. It's very hard for me to handle it when I've given something my full effort and fallen short.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

What do you think of mediocrity?

Not my style.

If you do something, do you always try to be the best at it?

That's the only way I know how.

Are you okay with a mediocre result if you don't have to work too hard?

Depends.

Are you okay with a mediocre result even if you did the best you could?

Never.

 

[EJCC]

I didn't answer the poll because my opinions on mediocrity depend on whether I'm talking about myself or about other people. With other people, I'm fairly accepting about it. I might get frustrated, but I'll also think "Not everyone is good at everything." The only time I'd get frustrated with other people for being mediocre would be if I was banking on them NOT being mediocre - i.e. if they were SUPPOSED to be GOOD, and not average/bad.

My standards for myself, on the other hand, are much higher. Therefore, with regards to me: I HATE mediocrity; I ALWAYS try to be, if not the best, then really excellent at what I do; I'm only okay with mediocre results when they don't really matter (i.e. when a mediocre result would be completely acceptable and smiled upon); and I CANNOT STAND IT if my best is not excellent. I've always been the type of student who hates getting anything lower than an A... so, naturally, my inevitable C in Micro-Economics this semester is absolutely killing me.

So... should I vote my opinion about my own mediocrity in the poll, or other people's?

Edit:

What do you think of mediocrity?

Not my style.

Way to be!

 

[Tamske]

I didn't answer the poll because my opinions on mediocrity depend on whether I'm talking about myself or about other people.

I meant about yourself. I don't mind mediocrity in other people, either...
For me, it also depends on subject or skill. I don't really mind being mediocre or just plain bad at sports. But if there is a chance of me being good at something, I strive for being the best.

I actually used strong words like "hate" because I don't want everybody to say they strive to be the best. I can imagine that everybody wants to be the best at something; but there are gradations in it.

 

[slowriot]

well as a teenager I only did what would be mediocre because I was bored in school. In my 20's and now 30's I want to be the best. Something I struggle with since I have such a bad education compared to what I want with my life (= the best).

 

[Randomnity]

It depends on the situation. It sounds like you're defining mediocrity as "anything less than perfect" or "less than my absolute best under ideal circumstances" which is well, unrealistic, I think.

I tend to balance results against the costs. You tend to get diminishing returns as you approach perfection. So I'd rather study 10 hours for a 90 than 50 hours for 100.

That said, I'm uncomfortable with results significantly below my norm, even if they are "passable". I don't have a need to be the best at everything, or anything, because I don't think it's realistic or worth it, but I would like to be in a high percentile.

btw, perfectionism can be very damaging both to your mind and your work. It isn't a positive trait at all in most situations, unless you learn to mitigate its negative consequences.

 

[EJCC]

I meant about yourself. I don't mind mediocrity in other people, either...
For me, it also depends on subject or skill. I don't really mind being mediocre or just plain bad at sports. But if there is a chance of me being good at something, I strive for being the best.

I actually used strong words like "hate" because I don't want everybody to say they strive to be the best. I can imagine that everybody wants to be the best at something; but there are gradations in it.

Definitely. How it generally works for me is that I want to be GOOD at things (as opposed to "the best"; usually I won't care so much about being on top). If I'm not good at them, I'll avoid them as much as possible (e.g. sports), but if I'm not good at them and it's not a big deal and/or if I like it anyway, I'll keep doing it.
That wasn't phrased well.

 

[skylights]

I tend to balance results against the costs. You tend to get diminishing returns as you approach perfection. So I'd rather study 10 hours for a 90 than 50 hours for 100.

i used to be very perfectionistic. but it can be quite detrimental. like i would turn in two perfect worksheets but i wouldn't turn in the last one because i didn't get time to finish it perfectly, and i would get a 67. but if i had just turned in the last one 3/4 the way done, i would have a 92. an A.

i think there are times when it's very worth it to give it your all (eg, a presentation at a conference or a final project), but on a daily basis it's usually more worth it to give it 97% and use your extra time to relax and have some fun.

i am also much, much harder on myself than on others. i always thought that was a fairly universal quality?

 

[Coco]

As long it works, it's okay
I don't aim for the best, unless its something I really care about

 

[shmrie]

this is my attitude in the majority of my endeavors:

 

[FDG]

What do you think of mediocrity?

Well...it happens. I'm mediocre at a great number of things, since we don't have an infinity amount of time available.

If you do something, do you always try to be the best at it?

No, of course. I always define "best" on an universe-wise fashion, so in order to always be the best at what I try to do, I would have to be at least the best all over the world. I guess there might be an area where I'm rather talented and manage to become "world champion", yet I don't have time to be the best at everything.

Are you okay with a mediocre result if you don't have to work too hard?

I would really not make that choice, yet if I was forced to, I would probably accept the situation. For example, if I've been ill I can't expect to perform that great.

I hate mediocrity. When I was a student, I strived for 100%, not for a passing grade. I still do. I don't want to be a mediocre teacher. I want to be a good one. One of the best.

Many people all over the world get 100% grades. I define being "the best" as having won at least one Nobel Prize or World Championship, or something like that.

 

[Trepidation]

I'm fine with mediocrity, as long as I judge myself to be competent. I want to be good at what I do and find myself putting in a lot of effort even with things that I really don't want to do, but I don't think perfection and being 'the best' is a worthy or even attainable goal. If I don't put that effort in, I can't really expect anything other than a mediocre result. I just try to get the job done and get it done well instead of getting competitive with myself or others.

 

[FDG]

I've just read all the posts in this thread, and I'm quite puzzled. How can so many of you think they can be the best at what they do? Are you deluded, just plain unrealistic, or do you choose an extremely peculiar niche where you basically have 4-5 competitors all over the world?

Remember folks, being GOOD or GREAT is still very far from being the best. Being the best requires you to beat every other human being at a given point in time. It's not an easy feat, probability theory is against you.

 

[Chaotic Harmony]

While I try and strive to do my best.... If I don't succeed at being the best I'm not going to have an absolute meltdown and beat myself up for the rest of my life.... Mediocrity is perfectly fine. Not even trying is worse than being mediocre.

 

[EJCC]

I've just read all the posts in this thread, and I'm quite puzzled. How can so many of you think they can be the best at what they do? Are you deluded, just plain unrealistic, or do you choose an extremely peculiar niche where you basically have 4-5 competitors all over the world?

Remember folks, being GOOD or GREAT is still very far from being the best. Being the best requires you to beat every other human being at a given point in time. It's not an easy feat, probability theory is against you.

My answer to the bolded: We/they don't. I'm guessing that most people on this thread haven't been thinking that hard about the terms they've been using. (This includes me.) After all:

1. The term "the best" was used in the OP (which affects everyone's resulting word choice), and
2. "the best" might not mean, to the person using it, "the best in the world". It could mean "the best in my grade" or "the best in the HR department"...