
Ask HN: Is it possible to be objectively good at something? - trwhite
If most kinds of success or talent are usually perceived, can we ever truly say someone is &quot;good&quot; at something? For example Tolkien was very popular but does that make him a &quot;good&quot; writer?<p>I understand this kind of question is going to produce lots of different opinions. That&#x27;s the idea.
======
wilsonnb3
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 someone to establish
criteria with which you judge something as 'good'.

~~~
jasonv
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.

~~~
username90
> 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.

~~~
jasonv
...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.. :-(

------
cocktailpeanuts
"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.

~~~
hoopleheaded
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.

------
PaulHoule
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 watches".

The value of Tolkien as a writer goes beyond "he sold a lot of books" to the
influence he had with other writers. He was a pagan but certainly had common
cause with his Christian friend C.S. Lewis when it came to the books they
wrote. Whether or not you think Tolkien's influence is good or fair, it is
objective that the influence was vast.

~~~
JadoJodo
> He was a pagan

This gave me pause.

"Tolkien's Roman Catholicism was a significant factor in C. S. Lewis's
conversion from atheism to Christianity, although Tolkien was dismayed that
Lewis chose to join the Church of England."[0]

[0] -
[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/J._R._R._Tolkien#/Religion](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/J._R._R._Tolkien#/Religion)

------
kjaftaedi
I think this entirely depends on if the people involved in the comparison are
using the same basis of measurement.

If everyone agrees on what is being measured and how, then it should be easy
to then do the measurements to get results. (who is best)

If the people involved in the comparison don't agree to a basis of
measurement, then it's an exercise in futility and nothing more than an
exchange of opinions.

------
motohagiography
Oddly, I interpreted "objectively," as necessarily immeasurable, in contrast
to commenters here who state the prerequisite is that "good," be measurable.
The example I think of is judged sports, which are essentially arts with a
measurement criteria bolted on to them after the fact to facilitate
governance. In these cases, the interpretation of the performance does more to
legitimize the governance and the judges than it does to meaningfully evaluate
the performance itself.

In this sense, I'd posit "objectively good," is a question of beauty, and not
measurement criteria. Those sports suffer from the Goodhart's Law problem
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)),
where you don't need a competition to recognize someone is objectively good at
something if they perform it beautifully.

The idea of "good," as a set of measurable scalar quantities presumes that you
can express the object in those terms, which in the case of writing or a
performance, you can't. There is no set of instructions that can reproduce a
"real" performance.

You can produce something where people won't care about its difference from
the "real" one (lots of economics and cog.sci on that one), but the existence
of a simulation does not change the fact of the existence of the real.

For example, if some future GPT-7 produced the literary equivalent to crack
cocaine, it would still not be Ted Chiang, whose work is beautiful and could
be said to be objectively good. People might prefer this new crack-lit, which
mutes their ability to sense ugliness, parasitism, disgust, or horror, but its
existence does not obviate the existence of Chiang. That essential existence
is what makes Chiang an objective phenomenon, and the beauty of his work is
what makes it good.

I don't think there are short answers to this question though. :)

------
uberman
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.

~~~
Ancapistani
> 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") or "parsable" (sans "e")?

While I've found some sources assert that "parsable" is correct - and I
believe it is - others claim that they're both correct or that "parseable" is
the correct form.

Suppose I'm working on optimizing a database. I add an index to the the
columns `bar` and `baz` of the `foo` table. Have I added two "indexes" or two
"indices"? While some sources say that "indexes" is an acceptable way to
pluralize the word in English, they seem to all agree that "indices" is also
correct. See: [https://grammarist.com/usage/indexes-
indices/](https://grammarist.com/usage/indexes-indices/)

To make it more complicated, the link above states:

> [...] "indices" is generally preferred in mathematical, financial, and
> technical contexts, while "indexes" is relatively common in general usage.

Databases are certainly technical contexts... but I've never seen "indices"
used in documentation:

    
    
        https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/indexes.html
        https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/invisible-indexes.html
        https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/20/admin/managing-indexes.html#GUID-AAE78F92-0ADF-4FB1-9949-DC7F2B6363BE
    

So... which is correct? :)

~~~
uberman
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).

------
AnimalMuppet
"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.

~~~
trwhite
> 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.

------
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......

------
Gsydvdndh12876
My understanding of your use of the word "good" here is that you are referring
to "quality". If so, then the philosophical discussion about "quality" has
been covered at length by many great philosophers, one interesting example
being "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance".

~~~
Gsydvdndh12876
My use of the word "great" here is, of course, debatable.

------
lalaithion
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.

------
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.

------
mortivore
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 therefore subjective. Unless you
hold as I do that popularity is similar enough to objectivity to qualify. The
cultural or popular notion determine what is right regarding subjectively
judged subjects. This notion, including the spelling and even usage of words,
can change over time.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> 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".

~~~
mortivore
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.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> "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.

~~~
mortivore
Exactly. The culture is what determines good spelling.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Again, it's cultural, but that doesn't make it subjective. The fact that it
will be different in the future doesn't tell you that it's already different
now. There is a fact of the matter here on which everyone already agrees; it's
as objective as any other fact.

~~~
mortivore
Yes, it does. Unless you subscribe to popular=objective, which I do. It is
different now though. Looking at the past tells us that. It isn't like every
other fact. There is a lot of disagreement in this thread. It isn't a fact
like 2+2=4 is a fact.

------
diehunde
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 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. Happens a
lot with music.

~~~
Ancapistani
> [...] 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.

------
jasperry
I think for any sufficiently complex human activity, including writing,
musicianship, or performance in a sport, there's no way to be objectively good
at every aspect of it, and there's no one measure that captures all the
different possible ways to excel. Overall performance is a complicated mix of
competencies, some of which are easier to measure objectively than others.
Different observers will judge the "goodness" differently based on which sub-
tasks they consider more important. Even among the "greats", you can point to
sub-areas that they don't do as well.

------
lutusp
> If most kinds of success or talent are usually perceived, can we ever truly
> say someone is "good" at something?

Only if there are established and accepted criteria, standards on which
everyone agrees. The driving range of an electric car, for example.

By contrast, outside science and technology, "good" is a matter of individual
taste.

My point? Standards must be defined and accepted by all interested parties.

Here's my favorite example of the opposite case: an optimist and a pessimist
have a debate.

The optimist says, "This is the best of all possible worlds!"

The pessimist says, "That's right!"

Both declare victory.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
It's impossible to be "good" (or bad, nice, etc.) objectively, because
objectivity would require everyone to agree on that. "X is good" is not a
proposition in logic, so it can't be confirmed or negated.

However, you can choose a more objective formulation of what you want to
achieve. One way is to express it in relation to what others do, e.g. "I won a
marathon" \- this is a proposition and an objective fact.

------
arodyginc
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.

------
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.

------
Apreche
Only if that something that someone does is objectively measurable.

Usain Bolt, Michael Jordan, objectively the best at what they do.

~~~
virgilp
Best doesn't mean good - as others (and you) said, to be able to claim
"objectively good" you need to define what "objectively good" means and how
you measure it. You can say "good runner = can run 100m in less than 10s" and
then Usain Bolt it good; or you can put the threshold at 9s (nobody is good)
or 30s (even I am good).

------
sleepysysadmin
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know
nothing.

------
Flowsion
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.

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

------
yibg
I would think things that have a simple objective measure are candidates. The
100m race for example, “good” = fast. Fast tends to be a pretty objective
measurement.

------
sixhobbits
I know you asked about "good" implying skill, but your example of Tolkien made
me think of Hume's "Of the Standard of Taste"[0]

Not the lightest reading, but very worth the effort. TL;DR - taste is
something that can be more refined or less refined. We have some reasons to
believe that more refined tastes are 'better' than less refined tastes (people
who have learned to appreciate more sophisticated tastes never want to 'go
back' even though they now have fewer opportunities for enjoyment).

Obviously it's very controversial and you can make the argument that it's just
snobbery, but I think Hume gets at something.

[0]
[https://web.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html](https://web.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html)

------
boxed
Go a round against a heavy weight champion in boxing and ask the question
again.

------
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.

------
giantg2
To answer your title question...

Not if you're me.

