No announcement yet.

Good is not > than great

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Good is not > than great

    Ok, I like Joe and I like the site and have used the site as a spring board almost 10 years ago (wow has it really been almost 10 years!) to make me, in some small way, better and more "put together" which inherently stepped up my style game. If nothing else, reading the site and contributing to the forums got me to spend more money while simultaneously considering my wardrobe more closely. Now, years later and thanks to the site, I think I dress more like an adult and look like a professional.

    With my appreciation now said, anybody with thin-skin and just wants to be good can stop reading here...

    ...I will also say the recent editorial regarding Good and Great (30 DEC) has to be one of the most flawed commentaries while deliberately trying to be an uplifting excuse as to why failing is acceptable and striving for greatness is too hard. Maybe my flaw is that I am in a profession in-which trying and not giving up is considered a value and failing requires accountability. So maybe I am in the minority of thinking pursuing greatness is a good thing and settling on just being good is not good enough. Not to beat the horse too much but the article sadly epitomizes this notion of "trophies for everybody" and "everybody is awesome" and it's "OK" that you failed. Sorry Joe, I submit you missed the mark on that editorial. Pursuing greatness, while challenging and often times just out of reach, will force a person to be, if nothing else, good. To be great at anything requires reps, practice, training (call it what you want) at whatever it is that a person chooses to pursue and it is that relentless pursuit, a person will become good.

    But if a person stops at just being good they will get beaten by somebody trying to be better. And of course, it won't be accepted that they weren't good enough, it be some other excuse as to why they were not picked, promoted, called, won, or whatever the end result is. this Good > Better nonsense is simply a way in which a person can justify their loss and give and rationale as to why they can be lazy, not try or be held accountable. If I am your boss and I see that you’re good but you don’t try to be better, at least most of the time (we all have off says or even weeks) but the person in the next office or cube tries harder than you most of the time, who’s going next to get the raise or the promotion? I clearly believe achieving greatness requires you to be good but demands you to constantly be better than the previous time. When you fail in your pursuit, you learn from it, hold yourself accountable to it and then keep trying to be better the next time. "Being good at being good" is called mediocre . That’s my two-cents - Cheers!
    Last edited by ajk170; January 5, 2021, 11:53 AM. Reason: To provide clarity and correct misspellings

    Where did the article say that failing is acceptable? Do you interpret not being great at something a failure? That's not a very healthy perspective.
    The article said something like, if you strive for being good you'll find that sometimes you end up being great.
    We can't be great at everything - pick your battles. The article didn't say you shouldn't be great at anything. Just don't make great your constant goal.


      I think what Joe was saying is that sometimes shooting for greatness or perfection seems too out of reach or unattainable, and when that's the circumstance a lot of people don't even start trying to improve, because the ultimate goal seems so impossible to attain that there's no point in even trying. But if someone starts with focusing on getting good - i.e. getting better than yesterday, over time greatness might be obtained. I.e. don't set your immediate expectations at greatness, set them at better and then when you get that good, recalibrate again.
      “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.” – Mark Twain