Good or Better?

[wkeej]

Hi everyone

Not sure whether this has been debated. Overheard a conversation (not eavesdropping) between two people. Why should one be contented with being good when one can be better?

My counter-argument is maybe there is no point of being better. E.g. in some exams, it is a pass/fail grade. So, getting 50 marks or 100 marks make no difference.

Any other thoughts?

[devilz91]

Hi everyone

Not sure whether this has been debated. Overheard a conversation (not eavesdropping) between two people. Why should one be contented with being good when one can be better?

You can always do better. If you're never content with anything you're going to lead a pretty sad life.

My counter-argument is maybe there is no point of being better. E.g. in some exams, it is a pass/fail grade. So, getting 50 marks or 100 marks make no difference.

It's not all about the marks. It's about acquiring the knowledge. There's a definite difference.

[Guo Xiang]

Hi everyone

Not sure whether this has been debated. Overheard a conversation (not eavesdropping) between two people. Why should one be contented with being good when one can be better?

My counter-argument is maybe there is no point of being better. E.g. in some exams, it is a pass/fail grade. So, getting 50 marks or 100 marks make no difference.

Any other thoughts?

I disagree on the exams part. For example in degrees, there are RANKS for it, and your grades decide what rank you get. So if you go for an interview and you have a third-class rank, do you think the company will consider you first or the person who's got a first-class rank degree?

[Ren Ying Ying]

Hi everyone

Not sure whether this has been debated. Overheard a conversation (not eavesdropping) between two people. Why should one be contented with being good when one can be better?

My counter-argument is maybe there is no point of being better. E.g. in some exams, it is a pass/fail grade. So, getting 50 marks or 100 marks make no difference.

Any other thoughts?

Because sometimes, being "better" takes too much time and effort...time and effort that you could've spent on other aspects of life. It's a balance of resources, needs, and wants.

[wkeej]

Give some thoughts. I am also thinking in terms of job and age. E.g. in the first job I have, my yearly increment is fixed - $120 per month no mater your level of performance. So, why be better?
As I grow older (wiser?), I consider "good" is "good" enough. So, why the need to be "better".
So, if your job involve a big variable component, are you likely to go for "better" performance. If you are young (say <35 years old), will you more likely strive for "better"?

[xJadedx]

You know, the real question is - why be better if you can be the best.

[Ren Ying Ying]

You know, the real question is - why be better if you can be the best.

well, that's question depends on if you can really be "the best"...

or if you are implying be "the best that you can be", then the question is, what is the limit and extent of "can"

[Banh Mi]

Why be the best when you can kill off all the other competition.

[xJadedx]

Why be the best when you can kill off all the other competition.

Good point.

[wkeej]

well, that's question depends on if you can really be "the best"...:

Interesting point. One cannot be best in everything. Or can you?

[KeongJai]

There's something in economics called marginal utility which is a concept that can be applied to anything.
There comes a point where an increase in unit cost starts to yield a reducing benefit or satisfaction. This cost could be better spent else where that yields a higher return.

e.g. this exams thing. You spend 2 hours a day studying for subject A and you get 60% so that's 1/2% per minute. Now it gets harder and you need to spend another 2hours per day to get 80%. That works out to be 1/6% per minute. You are getting less for the same cost.
Say subject B also takes 2hours a day study to get 60% but for an extra 2hours you get 95%. You'd rather spend more time studying for subject B than A because the return is higher.

I don't think it's healthy to compare with other people. You should be the best you can be. But if being the best at one thing makes you fail at something else or you'd be happier doing something else you have to make that marginal utility choice.
Everyone has differing levels of ability, but assuming it doesn't take much to go from being good to better, I'd ask why not? It's like when you buy something and the salesman says you get something else free. Most people would think why not and take the freebie.

[Leonidas]

There's something in economics called marginal utility which is a concept that can be applied to anything.
There comes a point where an increase in unit cost starts to yield a reducing benefit or satisfaction. This cost could be better spent else where that yields a higher return.

The latter part of the quote is usually called the law of diminishing returns.

[KeongJai]

Woops. yeah sorry.

marginal utility is you get more satisfaction getting from zero to 50% than from 50 to 100%.
i.e. you'd be happier getting 50% in both subjects than 100% in 1 and 0% in the other.