*All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy.
Scott Alexander
*In the republic of mediocrity, genius is dangerous.
Robert Green Ingersoll
*Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius.
Fulton J. Sheen
*People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents.
Andrew Carnegie
*Malice is only another name for mediocrity.
Patrick Kavanagh
To understand the value of these ideas, it would probably be useful to find out about the authors. You can do so in the same website, where you will also find many other quotations about the same topic. My question is: what is mediocrity, in your opinion? Could you give your own definition, or examples of it? What do you think of mediocre people?
The definition of mediocre is, according to Macmillan dictionary, "not very high quality; average or second rate". I, personally, think that that is exactly what mediocre people are. Mediocre people are so comfortable with their lives that they don't want to improve because they are just fine. Their position is "average" to society; not too good, not too bad. In consequece, they act as if they were the shadows of themselves. To me, they are like ordinary-everyday objects. They fit their routine and never go out of it. What's more, they don't run any risks, because they're safe with their boring life. They're indifferent, ordinary, undistinguished people who lack exceptional qualities or abilities.
Despite the fact that I agree with you Ganesha, I think that your comment on mediocre people is extremely subjective. With the latter I mean that you tend to over-qualify this people, and actually we all have some kind of mediocrity going on upon ourselves. We cannot improve on everything we would wish for. For example some people are mediocre on studying, sports, jobs, and the list continues.
We are not, for sure, perfect on everything we do. This, of course, give us a touch of mediocrity, however in order to avoid being mediocre, as Ganesha mention, we have to expand our horizons, find new ways of becoming even more accurate, to improve, to give 110% of our efforts. All these make a mediocre person become someone else, someone different, and someone who gets rid slowly of that malice, which Patrick Kavanagh states as a synonym of being mediocre.
I also agree with you Joey. When I gave my opinion of what mediocrity is, I said what it comes to my mind with this term. I admit we are all mediocre in some way or another under the idea I've given of how mediocre people are. But it's just my opinion and you can desagree with me.
I think we argentinians suffer from mediocrity the most. The last political flows have taught people that it is best "to stick to something bad, though known, that to choose something bad that's unknown" This is what makes mediocrity in our lives, the sensation that a life without changes is more comfortable than any other kind of life. And a life without changes means, of course, that possitive changes are left aside too. There's a chapter in The Simpsons where a chinese guy says something like: "en eeUu se celebra la inteligencia. Nosotros castigamos la ignorancia" and I would add: "en Argentina celebramos la mediocridad". We are ashamed of being better than others in something, even more ashamed than if we were worse. People celebrate average behaviours as if magic things could come out of them. I agree with Ganesha. It is not subjective: it's what we all see. What pushes us forward is the need of a truth, the need of, as Camus says, "trascend". The need to learn everyday something valuable, I would add. we cannot let this be absent in our lives, otherwise, where would we go? we'd stop growing here and now.
I agree the most with Joey here (great name, by the way). And Mariah: I really don't think we are the most mediocre society ever. If all those sociopolitical changes our country has suffered have tought us anything, I believe it has tought us how to survive. If your parents are struggling to reach the end of month without debts, or trying to handle how food prices rise and rise, I cannot see how they are mediocre. Being happy with a stable situation doesn't mean you are mediocre. Also, you said "We are ashamed of being better than others in something"...how can you support that? Personally, I am not afraid of being better than someone, or being really good at something...You can see that even in our future profession: the amount of competitiveness in the translation business requires each of us to get updated constantly and try to be better professionals and improve. A mediocre translator will probably not suceed at all, but we can't make such a generalization like yours and say "argentinians are mediocres and enjoy being that". What's more, I have some English friends with whom I chat from time to time, and I can guarantee you they are more mediocre than other argentinians I know. For instance, the first time I talked to a girl from London 4 years ago and I told her I was from Argentina, she thought our country was next to China! Another English friend actually confessed that they are so self-centered that they do not care about learning other languages or knowing other cultures (and he is from middle-upper class)...At least most argentinians know where England is.
I agree with Ganesha in the generalization she made about mediocre people, because I know people who are exactly as what was described: lazy and unwilling to make any sacrifice for them or, at least, for others; but is that always the case? In my opinion, people can be mediocre in just one or two aspects of life. I couldn’t agree more with Joey in that people can be mediocre in many aspects such as studying, doing sports, working. The thing is, however, that mediocrity has nothing to do with being good or not so good at doing an activity. I believe that mediocre people are those that always take advantage of the short cuts without thinking what will be the cost. They go through life without being noticed. They prefer not to think in their future because if they do not do mental effort, their lives are easier. So, is it much easier to be mediocre? Of course, it is. But we have to keep in mind that mediocre people obtain what they want because they do not have great ambitions - they are satisfied with the least. And is really that what we want for our lives? It is not my case. I prefer being tenacious. I know that when I work hard I always gain a reward. Reaching my objectives is the most satisfying thing I have ever experienced. We all have talents and it is our decision to use them or not. It is exactly as Andrew Carnegie said: “Aim for the highest.”
In my opinion, a mediocre person is one who thinks that he/she has the truth of everything,that is, a person who ignores the fact that he/she can´t know everything about different things. However, being a mediocre person not necessary means to be unintelligent. From my point of view, it has to do with a particular behaviour rather than a state of mind. For instance, a doctor who makes judgements about how teachers should teach; or a lawyer relative of a pregnant woman who judges the doctor´s procedure. In both cases we are talking about graduated people, that is people who are supposed to be great in an specific area(medicine/law) but completely ignorant in others. It is the lack of ability to recognize/accept that they ignore about certain topics what makes them mediocre. Anyway, we should keep in mind the idea that all of us have our mediocrity moments...Don´t you think?
Can I begin by saying that I REALLY DISLIKE the word "mediocrity"?? To call anyone this may probably be one of the worst offences you can make and I'm sorry Joey, but I hardly think that anyone can give a truly objective opinion on this, because I think it's one of those words that if you know and can define in some way it's because you have used it or you relate it to something in your experience-based knowledge. If I had to define it in some way I would have to say that it is a characteristic of people's attitude in SOME aspects of their life in which they don't make any effort to improve. I think it would be too hard to say that someone is COMPLETELY mediocre, in ALL ways. I like to think that everybody has some interests in their life, or they know at least a little about some area of expertise. However sometimes it is said of certain people, in a critical way, that they make a mediocre comment about something or they do something in a mediocre way (something they are supposed to do right). I believe this is a way of saying that what is being qualified as mediocre seems to have been done or said without knowledge to back it up, without interest, effort or authority. So, sure, I'm with Jules on this, we all must have our mediocrity moments. And what do I think of mediocre people?? ARE THERE mediocre people?? WHO are they?? WHO can say??
It's very funny. Someone whose nickname is the same as my surname thinks similarly to me. I agree with "Flores". The fact that someone can describe somebody else as mediocre implies that there is a certain feeling of superiority on the part of the "judges" of what is right or wrong. This kind of people believe themselves so distinguished that think that they can point and condemn those who are not up to standard. I know that there are certain aspects in which we cannot afford to be mediocre, such as in our own future career. We have to keep updating on our studies in order to be at the level of the different needs that our jobs will require. However, someone who chooses not to do so should not be blamed for his personal decision. It's just a matter of how a person wants his/her life to progress and in what direction.It doesn't mean that a person who is not as interested as we are in certain aspects of life will be mediocre. He probably might be better in other activities in which we don't develop an interest in. And even if he isn't better at anything, should we blame them for his lack of motivation?
Sole: I agree with you in what you’ve said about our future career. It is true that we are not judges to determine who is mediocre or who is not, but we CAN judge ourselves, and in fact, we do so many times. In my case, I really need to evaluate if what I’m doing is right or wrong. Have you ever asked you the question: Am I doing my best effort to obtain what I want, to be successful? By asking this to ourselves, we are judging if we are mediocre people or not in any aspect of our lives. Maybe, when we talk about mediocrity we are not trying to judge someone else’s behaviour, but our own. Is mediocrity the kind of error that we will never allow us to make?
I completely agree with Marianne and with Sole as well. I think that we all should be aware of that "malice" that surrounds us in order not to fall in it but we should be very careful at the time of judging other's skills or behaviour as mediocre. Sometimes our own mediocrity leads us to make some mistakes in deciding who is right, who is wrong, and so on... From my point of view, what Mariah says about what political flows have tought people, is true. So it is good that we have the ability of evaluate things we are said or taught, instead of "absorbing" them as if we were sponges without any kind of judgement. Actually, I think that is the way in which we should build up our knowledge. However, that is really far away from judging people as genious, mediocre or just dumb. The authority to do that, if such a thing exists, is obtained once one has become an expert on the field that is in question. Though, of course, as Joey says, no one on Earth could become an expert on every issue, so all of us will always be mediocre in some aspects of life and completely genious or dumb in others. As long as we don't mantain a mediocre attitude towards what we are interested in, we will be safe from being mediocre proffessionals. By the way, Flores: I also hate that word.
In answer to what has been said so far, I have a couple of questions. The first is: have the students who use the expression "political flow" checked its meaning? It is not such a common expression, and for the sake of clarity we should be sure that you are really aware of what it means. The second question is: "mediocrity" can mean both something like "having a limited capacity to do something" and "being content with poor results when one could do better". That is, it can refer to our limitations or to our lack of ambition or decision not to improve, perhaps because that requires less effort. I am not always sure which of the two you are talking about in your discussion, and I think it is important to keep this distinction clear to make sure that everybody understands exactly what you mean.
It seems I agree with the teacher, partly. I don´t think there´s anything wrong with being mediocre because you don´t have the ability to do something better. For example, I´m absolutely mediocre when it comes to playing the guitar. But there is another kind of mediocre people, who can be described with two argentinean words I remembered all the time when I read the comments: CHANTA and TRUCHO. Sorry, Flores, but I think I have the right to criticise that kind of people because we all have many problems because of chantas and truchos, and they don´t care about that.
I’m sorry Lara Croft, but I think you misunderstood what Silvia Enriquez wrote. What she said was that we were mixing concepts. A mediocre person is someone that is “content with poor results when he/she could do better”. This doesn’t mean that if you aren’t good at doing something, you are mediocre. E.g. I’m bad at playing computer games, but that doesn’t mean that I haven’t tried to play them. I really have. The thing is that I haven’t got the talent to do so. I’m limited, not mediocre. So, in my opinion, a mediocre person is someone that knows that is able to do or achieve something, but he prefers not to make the effort because he is not ambitious.
I definetly agree with Marianne with the last comment. I think people were mixing the concepts. The concept of mediocrity doesn't mean that if we're not perfect on everything we do, we're mediocre. That's a wrong idea. As Marianne said we're limited. That means we can be good at doing some things but we also have our weaknesses and that is real. That doesn't mean we're mediocre. As a matter of fact, in certain situations, it doesn't matter however hard we try we can't improve in some subjects, because we're human. The word mediocrity should promote an awareness that we can do things better than what we do. And the fact that we can't succed in every aspect of our life doesn't mean we're, as I said, ordinary people. To be mediocre implies "fulfilling the task" with the least effort knowing that we could have done a better performance. But if we try to improve we also run the risk of failing and that is why people tend to lie comfortable in the position they're. The adoption of innovations involves altering human behaviour, and the acceptance of change. An there's a natural resistance to do that. It's more comfortable to walk on safe ground.
Totally agree with Marianne. I believe that all of us were talking about the same sense of the word:"being content with poor results when one could do better". I have never called anyone mediocre for having a limited capacity for anything. And if this is anohter sense of the word, it reinforces my point of view in that we cannot be the best at everything, and if somebody still describes someone as mediocre for having a limited capacity is obviously feeling superior. I think, Lara, that the adjectives "trucho" and "chanta" fit in with people who despite of knowing that they are acting dishonestly still want to behave like that. Mediocrity is some kind of inherent quality that causes no considerable harm to others. At least not as much as it can cause it to the ones called "mediocre"
To Lara, Marianne, Ganesha and Sole: After reading what you wrote carefully, I see that you all agree on one idea: people who could do better but don´t make the effort are mediocre. As for the rest of your comments, perhaps you should read my previous comment again, paying attention to all that it says: I said that "mediocre" has two meanings, and I meant two dictionary meanings. That is, "mediocre" also means "unable to do better", out of lack of capacity. As this is a dictionary meaning, it´s a fact that "mediocre" also means that, and we cannot change that. Sorry if I wasn´t clearer about that, but you should go to a dictionary and check. We could, in any case, argue that we don´t like to use the word in that sense because it has negative connotations, but I repeat: the fact that it has that meaning is not a matter of opinion. Read Lara Croft´s comment again and you´ll see that she makes reference to both meanings. Remember: active reading! Anyway, congratulations to you and the other participants, you are doing a very good job of discussing this topic.
As I was a bit confused about the definition of mediocrity, I looked it up on 3 or 4 dictinaries online and the definitons I found were all pretty similar. They all had to do with "low quality", "commonness", "a person of second-rate ability or value", "ordinariness as a consequence of being average and not outstanding". These definitions made me think that perhaps it is not always a matter of effort or laziness. I don´t think it is fair to generalize and say that a mediocre person is lazy or indifferent. Of course they may be, but not necessarily. While I was looking up the definition for mediocrity, I came across a quote that I believe illustrates my point:
"The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity." -Cooper,James Fenimore
From this quote, I understand that it is more convenient for many politicians and people with power to govern a country of mediocre people. People who, for different reasons, are not outstanding. One of the main reasons is lack of education. Some people don´t even realize that there is something beyond what they know. I think that some people ARE lazy and don´t care about progressing; but I also think there are others who are not given the opportunity to do so.
In answer to the teacher's last comment I wanted to say that I prefer, and this is personal, to define mediocrity according to the definiton: "content with poor results when he/she could do better”. I wasn't aware that there was a definiton of mediocrity related to capacity. So, in spite of the fact that there is this definiton: "having a limited capacity to do something", for me, it is not suitable for the term we are discussing. If one is limited in capacity, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, we can't do much. But if you have the capacity to do things better and you don't use it, that's another thing. Anyhow, it is just my opinion. I don't agree with the definiton related to limited capacity, although now I know, it exists.
Hello everyone: In my opinion, mediocre people are those who expect different results doing allways the same things.I believe that in our life we must get better everyday.
After I read carefully all the comments made by my mates, I see, as many of you had, that the mixing of the terms has been active all the time. Some of you have talked about the word mediocre having objective connotations: on this subjects, I have to say that from the time you are talking and expressing your OWN opinion about that term, and particularly referring to "mediocre people", you are making a subjective comment; I would think that if we have taken the word mediocre as objective, none of all this discussion would have been possible.
Another point that I think is worth mentioning is the fact that we have reached an agreement in terms of the possible and more accurate definition of the word "mediocre". Having this in mind, I would stand for those who agreed on the definition which explained mediocre as the inability to do better. I strongly believe that what makes a person feel mediocre is the sensation of not being able to improve, or just not having the desire to do any better, when, in fact, they do not know that if someone really wishes something (with the term wish, I mean really desiring sth, with one's heart) he/she will do everything at hand to achieve the goal. Expanding the matter ever more, even though I am not in favour of those who criticize someone harshly -as an image of superiority-, I would have to say that a person who reflects that incapability of doing better deserves being called mediocre by all means.
With the latter I leave a related theme to be taken as a possible, future topic. What have we, personally, done in order to avoid mediocrity during our lives?
...maybe mediocrity has to do living experiences such as knowing that you did not understand what had happened (to you) and you did not mind understanding what was the meaning of it. Or when you know that, where you are, there is something crucial that you do not know and you simply do not care about knowing it. I am lingering upon P.K. words: “Malice is only another name for mediocrity” and also thinking about a RAE definition for mediocre; “…de poco mérito, tirando a malo”. I also try to sense what is the distance from malice to fear, could it be mediocrity? I hope you can read me actively. Sincerely, J.
When I decided to write about what it meant to be mediocre to me, I first took the dictionary and checked what the definition was. There it said: neither very good nor very bad. That is not too much of a definition, I thought, so, I kept thinking it over. I reflected on the connotations of the word “mediocre”, I kept repeating it in my mind, there it bounced, once and again: mediocre, mediocre. Suddenly I shuddered inside, and I knew what I thought about mediocrity, about being mediocre. It is just staying frozen and letting things go around you without taking care, without taking risks or action, or it is just going with the flow without questiong anything lest you have to fight against it. Cowardice goes hand in hand with mediocrity. Being neither very good nor very bad is not being at all, that is being worthy of nothing. Indifference goes well with mediocrity also. Self-satisfaction. Unfortunately, mediocrity has come and seeped into our society, and here it lies, it surrounds us without our acknowledgment. It may be flowing withing yourself right now, and you ignore it. Have you thought about it? Or you too are too busy?
I also want to say something in response to something Paula posted on May 6. You, Paula, devoted many lines to write about mediocrity regarding academic aspects. You mentioned the competitiveness in the translation business and the necessity of academic updating. I just want to say that there are many many people who are academically well-known, have great marks and many degrees, but are still mediocre. Or will we measure mediocrity just in terms of academic success and achievements?
In my opinion, we should not focus our attention on what the word "mediocre" means in isolation, but rather on its negative connotation. Either as "having a limited capacity to do something" or as "being content with poor results when one could do better", this word expresses a feeling of superiority on the part of the speaker and I think that no human being has the right to judge other people. It is true that we should not always feel morally limited at using this term (one of its dictionary definitions may support us), but at the same time, it is true that at least in Argentina it ALWAYS transmits an evil purpose. Now I ask you, dear classmates, do you know about the social connotation of the word "mediocre" (as regards both meanings) in Britain and the United States? I would be glad to hear your answers.
For students of English Language III at the UNLP who want to become more critical and reflective by exchanging opinions with their classmates.
How to use it
Look at the posts and give your opinion about them, but remember that we are discussing topics for academic purposes, so please follow these simple rules:
when you give your opinion, ALWAYS SAY WHY you think so.
I graduated as a teacher of English at the Universidad Nacional de La Plata. In the late 1980s I specialised in History of the English Language at the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, and I was an assistant teacher in that subject. Since 1991 I am a teacher in English Language III for the translation and teaching courses at the Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. I am also at present the Coordinator of Special Courses at the Escuela de Lenguas de la UNLP, where I have taught English mostly in junior and adult courses.
I am a member of the Asociación Argentina de Estudios Canadienses, a member of the Executive Committe of the Centro de Estudios Canadienses de La Plata and also a member of the editorial staff of its magazine: Revista de la Asociación Argentina de Estudios Canadienses (RAEC).
I am currently doing a post degree course in distance education.
Posts
27 comments:
The definition of mediocre is, according to Macmillan dictionary, "not very high quality; average or second rate".
I, personally, think that that is exactly what mediocre people are.
Mediocre people are so comfortable with their lives that they don't want to improve because they are just fine. Their position is "average" to society; not too good, not too bad. In consequece, they act as if they were the shadows of themselves.
To me, they are like ordinary-everyday objects. They fit their routine and never go out of it.
What's more, they don't run any risks, because they're safe with their boring life.
They're indifferent, ordinary, undistinguished people who lack exceptional qualities or abilities.
Despite the fact that I agree with you Ganesha, I think that your comment on mediocre people is extremely subjective. With the latter I mean that you tend to over-qualify this people, and actually we all have some kind of mediocrity going on upon ourselves. We cannot improve on everything we would wish for. For example some people are mediocre on studying, sports, jobs, and the list continues.
We are not, for sure, perfect on everything we do. This, of course, give us a touch of mediocrity, however in order to avoid being mediocre, as Ganesha mention, we have to expand our horizons, find new ways of becoming even more accurate, to improve, to give 110% of our efforts. All these make a mediocre person become someone else, someone different, and someone who gets rid slowly of that malice, which Patrick Kavanagh states as a synonym of being mediocre.
I also agree with you Joey.
When I gave my opinion of what mediocrity is, I said what it comes to my mind with this term.
I admit we are all mediocre in some way or another under the idea I've given of how mediocre people are. But it's just my opinion and you can desagree with me.
I think we argentinians suffer from mediocrity the most. The last political flows have taught people that it is best "to stick to something bad, though known, that to choose something bad that's unknown" This is what makes mediocrity in our lives, the sensation that a life without changes is more comfortable than any other kind of life. And a life without changes means, of course, that possitive changes are left aside too. There's a chapter in The Simpsons where a chinese guy says something like: "en eeUu se celebra la inteligencia. Nosotros castigamos la ignorancia" and I would add: "en Argentina celebramos la mediocridad". We are ashamed of being better than others in something, even more ashamed than if we were worse. People celebrate average behaviours as if magic things could come out of them. I agree with Ganesha. It is not subjective: it's what we all see. What pushes us forward is the need of a truth, the need of, as Camus says, "trascend". The need to learn everyday something valuable, I would add. we cannot let this be absent in our lives, otherwise, where would we go? we'd stop growing here and now.
I love the subject!
I agree the most with Joey here (great name, by the way). And Mariah: I really don't think we are the most mediocre society ever. If all those sociopolitical changes our country has suffered have tought us anything, I believe it has tought us how to survive. If your parents are struggling to reach the end of month without debts, or trying to handle how food prices rise and rise, I cannot see how they are mediocre. Being happy with a stable situation doesn't mean you are mediocre.
Also, you said "We are ashamed of being better than others in something"...how can you support that? Personally, I am not afraid of being better than someone, or being really good at something...You can see that even in our future profession: the amount of competitiveness in the translation business requires each of us to get updated constantly and try to be better professionals and improve. A mediocre translator will probably not suceed at all, but we can't make such a generalization like yours and say "argentinians are mediocres and enjoy being that".
What's more, I have some English friends with whom I chat from time to time, and I can guarantee you they are more mediocre than other argentinians I know. For instance, the first time I talked to a girl from London 4 years ago and I told her I was from Argentina, she thought our country was next to China! Another English friend actually confessed that they are so self-centered that they do not care about learning other languages or knowing other cultures (and he is from middle-upper class)...At least most argentinians know where England is.
I agree with Ganesha in the generalization she made about mediocre people, because I know people who are exactly as what was described: lazy and unwilling to make any sacrifice for them or, at least, for others; but is that always the case?
In my opinion, people can be mediocre in just one or two aspects of life. I couldn’t agree more with Joey in that people can be mediocre in many aspects such as studying, doing sports, working. The thing is, however, that mediocrity has nothing to do with being good or not so good at doing an activity. I believe that mediocre people are those that always take advantage of the short cuts without thinking what will be the cost. They go through life without being noticed. They prefer not to think in their future because if they do not do mental effort, their lives are easier.
So, is it much easier to be mediocre? Of course, it is. But we have to keep in mind that mediocre people obtain what they want because they do not have great ambitions - they are satisfied with the least. And is really that what we want for our lives? It is not my case. I prefer being tenacious. I know that when I work hard I always gain a reward. Reaching my objectives is the most satisfying thing I have ever experienced. We all have talents and it is our decision to use them or not. It is exactly as Andrew Carnegie said: “Aim for the highest.”
In my opinion, a mediocre person is one who thinks that he/she has the truth of everything,that is, a person who ignores the fact that he/she can´t know everything about different things. However, being a mediocre person not necessary means to be unintelligent. From my point of view, it has to do with a particular behaviour rather than a state of mind. For instance, a doctor who makes judgements about how teachers should teach; or a lawyer relative of a pregnant woman who judges the doctor´s procedure. In both cases we are talking about graduated people, that is people who are supposed to be great in an specific area(medicine/law) but completely ignorant in others. It is the lack of ability to recognize/accept that they ignore about certain topics what makes them mediocre. Anyway, we should keep in mind the idea that all of us have our mediocrity moments...Don´t you think?
Can I begin by saying that I REALLY DISLIKE the word "mediocrity"?? To call anyone this may probably be one of the worst offences you can make and I'm sorry Joey, but I hardly think that anyone can give a truly objective opinion on this, because I think it's one of those words that if you know and can define in some way it's because you have used it or you relate it to something in your experience-based knowledge.
If I had to define it in some way I would have to say that it is a characteristic of people's attitude in SOME aspects of their life in which they don't make any effort to improve. I think it would be too hard to say that someone is COMPLETELY mediocre, in ALL ways. I like to think that everybody has some interests in their life, or they know at least a little about some area of expertise. However sometimes it is said of certain people, in a critical way, that they make a mediocre comment about something or they do something in a mediocre way (something they are supposed to do right). I believe this is a way of saying that what is being qualified as mediocre seems to have been done or said without knowledge to back it up, without interest, effort or authority. So, sure, I'm with Jules on this, we all must have our mediocrity moments.
And what do I think of mediocre people?? ARE THERE mediocre people?? WHO are they?? WHO can say??
It's very funny. Someone whose nickname is the same as my surname thinks similarly to me. I agree with "Flores".
The fact that someone can describe somebody else as mediocre implies that there is a certain feeling of superiority on the part of the "judges" of what is right or wrong. This kind of people believe themselves so distinguished that think that they can point and condemn those who are not up to standard. I know that there are certain aspects in which we cannot afford to be mediocre, such as in our own future career. We have to keep updating on our studies in order to be at the level of the different needs that our jobs will require. However, someone who chooses not to do so should not be blamed for his personal decision. It's just a matter of how a person wants his/her life to progress and in what direction.It doesn't mean that a person who is not as interested as we are in certain aspects of life will be mediocre. He probably might be better in other activities in which we don't develop an interest in. And even if he isn't better at anything, should we blame them for his lack of motivation?
Sole: I agree with you in what you’ve said about our future career. It is true that we are not judges to determine who is mediocre or who is not, but we CAN judge ourselves, and in fact, we do so many times. In my case, I really need to evaluate if what I’m doing is right or wrong. Have you ever asked you the question: Am I doing my best effort to obtain what I want, to be successful? By asking this to ourselves, we are judging if we are mediocre people or not in any aspect of our lives. Maybe, when we talk about mediocrity we are not trying to judge someone else’s behaviour, but our own. Is mediocrity the kind of error that we will never allow us to make?
I completely agree with Marianne and with Sole as well.
I think that we all should be aware of that "malice" that surrounds us in order not to fall in it but we should be very careful at the time of judging other's skills or behaviour as mediocre. Sometimes our own mediocrity leads us to make some mistakes in deciding who is right, who is wrong, and so on...
From my point of view, what Mariah says about what political flows have tought people, is true. So it is good that we have the ability of evaluate things we are said or taught, instead of "absorbing" them as if we were sponges without any kind of judgement. Actually, I think that is the way in which we should build up our knowledge.
However, that is really far away from judging people as genious, mediocre or just dumb. The authority to do that, if such a thing exists, is obtained once one has become an expert on the field that is in question.
Though, of course, as Joey says, no one on Earth could become an expert on every issue, so all of us will always be mediocre in some aspects of life and completely genious or dumb in others.
As long as we don't mantain a mediocre attitude towards what we are interested in, we will be safe from being mediocre proffessionals.
By the way, Flores: I also hate that word.
In answer to what has been said so far, I have a couple of questions. The first is: have the students who use the expression "political flow" checked its meaning? It is not such a common expression, and for the sake of clarity we should be sure that you are really aware of what it means.
The second question is: "mediocrity" can mean both something like "having a limited capacity to do something" and "being content with poor results when one could do better". That is, it can refer to our limitations or to our lack of ambition or decision not to improve, perhaps because that requires less effort. I am not always sure which of the two you are talking about in your discussion, and I think it is important to keep this distinction clear to make sure that everybody understands exactly what you mean.
It seems I agree with the teacher, partly. I don´t think there´s anything wrong with being mediocre because you don´t have the ability to do something better. For example, I´m absolutely mediocre when it comes to playing the guitar. But there is another kind of mediocre people, who can be described with two argentinean words I remembered all the time when I read the comments: CHANTA and TRUCHO. Sorry, Flores, but I think I have the right to criticise that kind of people because we all have many problems because of chantas and truchos, and they don´t care about that.
I’m sorry Lara Croft, but I think you misunderstood what Silvia Enriquez wrote. What she said was that we were mixing concepts.
A mediocre person is someone that is “content with poor results when he/she could do better”. This doesn’t mean that if you aren’t good at doing something, you are mediocre. E.g. I’m bad at playing computer games, but that doesn’t mean that I haven’t tried to play them. I really have. The thing is that I haven’t got the talent to do so. I’m limited, not mediocre. So, in my opinion, a mediocre person is someone that knows that is able to do or achieve something, but he prefers not to make the effort because he is not ambitious.
I definetly agree with Marianne with the last comment.
I think people were mixing the concepts.
The concept of mediocrity doesn't mean that if we're not perfect on everything we do, we're mediocre. That's a wrong idea.
As Marianne said we're limited.
That means we can be good at doing some things but we also have our weaknesses and that is real. That doesn't mean we're mediocre. As a matter of fact, in certain situations, it doesn't matter however hard we try we can't improve in some subjects, because we're human.
The word mediocrity should promote an awareness that we can do things better than what we do. And the fact that we can't succed in every aspect of our life doesn't mean we're, as I said, ordinary people.
To be mediocre implies "fulfilling the task" with the least effort knowing that we could have done a better performance. But if we try to improve we also run the risk of failing and that is why people tend to lie comfortable in the position they're.
The adoption of innovations involves altering human behaviour, and the acceptance of change. An there's a natural resistance to do that.
It's more comfortable to walk on safe ground.
Totally agree with Marianne. I believe that all of us were talking about the same sense of the word:"being content with poor results when one could do better". I have never called anyone mediocre for having a limited capacity for anything. And if this is anohter sense of the word, it reinforces my point of view in that we cannot be the best at everything, and if somebody still describes someone as mediocre for having a limited capacity is obviously feeling superior.
I think, Lara, that the adjectives "trucho" and "chanta" fit in with people who despite of knowing that they are acting dishonestly still want to behave like that. Mediocrity is some kind of inherent quality that causes no considerable harm to others. At least not as much as it can cause it to the ones called "mediocre"
To Lara, Marianne, Ganesha and Sole: After reading what you wrote carefully, I see that you all agree on one idea: people who could do better but don´t make the effort are mediocre. As for the rest of your comments, perhaps you should read my previous comment again, paying attention to all that it says: I said that "mediocre" has two meanings, and I meant two dictionary meanings. That is, "mediocre" also means "unable to do better", out of lack of capacity. As this is a dictionary meaning, it´s a fact that "mediocre" also means that, and we cannot change that. Sorry if I wasn´t clearer about that, but you should go to a dictionary and check. We could, in any case, argue that we don´t like to use the word in that sense because it has negative connotations, but I repeat: the fact that it has that meaning is not a matter of opinion. Read Lara Croft´s comment again and you´ll see that she makes reference to both meanings. Remember: active reading!
Anyway, congratulations to you and the other participants, you are doing a very good job of discussing this topic.
Hello everyone,
As I was a bit confused about the definition of mediocrity, I looked it up on 3 or 4 dictinaries online and the definitons I found were all pretty similar. They all had to do with "low quality",
"commonness", "a person of second-rate ability or value",
"ordinariness as a consequence of being average and not outstanding".
These definitions made me think that perhaps it is not always a matter of effort or laziness. I don´t think it is fair to generalize and say that a mediocre person is lazy or indifferent. Of course they may be, but not necessarily.
While I was looking up the definition for mediocrity, I came across a quote that I believe illustrates my point:
"The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity."
-Cooper,James Fenimore
From this quote, I understand that it is more convenient for many politicians and people with power to govern a country of mediocre people. People who, for different reasons, are not outstanding. One of the main reasons is lack of education. Some people don´t even realize that there is something beyond what they know.
I think that some people ARE lazy and don´t care about progressing; but I also think there are others who are not given the opportunity to do so.
In answer to the teacher's last comment I wanted to say that I prefer, and this is personal, to define mediocrity according to the definiton: "content with poor results when he/she could do better”.
I wasn't aware that there was a definiton of mediocrity related to capacity. So, in spite of the fact that there is this definiton: "having a limited capacity to do something", for me, it is not suitable for the term we are discussing.
If one is limited in capacity, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, we can't do much. But if you have the capacity to do things better and you don't use it, that's another thing.
Anyhow, it is just my opinion. I don't agree with the definiton related to limited capacity, although now I know, it exists.
Hello everyone:
In my opinion, mediocre people are those who expect different results doing allways the same things.I believe that in our life we must get better everyday.
After I read carefully all the comments made by my mates, I see, as many of you had, that the mixing of the terms has been active all the time. Some of you have talked about the word mediocre having objective connotations: on this subjects, I have to say that from the time you are talking and expressing your OWN opinion about that term, and particularly referring to "mediocre people", you are making a subjective comment; I would think that if we have taken the word mediocre as objective, none of all this discussion would have been possible.
Another point that I think is worth mentioning is the fact that we have reached an agreement in terms of the possible and more accurate definition of the word "mediocre". Having this in mind, I would stand for those who agreed on the definition which explained mediocre as the inability to do better. I strongly believe that what makes a person feel mediocre is the sensation of not being able to improve, or just not having the desire to do any better, when, in fact, they do not know that if someone really wishes something (with the term wish, I mean really desiring sth, with one's heart) he/she will do everything at hand to achieve the goal. Expanding the matter ever more, even though I am not in favour of those who criticize someone harshly -as an image of superiority-, I would have to say that a person who reflects that incapability of doing better deserves being called mediocre by all means.
With the latter I leave a related theme to be taken as a possible, future topic. What have we, personally, done in order to avoid mediocrity during our lives?
See you all soon!
...maybe mediocrity has to do living experiences such as knowing that you did not understand what had happened (to you) and you did not mind understanding what was the meaning of it. Or when you know that, where you are, there is something crucial that you do not know and you simply do not care about knowing it. I am lingering upon P.K. words: “Malice is only another name for mediocrity” and also thinking about a RAE definition for mediocre; “…de poco mérito, tirando a malo”. I also try to sense what is the distance from malice to fear, could it be mediocrity? I hope you can read me actively. Sincerely, J.
When I decided to write about what it meant to be mediocre to me, I first took the dictionary and checked what the definition was. There it said: neither very good nor very bad. That is not too much of a definition, I thought, so, I kept thinking it over.
I reflected on the connotations of the word “mediocre”, I kept repeating it in my mind, there it bounced, once and again: mediocre, mediocre. Suddenly I shuddered inside, and I knew what I thought about mediocrity, about being mediocre. It is just staying frozen and letting things go around you without taking care, without taking risks or action, or it is just going with the flow without questiong anything lest you have to fight against it.
Cowardice goes hand in hand with mediocrity. Being neither very good nor very bad is not being at all, that is being worthy of nothing.
Indifference goes well with mediocrity also. Self-satisfaction. Unfortunately, mediocrity has come and seeped into our society, and here it lies, it surrounds us without our acknowledgment. It may be flowing withing yourself right now, and you ignore it. Have you thought about it? Or you too are too busy?
I also want to say something in response to something Paula posted on May 6. You, Paula, devoted many lines to write about mediocrity regarding academic aspects. You mentioned the competitiveness in the translation business and the necessity of academic updating. I just want to say that there are many many people who are academically well-known, have great marks and many degrees, but are still mediocre. Or will we measure mediocrity just in terms of academic success and achievements?
In my opinion, we should not focus our attention on what the word "mediocre" means in isolation, but rather on its negative connotation. Either as "having a limited capacity to do something" or as "being content with poor results when one could do better", this word expresses a feeling of superiority on the part of the speaker and I think that no human being has the right to judge other people. It is true that we should not always feel morally limited at using this term (one of its dictionary definitions may support us), but at the same time, it is true that at least in Argentina it ALWAYS transmits an evil purpose.
Now I ask you, dear classmates, do you know about the social connotation of the word "mediocre" (as regards both meanings) in Britain and the United States? I would be glad to hear your answers.
Post a Comment