Would you rather be good at nothing or bad at everything ?

Question

Please tell us why. We would love to hear your views on the subject.

a little feedback : I agree with the ppl who gave different points of view. The thing is, it's not the same, one's positive because you're actually good even though it's at nothing, the other one, even though you're bad, at least you're trying. Good to see so many different points of view.

Answer 1

OK, if you are bad at everything, then perhaps you are good at being bad at everything? Being good at nothing suggests, however, that there is room to improve, or that you might be OK at some things which would be an improvement on being bad at everything. Or perhaps it would mean that you would be good at doing nothing - I've met lots of people who are good at that!! I think I would choose being good at nothing over being bad at everything.

Answer 2

Good at nothing becuase not everyone is good at everything and i would rather see me miss a 3 pointer than hit someone in the back of the head with the ball. I dont like to embarrass myself and i really dont like to say im BAD at anything, just not good. Thats the best description i can give.

Answer 3

I am not and definitely would not want to be bad at everything.
The human condition means most of us can be only mediocre at most things. My personal view is that if you can't be above the average level of performance for a sport task or skill, then it is not worth participating in! The sole exception is when for instance you've never caught a fish in your life but you still ENJOY dangling a line in the water.

Answer 4

To be good at nothing is still a "positive" as you are still rated good. Therefore, being complimented i.e. being good, is still better than being "bad". i.e. A good grade may be a "B" while a bad grade may be a "D". On the report card of the great stage of life, someone is receiving a "B" rather than a "D", even though the course is inconsequential. Correct???

Answer 5

Good at nothing, it has such potential for improvement. Think of all the things a new born baby can't do, and how quickly they learn, and master things. Of course if you are good at nothing, you don't learn anything, you don't learn despair, anger, jealousy, how peaceful you would be, but you are not good at being peaceful, or how adventurous you would be, but you are not good at being adventurous, how bored you wouldn't be, how depressed you wouldn't be. To be good at nothing, you have either never been born, or have died.
To be bad at everything, would mean to be worse than not born, or dead, because bad is painful, to misunderstand words, to walk into walls, to have unsuccessful relationships, to get hit by a car and live in pain, to be miserable when you win a game, and to want to win games you can't. To be bad at everything means you might want to die, but you can't.

Answer 6

I would rather be good at nothing because it sounds a tiny bit more positive, even though both are the same thing (at least from my perspective).

Answer 7

Id say good at some things. I knw theres the point ofview of spreading yourself out and doing lots of different things. But people are naturally good at some things and not so good at others. It'd be a mad world if nobody was good at anything.I think it makes things interesting, meeting people and seeing where they excel and where theyre not so good

Answer 8

I think I would prefer to be bad at everything, at least then I can say that I have tried my best and God loves a tryer.And being good at nothing says lazy, idle person to me.
As the saying goes "if at first you dont suceed, try, try, try again". Then maybe one day you may achieve your goal.

Answer 9

This is the same thing.. If I am bad at everything then I am good at nothing.

Answer 10

I'd rather be bad at everything because at least if I keep trying I can eventually become good at something.