I meant it as in “good enough to not make an ass of oneself by accident.”
Ok, taboo “make an ass of oneself”.
How do I tell if I’m good at, say, Go? I can be better than 50% of my reference group—hell, better than 90% -- but that doesn’t mean I’m good at it, because the other members of my reference group may just suck. That’s the objection I had to Larks upthread; person X’s social performance may or may not be okay, but “not bad for LW” is a poor way of trying to determine that, especially if one accepts that most LW-ers suck at it.
Yes, and one may very well decide that one’s go game is good enough and that further improving it is not worth one’s time compared to doing other things.
Fair, but difficult. After some thought I’m going to replace it with “accidentally make an inaccurate highly-negative impression.” That seems to distinguish failure modes that are innocent but embarrassing from those that might actually merit exclusion.
Yes, and one may very well decide that one’s go game is good enough and that further improving it is not worth one’s time compared to doing other things.
Funny you should put it that way—I made more or less exactly that call with regard to social skills long ago. It was lurking here that changed my mind.
Ok, taboo “make an ass of oneself”.
Yes, and one may very well decide that one’s go game is good enough and that further improving it is not worth one’s time compared to doing other things.
Fair, but difficult. After some thought I’m going to replace it with “accidentally make an inaccurate highly-negative impression.” That seems to distinguish failure modes that are innocent but embarrassing from those that might actually merit exclusion.
Funny you should put it that way—I made more or less exactly that call with regard to social skills long ago. It was lurking here that changed my mind.