What's the point of life if you can't be good at anything? or be good at it, but there will be always someone better than you
You can. What's something you did obsessively between 13 and 18? Besides masturbating?
>>27128156
im pretty good at drinking I wonder if I can make a career out of that
>>27128228
Nope. Try again, something useful.
>OP is immature enough to think the only way they can enjoy something is by being the best.
This mentality is exactly why you can't enjoy things in life.
How about trying to be happy instead of good in whatever?
>>27128270
Not OP, but I would be happy to have one thing I could do well enough to base a career on and which I like. I would even settle for less than being the best.
>>27128156
I was good at school but student isn't exactly a career. I also played a lot of video games, but I'm not talented or skilled enough to become a professional gamer.
>>27128025
Don't be great at anything, be okay at a lot of things. People will find you useful. My friend group thinks I'm some fucking genius handyman because I know how to YouTube fixes to problems and can Google things.
Someone will always be better, sure, but you can be good enough to elicit praise. It's actually not that hard, just pick something that's easy to you.
And it doesn't have to be one of the like, five things you think you can impress people with. Expand your understanding of the world.
Do you know what I do that people are impressed by? I just decorate cakes. I maybe spent an added total of 48 hours of my life learning how to make petals and starbursts and shit out of icing and now everyone flips their shit over my "artistic talent".
Any of them could do it if they tried. You just have to be the one guy who actually did try.
In general, there is no "best" or even "better" at skills, because most things don't have reliable metrics. Even at something that appears objective, like say Magic: the Gathering. Does winning such-and-such tournament this year make someone the best Magic player? But there's an awful lot of RNG in the game, and people have up and down days, and after all different people win most years. They can't all simultaneously be the best.
The better you are at something the bigger the world-of-that-thing becomes, and the harder it is to make these kinds of judgments. (This is the big thing behind the Dunning-Kruger effect.) And the ultimate use of a skill is to push the envelope (i.e., research), and once you're doing research literally all bets are off about rankings. Not even prominent peer review (like getting a paper in Nature) is particularly meaningful, because that requires you put undue faith in reviewers.
>>27128025
To give something back to the world and not be an edgy nihilist teen that keeps saying work is above/below him. Yeah people are going to be better than you, but that ain't the point. I'm a bricklayer, i'll never be the best bricklayer but by the time i die i would have put up hundreds, if not thousands of homes that will stand long after i'm dead. So even if you aren't great at something, you can accomplish a great deal in your lifetime.
>>27128025
>>if you can't be good at anything?
There you go, being good at nothing, how many other people can realistically claim that title, you have found your niche, number 1 at nothing, congratulations, no one ever be better than you at absolutely nothing, you have my complete envy
I used to be told that it's not about being the best but striving to be the best by my brother and Goku.
