A bit of personal philosophy today.
I almost never use the word "good" to describe something, regardless of what I am talking about.
This falls in line with my thoughts about positive thinking in general, but I find it interesting how specific language and word choice can impact our perspective on the world.
I don't use "good" because it is dangerously close to falling into a trap of complacency. See, when you call something good, it's not far off from being labeled "good enough"(for government work). When something is good enough, it no longer needs improving and then progress can stagnate.
I dislike the idea of goals and destinations, because I have watched too many people lower their standards in order to "arrive" rather than continue looking at the path ahead as they tread onward.
I also don't take compliments well, so this is a way to rationalize it. This also invokes my early days where I received too much positive feedback for the absolute garbage I was doing. It made me develop an ego where later it was difficult to handle advice or criticism. Now I've transformed into the opposite, where my self critique is often much harsher than what others would dish out while I shrug off and negate any form of compliment.
Rather than "good", these are my levels:
-Terrible: Usually denotes some kind of technical failure.
-Not good: Usually denotes potential for risk.
-Better: A sign that things are in the process of improvement.
-Not bad: High Praise
So terrible and not good are on the negative spectrum while better and not bad are more positive.
Of course, this style of thinking is not for everyone. Personally this logic makes sense to me and it's what allows me to keep on learning as I go.
What are your thoughts?