(no subject)

[eggwards]

What's worse? To have no standards at all, or to have high standards and always seem to be failing?

Comments

[randomcub.livejournal.com]

both?

[bookish-cub.livejournal.com]

well, if you have no standards it's rather difficult to be disappointed. on the other hand, you usually end up with the bottom of the barrel that way.

[badjahsensei.livejournal.com]

Worse is having no standards.

If you have high standards, you always have a goal to focus on. Failure is normal. Failure shows us our shortcomings, so that we can repair them. Even when you fall down, you can look back up and see them there, ready to be achieved. When you have high standards (like my doctoral plans, for example), your goal is always there--even if you may not be able to get there easily..

If you have no standards, you're aimless and wandering...

[loganbeary.livejournal.com]

Better to have realistic standards that are in line with your nature.

And of course, judging or holding others to your standards is just a waste of time.

[lukebacca.livejournal.com]

I think it would highly depend on the situation. If you're referring to potential partners or friends, it's better to find some sort of medium. To search for nothing less than perfection would ultimately leave you unsatisfied, 100% of the time. People, as they say, aren't perfect.

But then if you have absolutely no standards, it's very difficult to be disappointed. However, that doesn't mean it's a healthy way of living.

On the other hand, if you're build airplane engines for a living, you absolutely cannot settle for anything less than perfection, period.

*head explodes* So yeah, it largely depends on the situation.

[loganbeary.livejournal.com]

Well, even airplanes have tolerances for errors.

[enigmacub.livejournal.com]

No standads. At least with having high standards you can compromise on some to meet the needs of a situation, but if you have none, then you really have no where to go. Everyone fails. It at least teaches you that some standards may need to be modified or made stronger.

[xtc-cub.livejournal.com]

No standards would be worse than high ones.

Also, placing your standards too high can prove fatal. We can't place the bar too high up or no animal would dare take the chance of jumping. The best thing to do is shoot for happy mediums first (or medium highs if your stove allows) and work from there.
Most people think standards should be a pole vaulting event. We aim the bar too high and when we land from missing the bar, we fall hard. Consider your standards more like a radio frequency. If someone doesn't hit your wavelength it's no ones fault. You are true to yourself and more people might end up feeling better about themselves.

Boy, I really do babble in the morning. Need more coffee.
*hugs*

[timbr35.livejournal.com]

Having no standards at all is worse because then one has nothing to compare the better qu ality of things to. You also dont know when you have it good.

I know I tend to have a very high standard an am always disappointed. For awhile I tried not to have any standard an it was totally suckhood.

Now I honestly try to just be in a moment an take it for what it is, however people must always be compared to some standard an the best I can say is use your intuition.

[scotbear.livejournal.com]

Standards are a good thing. And they're different for every person. Without them we don't grow and evolve.

[davomatic.livejournal.com]

Britney Spears – low standards.
Mayonnaise – high standards.
Ourselves – high standards and copious amounts of forgiveness.
Other people – high standards and copious amounts of forgiveness.

[xylotruck.livejournal.com]

An alternate version of your question could be:

"What *are* your standards and why are they yours?" or "Define 'standards'."

I had a roommate (just a roommate) who recently moved out and he used to have a profile on gay.com whereby his profile had in it that he was "raised Church of Christ. C'mon guys I have morals here." (Laugh) Anyways he was picking up guys left and right at the bar and the internet, then even took $$ for sex a few times, doing all sorts of shady stuff. So much for "morals".

[aadroma.livejournal.com]

Hrm ...

In what are we regarding it to?

If it's goals or desires, high standards aren't bad to have. There will be disappointment, but lowering the standard then will mean you get less of what you really wanted to begin with.

[scottbear2000.livejournal.com]

It's better to have high standards and never meet them than to have no standards at all.

People need something to reach for and attain.

Nobody's perfect and when you fail to reach your own set standard, you need to forgive yourself and continue trying.

[redcub.livejournal.com]

Are we discussing standards or expectations?

Standards are things we can hold ourselves to.

Expectations are what we have of other people.

I think either set should contain consideration for the variables we know too well, and the factors we are ignorant of.

We can still be disappointed though, no matter how tolerant or understanding we try to be...that's just life.