If the answer to “What are your strengths?” and “What are your weaknesses?” aren’t the same, you don’t know yourself well enough.
Edit: this is what I get for underexplaining. The questions are usually opposed in contexts such as job interviews. This was a leap I made from a list of qualities being considered as weaknesses, which in other contexts are strengths.
I disagree. I know that I can’t read emotions well at all. That’s a weakness, not a strength. I also know that I’m good at explaining math. That’s a strength. Each list has items that are not on the others. I’d be inclined to agree that for almost everyone a proper list of strengths should have overlap with a proper list of weaknesses but that’s a much weaker claim.
I don’t think I see what you were going for—in my reading it’s one of those things that sounds wise briefly but doesn’t hold up very well.
I think of the “smart people weakness” as potentially being”the same”—the things I might admit to in the sort of ridiculous job interview question where they ask your greatest weakness. They tie into an identity and a thinking style: “I’m a nerd, I want to do too much research and need to be better at identifying when what I have is good enough”; “I’ve been told all my life that great things are expected of me and I haven’t taken as many risks as I should have because I wanted those paths to be open to me.”; “I’ve always been so focused on my studies that I didn’t have as full a personal life as I would have liked.” (Equally-spun rephrasings available ad infinitum.) Geeks half-brag about this sort of thing—implying that the weaknesses were necessary tradeoffs for (or accompaniments to) the strengths, which should be obvious to and respected by all, naturally.
But not so much, for the weaknesses I have that I wouldn’t consider to be mainly affecting smart people (among others, a tendency to self-sabotage, also overwhelming feelings of inefficacy and self-doubt—so yes, I’m just wonderful at those interview questions). I don’t think they tie in very strongly to my identity, they’re not complements to strengths, they reflect nearly nothing but negatively on me. I wouldn’t consider them “the same” at all.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I can’t think of any sensible definitions of the words “strength” and “weakness” for which this statement even can be true.
They’re being too literal. David_Gerard’s comment is an aphorism that, like all good aphorisms, is easily expressed and contains a kernel of truth. Think of any personality descriptor: ambitious, introspective, thoughtful, analytic, romantic, idealistic—they are all both strengths in some situations and weaknesses in others.
If the answer to “What are your strengths?” and “What are your weaknesses?” aren’t the same, you don’t know yourself well enough.
Edit: this is what I get for underexplaining. The questions are usually opposed in contexts such as job interviews. This was a leap I made from a list of qualities being considered as weaknesses, which in other contexts are strengths.
I disagree. I know that I can’t read emotions well at all. That’s a weakness, not a strength. I also know that I’m good at explaining math. That’s a strength. Each list has items that are not on the others. I’d be inclined to agree that for almost everyone a proper list of strengths should have overlap with a proper list of weaknesses but that’s a much weaker claim.
I don’t think I see what you were going for—in my reading it’s one of those things that sounds wise briefly but doesn’t hold up very well.
I think of the “smart people weakness” as potentially being”the same”—the things I might admit to in the sort of ridiculous job interview question where they ask your greatest weakness. They tie into an identity and a thinking style: “I’m a nerd, I want to do too much research and need to be better at identifying when what I have is good enough”; “I’ve been told all my life that great things are expected of me and I haven’t taken as many risks as I should have because I wanted those paths to be open to me.”; “I’ve always been so focused on my studies that I didn’t have as full a personal life as I would have liked.” (Equally-spun rephrasings available ad infinitum.) Geeks half-brag about this sort of thing—implying that the weaknesses were necessary tradeoffs for (or accompaniments to) the strengths, which should be obvious to and respected by all, naturally.
But not so much, for the weaknesses I have that I wouldn’t consider to be mainly affecting smart people (among others, a tendency to self-sabotage, also overwhelming feelings of inefficacy and self-doubt—so yes, I’m just wonderful at those interview questions). I don’t think they tie in very strongly to my identity, they’re not complements to strengths, they reflect nearly nothing but negatively on me. I wouldn’t consider them “the same” at all.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I can’t think of any sensible definitions of the words “strength” and “weakness” for which this statement even can be true.
I actually think this is a great point, though apparently most people disagree.
What’s your reply to your comment’s siblings, then?
They’re being too literal. David_Gerard’s comment is an aphorism that, like all good aphorisms, is easily expressed and contains a kernel of truth. Think of any personality descriptor: ambitious, introspective, thoughtful, analytic, romantic, idealistic—they are all both strengths in some situations and weaknesses in others.
That would make a bit more sense if it was “are the same”. Otherwise that was a classic example of a completely wrong aphorism.