To answer my own questions:
Do you go primarily by external validation? Do you feel you are good at something if you get complimented a lot?
Yes, external validation does play an important role. There have been times where I've thought I was doing fine, only to receive feedback suggesting the contrary. The things I get complimented on the most are likely to be the things I'm better at. Of course its important to evaluate the source of the feedback for reliability. I also think its useful to get feedback from multiple people rather than just one person.
Do you go by objective, measureable criteria? For example, do you conclude you're good at math because you get straight A's? Or you're good at baseball because you have a high batting average?
Yes, to the point where I'm kinda neurotic about it. In general, people may not always be truthful, but numbers rarely lie. In school, I was competitive in terms of GPA and class rank. I know IQ scores aren't everything but when I score high on an IQ test, it's a big ego booster for me. People can tell me I'm smart and I'm not always sure whether or not they really know what they are talking about.
Do you go primarily by internal standards? That is, you have criteria in your mind and if you satisfy those criteria, you consider yourself good? For example, you might consider yourself good at playing a certain musical instrument if you can master the songs you set out to master.
Yes, internal standards are important too. I think in order to truly feel like I'm good at something, I have to feel good about the result. Some skills are hard to numerically quantify and since some external sources can be dubious, this is where internal standards come in.
I think in order for me to truly feel like I'm good at something, I need to feel like all three of the above are satisfied.
Do do you think its futile to measure how good you are at something because so many different definitions exist, so why bother?
I've thought alot about this lately and wonder if it is even possible to define what good at something is. That's why I'm posting this thread. Yes, people are going to evaluate it differently. Yes, there's going to be disagreement. But even if there are differing ideas, I want to satisfy my own definition of being good at something, which takes into consideration a combination of external and internal criteria.
Or are you simply focused on doing what you like and rarely think about or notice how good or bad at it you are?
I wish I were more like that and didn't care about being good at it so much.
Do think different types use different criteria for determining whether they believe they are good or bad at something?
Yes. I think objective, measurable criteria is more logical. Ethical types probably use more subjective criteria like whether themselves or others are personally satisfied with it.
I'm guessing extraverted types seek more external validation? I could be wrong here.
Do you think some types are more inclined to care more about being good at stuff then other types?
I think all types want to feel like they are good at the things that matter to them. I think people value being good at doing things that pertain to their ego functions and would like to be good at their ID functions, even though in reality they are weak in those areas.
I'm interested to see how others will respond to these questions.