
Being a perfectionist is an obstacle and how to beat it - frading
https://mediatag.io/blog/why-being-a-perfectionist-is-an-obstacle-and-how-to-beat-it
======
danschumann
Lately I've been doing tasks from easiest to hardest. I no longer seem like a
perfectionist. Let me explain...

I used to do whatever I felt like, and typically, I was doing the hardest
tasks first. I would leave the little stuff. "Oh that's easy, I can just do
that at the end".

Creating social media accounts was the last thing on my TODO list. One day, I
thought I'd apply Dave Ramseys "Pay off your debts smallest to largest"
principle to my technical debts.

One of the first things I did was create social media accounts. And a bunch of
other small stuff that was biting at me.

Another decision I made was to launch earler with fewer features. Why? Because
many of the sample use cases (the simple ones), didn't need the more advanced
features.

So, smallest to largest dictates that I must make the easy samples before I
finish the advanced features. And, if I have samples, I can launch.

So, my perfectionism was a symptom, but the problem was my priority system:
hardest to easiest, not easiest to hardest.

(Inevitably, someone will write about "do your hardest task in the morning
when you have the most energy". Well, I freelance in the morning when I have
the most will power, so this is moot. Doing tasks easiest to hardest gives the
most accomplishments earliest [ more items checked off the todo list ], which
provides positivity and motivation to keep going.

Imagine the scenario:

You have 3 hours to work, you do your hardest task, which takes 5 hours. You
don't get it done, and think "omg I didn't finish and I still have 9 other
things to do".

Or, you do your easiest tasks first. Most take 5-10 minutes. You finish 5
tasks in your 3 hour window, and think, Geez! I'm really productive today! I
should keep working, so you work another 2 hours and get 6, 7, 8 done.

Momemtum is key. Doing easy tasks first creates success feelings that make you
work longer. It also frees up mental space ( you no longer need to mentally
track those tasks ).

Launch is almost always EASIER than the hard PERFECTION features that a
perfectionist makes.

~~~
lemonberry
If I remember correctly, David Allen, of 'Getting Things Done' fame, makes a
similar argument: if it can be done in 5 mins or less do it now rather than
defer.

I've definitely noticed the benefit of this. On the other hand, small things
add up and occasionally I've just got to tackle that 5 hour task.

~~~
gbacon
Two minutes or less, but that's the basic idea.

GTD also recommends sorting next actions into contexts where, for example, you
don't even think about computer tasks when a computer is not around. By the
time an action hits a list, it should be reasonably small yet well defined,
similar to Scrum backlog refinement.

Perhaps playing to the crowd, he also wrote[0]

 _The biggest procrastinators are usually the most sophisticated, sensitive,
creative, and intelligent people._

 _Nailed you, did I? Well, I assume you’re in the sophisticated, creative, and
intelligent category. That probably means you have large numbers of things
stuck in your mind, in your briefcase, and on your desk about which things are
not moving forward quite as consistently as they could be._

 _Major reason: the precise next physical visible activity (next action) has
probably not been decided on the to-do’s. The bright people usually have some
sort of reminders about their projects and things to do on lists, in piles, or
lying around, so they won’t forget to think about their commitments. Bully.
But every time they catch the briefest glimpse of any of them, they instantly
race forward in their mind, rapidly and intelligently creating images of all
the possible pieces that have to fit together and all the things that might
have to be involved in getting them to happen and all the possible negative
consequences if any one of them slips (and all the things that they might be
forgetting in all this). Whew! Freaked themselves right out. I’d quit, too._

[0]: [https://gettingthingsdone.com/2016/06/who-are-the-biggest-
pr...](https://gettingthingsdone.com/2016/06/who-are-the-biggest-
procrastinators/)

------
maldusiecle
I'm really skeptical of this attitude. In a lot of fields I've seen people who
commit themselves to "just getting it done." The result is that they do get a
lot of work done: and it's bad, it's mediocre, it doesn't have value. On the
other hand, one can easily think of creators who spent a long time on one work
(maybe "too much" time), and the result was work of lasting value.

Of course, this relates more to artistic work than technical matters. But I
think it is damaging to act as if all work is equivalent to deadlined
development work. Great things come from people being impractical.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I think you’re missing a few things:

1\. Many great artists were extremely prolific and created lots of mediocre
work, we just forget about those. There seem to be very few perfectionists who
just created a few great works, not “releasing” them until they were perfect.
There are some, but they’re the exception.

2\. You’re also not seeing all the many perfectionists who waited until things
were perfect and then never finished at all, which is by far the biggest risk.
I’d argue there are orders of magnitude more of these than perfectionists who
ship perfect things.

I suspect that many of the “just get it done” people who do lots of bad or
mediocre work _will_ end up creating great things, you’re just catching them
earlier in their learning / experimentation cycle. But those people will learn
and adapt so much faster than the perfectionists will.

~~~
maldusiecle
Sure. You need a balance, and creating flawed works is a part of the process--
I wouldn't deny that. But creating work after work, for the sake of creating,
doesn't necessarily lead to better work; going through the slow process of
refinement, revision, and self-criticism, is necessary. There's a saying that
music teachers often repeat, which is that practice doesn't maker perfect,
practice makes permanent. You have to step back and think about what you're
doing, and that does mean sacrificing "productivity," at least for a while.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
>But creating work after work, for the sake of creating, doesn't necessarily
lead to better work

I don't see anyone suggesting this.

------
ohazi
Many of the most intelligent and capable people I know suffer from impostor
syndrome to some degree. It can vary from worrying that you might not be as
good as your peers, to being afraid to release something because you're
worried it's not perfect yet, to a paralyzing inability to start, because
you're stuck in a mental loop overthinking dependencies and prerequisites.

Smart people spend lots of time learning, thinking about things, and relying
on their (often overactive) imaginations. It's not surprising that spending so
much time in your own head can sometimes lead you astray.

A helpful response would be to reassure and encourage your peers. Point out
when there's objective evidence that they are doing a good job, because they
may not be able to see it on their own.

In this light, the attitude displayed by the current top level commenters is
extremely disappointing [0,1]. Insinuating that your coworkers are slow or out
of their depth in circumstances like these is counterproductive. IMHO, this
"maybe you're just not good enough" attitude is one of the most toxic aspects
of living in silicon valley and the bay area.

I _am_ a perfectionist, and I _know_ that I waste gobs of time over-analyzing
absolutely everything [2]. I also know that my best work only happens when I
force myself to set aside that perfectionism and _just start_. It doesn't
matter if it's terrible, it doesn't matter if I picked the wrong library --
wasting more time over-analyzing everything never gets me anywhere, and leaves
me feeling miserable at the end of the day.

I know, objectively, that this is the case, and yet I still hesitate to start
big projects, and still attempt to use spreadsheets to plan the most trivial
of things. It's not an easy habit to break, but it's absolutely worthwhile to
keep trying. I owe a lot to the peers and managers who have helped me stay on
track.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16335156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16335156)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16334873](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16334873)

[2] [https://xkcd.com/1952/](https://xkcd.com/1952/)

~~~
kaybe
I am at my best when I don't really care too much about being good. Sadly this
is hard to impossible to force.

~~~
frading
I wouldn't say it's impossible. There are a few ways to fight this feeling.

First, try and understand why you care so much, if that excess of care is
giving you too much pressure.

Maybe you care too much because that's your livelihood, and that prevents you
from taking risks? In that case, try and shop for other jobs and maybe seeing
what other options are available will make you be more relax.

Or maybe you care too much because the timing means you have only one shot at
whatever you're working on? Then work beforehand on having more options. Or
lowering the risk of your project failing. Think about a plan B, or C.

What I'm trying to say basically is that if you feel that you're at your best
when you don't care too much, find ways to create that distance or relaxation.
That might need some time, logistics, or introspection, but it's certainly
worth it.

------
danieltillett
99% of the perfectionists I have had the misfortune to work with are just slow
or out of their depth and are using the term as an emotional crutch. How much
nicer it is to tell yourself that you are a perfectionist than you are just
not very good at whatever you are doing.

The people that turn out near perfect work are usually the fastest and just
get things done. It is a pity they are so rare.

~~~
rconti
99% of people who rant against perfectionism don't understand how wholly
perfectionism takes over your thought process and that people who suffer from
perfectionism are not characterized by "perfect" finished products, or even
necessarily describing themselves as such. Rather, it can be a crippling
subconscious mindset that inhibits productivity, creativity, and learning.

In other words, the "causes" you identify in your first sentence are actually
the consequences of the affliction.

~~~
fwdpropaganda
I say that if you really were perfectionist you would deliver. If it's not
delivered you can't really call it perfect.

~~~
rconti
That's a fine opinion, but it's ignorant of the entire body of CBT research.

And inasmuch as you merely disagree with it because you think it's the wrong
term, well, that's even shakier ground, because the formal definition of
language follows from its real-world usage.

------
louwrentius
If you consider your work a 1.0 then you accept 'shortcomings'. It's important
that you are able to deliver that 1.0 and that despite its shortcomings, it
does what it was supposed to do and value is derived from it (in the broadest
sense possible).

The real value is in knowing what is important and what is not. The real value
is to be able to make sane tradeoffs within a particular context.

That is how to get things done.

~~~
ralmeida
Not surprisingly, repeating to yourself “it’s just your first draft” is one of
the tools mentioned in the book The Now Habit, which treats procastination as
a symptom of an anxiety problem possibly caused by a perfectionism complex.
Other comments in this thread have also mentioned the book.

------
spraak
The book "The Now Habit" offers the perspective that many people who
procrastinate suffer from perfectionism. That is, they are so concerned with
achieving an idealized result that they are unable to even begin, lest they
fail.

~~~
gbacon
"Who are the Biggest Procrastinators?"[0] by David Allen

[0]: [https://gettingthingsdone.com/2016/06/who-are-the-biggest-
pr...](https://gettingthingsdone.com/2016/06/who-are-the-biggest-
procrastinators/)

------
frading
Hello all, OP here.

Don't hesitate to shoot any questions if you have any.

This blog is mostly oriented towards filmmakers, but the concept of perfecting
vs completing can apply just as well to web or technical endeavors.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
Thanks for posting this! Have you noticed a difference in people who are more
accustomed to tapping into their flow state? Might be hard to get honest
answers from people, I realize.

~~~
frading
Is tapping into your flow state a similar thing to "being in the zone"?

In which case, it's hard to tell, since it is quite subconscious.

I'd be tempted to say that being in the zone (if that's what you mean, let me
know if not) happens to people who allow themselves to be less self-conscious,
to be less disturbed by their own ego. In which case it may help them create
better or more focused work.

Although I realize I will probably give this a bit more thoughts, since that's
interesting :)

~~~
grasshopperpurp
>Is tapping into your flow state a similar thing to "being in the zone"?

Yep, exactly! I could see people who try to control things too much having a
hard time getting into that state/zone and replacing it with a long cycle of
fussing, but that's just how I imagine it might work. Thanks for the reply :^)

~~~
frading
That actually makes me think about 2 things now:

1\. Being in the zone is good, but you may be functioning mostly on instinct,
so the more experience you have, the better results you ll get. By that I mean
that it s where that thing called craft helps you. You then have some
techniques that you can rely on, and not only your gut feelings.

2\. While being in the zone, it's still good to jump out of it and criticize
your own work (as in you always have to be your best critic). It s almost as
if criticizing yourself should be a reflex, part of your instinct. Sometimes I
imagine someone commenting what I do and me trying to defend my work. If I
can't defend it well, that means I better look into :)

And I've mentioned that in another comment, but that applies to any work,
whether it is considered creative or technical (knowing that there is a big
overlap between those). As a person doing films and web app, my thinking is
not very different from one to the other.

(Thanks to you for making me think about this)

~~~
davidjnelson
Flow states have been studied for a while now:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_\(psychology\))

I feel this diagram sums it up very succinctly:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Ch...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Challenge_vs_skill.svg/300px-
Challenge_vs_skill.svg.png)

Powerful stuff.

~~~
frading
Excellent, thank you for those links. I will read them carefully.

------
MattyRad
This reminds me of the Cult of Done Manifesto, which focuses on doing and
action. [https://medium.com/@bre/the-cult-of-done-
manifesto-724ca1c2f...](https://medium.com/@bre/the-cult-of-done-
manifesto-724ca1c2ff13)

~~~
frading
Thanks for sharing, I didn't know that.

I love the last point "Done is the engine of more"!

------
dlwdlw
I think perfectionism can also be a crutch used as a weapon. The podium of
perfectionism allows a moral high ground that is also an excuse to not engage
with reality. The image is too pretty to soil.

Reality is engaged with only when you have secret tricks or hacks so that any
game can be ended at will. When you engage in games as a gamemaster it is no
longer a game, it is boring.

Executives use similar methods to create an image of perfection. This is
actually good and necessary as their main function is to create games for
others as a bubble while also siphoning value. Without the game, the master-
slave dynamic is too raw.

Perfectionists are people who don't play games they don't think they can win.
This can stifle learning, create aloofness, and make for a boring and
meaningless life. At its core it is an illusion of the self having more
control over reality than a human possibly can. It is a desire to be closer to
God and so gives up some humanity. (which is necessarily imperfect)

Of course, when pushing or expanding the limits of humanity, pefectionism can
sometimes be good. Shutting yourself in for a while can be very useful for
creation. Learning is not necessary as the act is of the self, the raw
knowledge being acquired already. Meaning is also not necessary because it is
self-generating.

However to lock in that meaning, what is created must eventually be released
and tested in the world. The 2 way interaction within a network is what
creates larger meaning. Small releases are like small strategic bets. Big
releases (perfectionism)are like going all in and hoping for the best.

~~~
AstralStorm
"Perfectionists are people who don't play games they don't think they can
win."

I think you defined the opposite of a gambler more than a perfectionist here.
As in, most normal people.

Perfectionists are people who don't play a game they do not completely master.
Also attempt to hide eons of practice and mistakes to appear saintly. This is
a vast difference.

------
sitkack
I have realized that my perfectionism is a mask for a fragile ego.

~~~
frading
ha, that's not exactly what I mean in this post, I hope that's not what you
would take away. (although you might just be sarcastic)

What leads us to perfect our work (and prevents us from shipping) is hopefully
not an ego problem. It's just that we might be too eager to keep improving it,
instead of enjoying the current state. It's just like the belief that adding
yet another feature to an app will solve everything.

~~~
curiousgal
[http://explosm.net/comics/3433/](http://explosm.net/comics/3433/)

~~~
soared
Also in song form! 998 good bricks

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep6WVKEuk24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep6WVKEuk24)

------
a3_nm
I think it may be too simple to say that perfectionism is bad. To me, it's one
of two halves of the creative process. (At least in theoretical research,
which is what I do, but I think this generalizes to other fields.)

You have one half where you need completely crazy and wild ideas, where it's
vitally important to get started and not be paralyzed because you think that
something is stupid or wrong or will not work. Here perfectionism is an enemy.

But you have the other half where you look at what you did and you try to
figure out how good it is, and how it can be improved. Here, perfectionism is
important because it's what will point out to you the flaws in what you have
done so far.

I think the best work is created by iterating between these two mindsets.
(It's even better if you can iterate with someone, where you go over what the
other did until you converge.)

So I think perfectionism is something that can drive you to improve, as long
as you retain the capacity to turn it off half the time, especially where
you're trying to get started.

~~~
frading
Absolutely. No extreme is ever good. Shipping and forgetting is a recipe to do
mediocre work.

But I rarely witnessed that.

What I see very often, though, is people not feeling ready to share what they
have. And I've been in countless conversations to urge people to fight this
instinct (which I'm guilty of too often as well).

------
doall
After studying and felt in love with machine learning, I think I have
succeeded in analytically dealing with my perfectionism. In my case, I was
always trying to achieve a local minimum with the cost of 0, and it was
overfitting. I was more into integers and algebraic equality rather than
floating-point numbers, analytic inequality, probability, and statistics. But
after studying machine learning and the related stuff, somehow my mind changed
and I now embrace the latter. What is important for me now is to visualize a
cost, try to minimize for a general case, stop when passing a threshold, and
carefully monitor the whole process. I can plot my current position or cost
and see how it change over time and happily stop when things not go well,
which I couldn't do in the past that harmed me.

------
n1000
I think there is a very thin line between perfectionism and being insecure.
For instance, a person with ADHD is prone to doing a lot of errors and
overlooking obvious issues. One coping mechanism is to triple check whatever
you do. Some people may have developed this strategy early on in their
childhood and never realized.

~~~
frading
Triple checking is fine to me. I do it plenty of times. But it certainly
depends on how long this would require and what it is spent on.

For instance, I re-read my posts several times before publishing (and still
wondering if I left typos). But for the design, I'm happy to leave things as a
work in progress, knowing I will come back to it later.

It's all about choosing your battles.

------
andrewmcwatters
So instead of being a perfectionist who might never see the end of their work,
be a doist and never try to complete your work to begin with.

Yeah, I'm old enough to see how that works out on large timescales. No thanks.

------
AnotherHustler
"The Inner Game of Tennis" is a great read on this subject!

------
xstartup
90% of the functionality delivered now is better than 100% of it delivered
never

------
lhnz
Obsessing over minutiae won't help you to see the bigger picture.

I think it's important to show your work early, in order that others can
feedback. It's very easy to perfectly create something but to make some
fundamental miss-step with the overall design.

~~~
hinkley

       Obsessing over minutiae won't help you to see the bigger picture.
    

You can paint Get’er done people with that brush too. Efficiently producing
wrong code helps nobody but yourself.

There are flavors of good engineering that allow the team to maintain velocity
year over year. Too often those techniques get thrown under the perfectionism
bus and then later the team blames “bad luck” [edit or ‘stupid people’ not
them] for their failures.

~~~
lhnz
This misinterprets what I'm saying. Which is: people that focus on perfection
are too often working diligently on their own, sweating details which are
unimportant to the quality of the outcome.

I frequently meet people that believe themselves to be 'perfectionists' but
whom create poor quality work due to a reluctance to let other see their work
before it is 'done'.

In order to get perfection, you need to be doing the right thing. In order to
do the right thing, you cannot be working within a bubble.

 _Edit_ : I think everybody read things into what I said which weren't there.
"Look an anti-perfectionist! He must be against quality work. Little does he
realise that we can be faster by focusing on 'perfection'." This is true but
you need to make sure that you are not adding finesse to the wrong solution!

