My main area of interest in the subject has always been with the way the individual approaches the task at hand.

For example, neither the gymnast nor the machinist who approaches the task with an attitude of “bad” perfectionism will get very far. They will focus on fear of mistakes that diverge from the external standard they are trying to match. And in focusing on possible mistakes, they will make them.

The outstanding gymnast or machinist, on the other hand, succeeds because they focus on getting the results rather than on their fear that they won’t get the results expected of them. That frees them to excel, even though the situation doesn’t allow them the flexibility to redefine what is acceptable.

You might say that the victim of “bad” perfectionistic thinking replaces the preestablished standard with their own, even higher standard. Agonizing over every minor glitch along the way overrules any more constructive approaches that would allow them to fix the current effort and improve future results. They settle for a dead end instead of a deeper exploration.

The “bad perfectionist” gymnast gives up before they can achieve their actual potential because they get discouraged over not being “perfect” immediately. The “bad perfectionist” machinist repeats mistakes and eventually gets fired because they’re too busy trying to make excuses for mistakes rather than learning from them.

Meanwhile, “good perfectionist” gymnasts and machinists become masters of their crafts because they focus on what it takes to excel rather than focusing on their mistakes.

I’m still thinking through your mathematical distinction. Great to get the brain cells working.

Can’t wait for our skype chat.

Best, Robin

So is the Olympian’s obsession with attaining a flawless 10/10 performance in gymnastics an example of positive or negative perfection?

In our culture, the system seems geared to deliver the highest applause and greatest accolades to the flawless execution – from education, to body image, to sport. The imperfect is relegated to second place.

Hence my interest in Nature’s gifting survival to the most flawless – ‘fittest’ – execution.

Well done, Jeff.

Best to you, Robin

PS: love your coda on having a great sense of humour. Excellent!

Best, Robin

Just to pick up on the pursuit of excellence aspect to this discussion. This got me thinking. If perfectionism is linked to self-imposed targets or even ‘imposed’ expectations, then it’s entirely arbitrary. Shift those targets and expectations and one is immediately faced with perfectionism as a misnomer

If, however, it’s linked to mathematics then it can be absolutely measured. For example, the manufacture of an aircraft part. There is a specification based on a mathematical formula. In this case we couldn’t re-define the goal for obvious reasons.

Perhaps the latter could be an example of obsessive perfectionism being a good thing!

Also looking forward to connecting on Skype soon.

Interesting question. From my perspective, “bad” perfectionism starts from seeking a goal that is likely unattainable. It then refuses to adapt to the situation.

Most people here seem to define “good” perfectionism as a quest for positive results. That quest remains flexible in pursuit of whatever positive results best fit the situation.

In that regard, I see “survival” as falling into the “good” perfectionism. Its whole approach involves seeking flexible end results instead of preconceived ones that might turn out to be totally unsuitable for the actual situation as it develops.

“Survival” succeeds because it remains flexible. “Survival” succeeds because each result is a steppingstone to ongoing improvement instead of a futile attempt to reach a final destination.

I always begin by planning for a perfect (=excellent) outcome delivered in full, but I allow myself to reframe as the deadline draws near.

Example 1: last year I organised a school reunion – gave myself 8 months to plan. It was a perfect night – due to giving myself a generous amount of time for the planning.

Example 2: I intended to collate schoolday memories, aiming for 10 pages which I was going to photocopy, staple and hand out on the night. As it happened, the stories coming in grew to 30 pages, then 70, then 100, then 150. I decided to publish a proper book, but I would miss the deadline. So I reframed it: I decided that a book which included photos taken on the Reunion night would make for a “more perfect” outcome, and give me permission to deliver to a new deadline – Christmas. It ended up at 234 pages and included 330 photos.

I aim high, work hard, plan well, accept personal responsibility for the outcome – but no-one describes me as obsessive or fanatical. Oh, and I have a great sense of humour and can laugh at myself if things go off the rails!

Cheers, R

So is perfection in the eye of the beholder (or obsessor)?

Luke mentioned body image, you’ve both discussed the Chaplin film situation, and Olivier spoke of the Design Engineers. A range of examples where perfection is contextually dependent on whose making the judgment.

Building on Robert’s dinner scenario, a two-course dinner served on-time is either perfect for the given resources or imperfect for the original objective.

So, not to push the culinary metaphor too far, one person’s magnificent obsession with perfection is another person’s never-ending search for excellence.

The key learning for me out of this discussion so far is to be careful about how personally attached one becomes to perfection as an outcome.

Thanks for your return contribution, Jeff. You’ve really raised a lot of great points.

Just finally, I would be fascinated by your response to the question I posed to Luke’s comment above:

“Is nature obsessed with perfection? Is ‘fittest’ synonymous with ‘perfect’ in the context of survival?”

Best, Robin

Robin

Thanks for dropping by and participating.

Are there any situations where you would find yourself opting for perfection and ‘delivery in full’? If so, what makes the difference?

Best to you, Robin

At the risk of sliding onto some less robust ice…

Is nature obsessed with perfection? Is ‘fittest’ synonymous with ‘perfect’ in the context of survival?

Some may argue that survival is an obsession. Would it matter if we as a species became less obsessed about our survival – especially as we edge closer to manifesting real end-game scenarios?

And finally…

Is this in-fact the time for absolutes?

Very much looking forward to our conversation on skype, Luke.

Best, Robin

To me, the dark side of perfectionism is fear based. I see it used as an excuse for procrastination: “Oh, I can’t let anyone see this until it’s perfect.” Or I see it used to justify inaction: “I just can’t get this perfect, so I won’t even try.” Or I see it used as Luke described, as the foundation for self-destructive behaviors: “If I don’t get this perfect, people won’t accept me.”

All of those are based on fear of rejection. The kind of good perfectionism you describe focuses not on self, but on results. Perfectionism, in its good sense, has to be ready to accept results that, ironically, are less than perfect.

Robert’s dinner preparation adjusts to reality by accepting fewer courses than were originally planned. His wife’s dinner preparation adjusts to reality by accepting a delay in serving time. In both cases, they focus on making the end RESULTS as good as they can.

And I think they likely would take away from the experience some ideas of how to improve the next time. They enjoy what they accomplished and use the setbacks to make the next time even better.

The dark side of perfectionism would try to present the full three courses at the appointed time. That kind of perfectionist considers nothing more than the fear of losing face if everything is not exactly as planned.

Unfortunately, that leads to shoddy work. The dinner gets done poorly and probably a little late anyway. Then the cook spends the whole meal either apologizing or eying the guests for any sign of displeasure.

The dark type of perfectionist finds no enjoyment in what they accomplished and learns nothing that can lead to future improvement because they are totally focused on themselves.

I think the key to good perfectionism is, as you said, Robin, to focus on the obtaining the best results possible, even if they’re not “perfect” this time around. Good perfectionism can view any experience as part of a learning process that leads to ever improving results.

A fine line exists between the two. What separates Chaplin, for example, from a hack director who spends endless hours wasting everybody else’s time in search for a “perfect” shot that doesn’t exist? I’ve known of directors who felt convinced that they were showing creative genius by actions that were nothing more than wasting everybody’s time.

Striving for perfection in a good way has to be divorced from self-worth. It has to focus on results. And it has to be willing to see each effort as a step on the journey to perfection instead of as this one effort as needing to lead to the final destination. Seeking perfection has to be a habit, not a one-time shot.

Cheers, R

What did you think of Jeff’s point about the difference between perfection and excellence?

Does your ‘pursuit of perfection’ serve you e.g. make you more creative, more innovative?

Keep shooting for the stars – and I will too.

Best, Robin