comfort foods that make us sick, entertainment that numbs us into forgetting what we actually want, purchasing decisions that promise to solve problems we can't even name. We scroll when we could be reading. We busy ourselves to postpone making meaning. We perform productivity instead of engaging with what's right in front of us.

Saying no to someone I used to say yes to — then sitting in the awkward space where no one celebrated my boundaries. No justification, no quick repair. Just the rawness of not being the person who pleases. And finding out that I could live with it.

I came to see I’m more resilient than I thought, and the world is larger than I ever imagined.

Walking away from a title, a platform, a role that once made me important — and waking up the next morning with no one asking how I am, no one needing me. Just myself and the dull throb of identity withdrawal.

I'm not suggesting you seek out suffering for its own sake or turn discomfort into another performance of self-improvement. I'm talking about something more fundamental — the willingness to stop shrinking in the face of difficulty, to stop making every uncomfortable feeling into evidence that things are wrong.

Most people treat discomfort like a problem to solve rather than information to receive.

The resistance to starting that project isn't always procrastination — it might be the friction of a work that holds meaning.

The practice isn't complicated. Try this: sit with the feeling of wanting to check your phone without checking it. Eat something nourishing that doesn't taste like pleasure.

get into the space between the feeling and your reaction to the feeling. This is where choice is.

The territory beyond your comfort zone isn't a place you visit occasionally when you're feeling brave. It's where life is actually happening. Everyone else is still trying to control their experience, still believing that the right combination of circumstances will finally deliver them from struggle.

When you feel the pull to escape - from the conversation, the feeling, the moment of truth - what is that urge really trying to protect you from discovering about yourself?

How many times have you mistaken the call to stay for the permission to leave, interpreting your discomfort as evidence you're in the wrong place rather than the right one?

This isn't about becoming someone who enjoys difficulty. It's about becoming someone who doesn't let difficulty make decisions for them. Someone who has learned to distinguish between the voice that protects and the voice that imprisons.

The thing I most worry about using anti-perfectionism arguments is that it begs a vision in the first place—perfectionism requires an idea of what's perfect. Projects suffer from a lack of real hypotheses. Fine, just build. But if you're cutting something important to others by calling it too perfect, can you define the goal (not just the ingredients)? We tend to justify these things by saying, we'll iterate. Much like perfectionism can always be criticized, iteration can theoretically always make a thing better. Iteration is not vision and strategy, it's nearly the reverse, it hedges vision and strategy. This is a slightly different point, but when we say we don't need this extra security or that UX performance, you're setting a ceiling on the people who are passionate about them. Those things really do have limits (no illusions!), but you're not just cutting corners, you're cutting specific corners. That's a company's culture. Being accused of perfectionism justifiably leads to upset that the company doesn't care about security or users. Yeah, maybe it's limited to this one project, but often not.

Perfection can be the enemy of the good. It's that it's not a particularly a helpful critique. To use the article’s concept, it’s the wrong scale. It might be helpful to an individual in a performance review, but it doesn’t say why X is unnecessary in this project or at this company. Little is added to the discussion until I describe X relative to the goal. Perfectionism is indeed good to avoid—it's basically defined as a bad thing by being "too". But the better conversation says how X falls short on certain measuring sticks. At the very least it actually engages X in the X discussion. Perfectionism is more of a critique of the person.

It takes effort to understand the person's idea enough to engage it, but more importantly it takes work that was supposed to (but might not) have gone into developing good projects or goals in the first place. Projects well-formed enough to create constraints for themselves.

I agree with the thesis of this article but I actually think the point would be better made if we switch from talking about optimizing to talking about satisficing[1]. Simply put, satisficing is searching for a solution that meets a particular threshold for acceptability, and then stopping. My personal high-level strategy for success is one of continual iterative satisficing. The iterative part means that once I have met an acceptability criterion, I am free to either move on to something else, or raise my bar for acceptability and search again. I never worry about whether a solution is optimal, though, only if it is good enough. I think that this is what many people are really doing when they say they are "optimizing", but using the term "optimzing" leads to confusion, because satisficing solutions are by definition non-optimal (except by luck), and some people (especially the young, in my experience) seem to feel compelled to actually optimize, leading to unnecessary perfectionism.

Perfectionism is sort of polarizing, and a lot of product manager / CEO types see it as the enemy. In certain contexts it might be, but in others “perfectionism” translates to “building the foundation flawlessly with the downstream dependencies in mind to minimize future tech debt.” Of course, a lot of managers prefer to pretend that tech debt doesn’t exist but that’s just because they don’t think they can pay it off in time before their team gets cut for not producing any value because they were so busy paying off tech debt.

kthejoker2 3 months ago | prev | next [–] Not sure you can talk about perfectionism without clarifying between "healthy" perfectionism and "unhealthy" perfectionism. Both exist, but often people are thinking of one or the other when discussing perfectionism, and it creates cognitive dissonance when two people thinking of the two different modes are singing perfectionism's praises or denouncing its practice.

looking at these comments, it seems perfectionism is ill-defined. it seems to be positive - perfectionism is not giving up, it is excellence, it is beyond mediocre. it also seems to be negative - it is going too far, it is avoiding/procrastinating, it is self-defeating. I wonder what the perfect definition would be?

so if it is, I want to be more in the present moment, like a horse(?), then the thing is to direct your attention towards the details and the gestalt of general horseyness. Imagining the horse self within you and really feeling how it relates to the reality you inhabit