incite insight   iconoclastic synchronicity  

Saturday, June 07, 2008

The Pathology of Perfection...

In my youth, I was inclined to be a perfectionist.

But eventually, I realized something important about it. To be happy, you must be satisfied. And a perfectionist is never satisfied.

And the more I thought about it, the more I realized that perfection is fraught with misconceptions. It became clear to me that perfection is vastly overrated. In fact, it is a significant distraction away from characteristics that have actual value.

There's a distinct tendency to confuse perfection with beauty. An erroneous presumption that perfection is somehow more objective (less subjective) than beauty. Or to myopically conclude that, "there is beauty in perfection," and thereby characterize things in irrelevant ways. But in fact, "perfection" is not only not objective, it is also discriminatory and therefore divisive, whereas beauty is generally not. While some may consider it heresy to claim this, the Universe is not perfect-- but it is beautiful. That observation however, should by no means be construed as a criticism of the state of the Universe, quite the contrary.

Perfection is contingent on a purpose-- things are perfect "for some purpose." But beauty is not-- things can be beautiful for no purpose at all. Perfection's "purpose" gives it the apparent status of being more utilitarian, and thereby more objective, but that is an illusion.

By focusing on perfection, and thereby its "purpose," might we be concentrating on the tool, rather than the goal? To see everything as a nail, from the perspective of the hammer, rather than considering the perspective of the fastening task at hand? Perhaps there is another, preferred solution, but a solution we cannot see, clouded as our perspective might be, being so enamored with the "perfection" of hammers? On the other hand, a hammer may be beautiful, but is rendered no less beautiful by the presentation of a problem which appropriate solution might turn out to be glue.

By implication, something "completely" perfect would have to be perfect in all ways, for all purposes. But that is ridiculous, as there are contradictory purposes-- a perfect sphere cannot also be a perfect cube. One has to apply the subjective process of evaluating the value of it's purpose in order to qualify and quantify something as "perfect." Is the perfect "weapon of mass destruction," to be considered somehow better than the perfect "glue" without applying subjective criteria?

Some perfectionists even get to the point that they are compelled to suppress their emotions. Perhaps they feel that the way we handle our emotions is what separates us from animals. Well, that may be true, but I'd say it's also true that the way we handle our emotions is what separates us from machines. And to suppress one's emotions will necessarily make one unhappy. Why? It's quite simple, because happiness is itself an emotion. One who is ruled by logic has thereby ruled out happiness.

Perfectionists have difficulty making decisions. In some cases, extraordinarily so. This is partly because it is near impossible to completely analyze all the information that might contribute to a decision. But it is also because there is inherently a significant amount of subjectivity involved in making a choice. Whether you decide to eat the chocolate dessert today rather than the strawberry one, is not a supremely logical decision but a completely subjective one, potentially subject to change at a moment's whim. That's not to say that all caution should be thrown to the wind or that decisions should be made with a roll of the dice, but there is no point in belaboring a decision in the hopes of arriving at the perfect result.

And perfectionists really hate making mistakes. Odd though, because that itself is a serious mistake. For it really is true, that you learn from your mistakes. Science itself, for example, makes far more progress when a scientist makes a mistake and it is discovered, than when one thinks he's got the answer perfect. As Issac Asimov once said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'"

Upon those realizations, I chose to give up perfectionism. I see it as the epitome of the banal, the bland, the rigid. I see it as lacking in character. The concern of the overconscientious milquetoast.

And subsequently, growing past it-- I chose to instead embrace that which makes one unique. To look for beauty instead of perfection, and not confuse or conflate the two.

I've since realized that it is important to not just overlook imperfections, but to take time to actively appreciate them. Humans are not perfect, but their imperfections are not tantamount to flaws-- one's imperfections are what gives one character, what makes one who they are, and what makes one beautiful.

It's rather ironic really, because for a perfectionist to achieve, at least conceptually, the greater perfection they desire, one of the things they would have to do is actually relinquish their perfectionism. For it is a significant flaw-- the inability to recognize sufficient value in imperfection. To even waste time, looking at things in terms of perfections and imperfections, seems folly. To evaluate things in such terms, in the confused belief that they are somehow being more objective. To focus on the unimportant pedantic details and miss the beauty.

It is our humanity that makes us who we are, not our perfection, and it is in that humanity that we should find value.

Our concern should only be for imperfections that are harmful, which certainly exist, but many imperfections are harmless or even beneficial. To see them as weeds to be eliminated, is to remove that which makes us human and unique.

Perfectionism seeks to homogenize the true value out of the human race-- to turn everyone into identitiless clones, intolerant of individual personality, worth, and beauty. It is an astonishingly outstanding flaw, one that makes people insufferably authoritarian, judgmental and condescending.


And that is why nobody likes a perfectionist. Not even the perfectionist thyself.


--

Sync

2 Comments:

Anonymous perfect said...

well put, but how does one reason with a narcissistic perfectionist?

9:14 AM

 
Blogger Sync said...

Perhaps, lead by example? But yes, it's not easy. The best book I've seen on the subject is "Too Perfect," by Mallinger and DeWyze, and even it is mostly about what it is and how it works rather than what you can do about it other than setting boundaries. Understanding is the first step.

9:41 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home