WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.520 Welcome to the Deep Dive. I am genuinely excited 00:00:02.520 --> 00:00:04.580 you're joining us for this one today. Oh, absolutely. 00:00:04.820 --> 00:00:06.620 It's a great one. Yeah. You know, we always try 00:00:06.620 --> 00:00:09.199 to picture you, the listener. You're probably 00:00:09.199 --> 00:00:12.699 a lifelong learner, someone who is insanely curious 00:00:12.699 --> 00:00:14.880 about how things work. Right. Maybe you're prepping 00:00:14.880 --> 00:00:17.019 for a big meeting or just trying to catch up 00:00:17.019 --> 00:00:20.379 on a new field. Exactly. But you also absolutely 00:00:20.379 --> 00:00:23.480 hate feeling overwhelmed by information overload, 00:00:23.859 --> 00:00:26.179 which is why we're here. To cut through the noise. 00:00:26.379 --> 00:00:29.429 Right. And to set the mood for today's deep dive, 00:00:29.589 --> 00:00:31.350 I'm looking at your video feed right now, and 00:00:31.350 --> 00:00:33.250 you've got this amazing backdrop. It looks like 00:00:33.250 --> 00:00:37.109 a cozy, kind of dusty library filled with ancient 00:00:37.109 --> 00:00:39.609 texts and philosophy books. Yeah, I wanted to 00:00:39.609 --> 00:00:41.390 set the scene. We're going a bit historical today. 00:00:41.509 --> 00:00:45.960 I love it. So today's topic is a famous aphorism, 00:00:45.960 --> 00:00:48.619 one you have definitely heard and probably used. 00:00:48.840 --> 00:00:51.460 Perfect is the enemy of good. It's everywhere. 00:00:51.679 --> 00:00:54.259 It really is. We are pulling today's insights 00:00:54.259 --> 00:00:58.079 from a remarkably concise but really dense encyclopedic 00:00:58.079 --> 00:01:00.500 article that traces the entire history of this 00:01:00.500 --> 00:01:03.420 exact phrase. The philosophical antecedents, 00:01:03.420 --> 00:01:06.799 the modern variations, all of it. Right. And 00:01:06.799 --> 00:01:09.859 our mission today is to dissect exactly why the 00:01:09.859 --> 00:01:12.739 insistence on perfection often paralyzes us from 00:01:12.739 --> 00:01:15.060 implementing perfectly good improvements. And 00:01:15.060 --> 00:01:17.700 more importantly, to extract practical, memorable 00:01:17.700 --> 00:01:20.609 insights that you can apply immediately. Because 00:01:20.609 --> 00:01:23.469 we want to save you time and energy? We all know 00:01:23.469 --> 00:01:25.730 that sinking feeling of tweaking a project to 00:01:25.730 --> 00:01:27.670 death. Oh, we've all been there. Okay, let's 00:01:27.670 --> 00:01:30.390 unpack this. The basic definition laid out right 00:01:30.390 --> 00:01:32.069 at the top of our source material is striking 00:01:32.069 --> 00:01:34.650 because it frames perfection not as a goal, but 00:01:34.650 --> 00:01:37.430 as a roadblock. Yeah, a massive roadblock. The 00:01:37.430 --> 00:01:39.650 source suggests that achieving absolute perfection 00:01:39.650 --> 00:01:42.609 is, well, it's likely impossible. Therefore, 00:01:42.849 --> 00:01:45.109 the relentless pursuit of it shouldn't stop you 00:01:45.109 --> 00:01:48.390 from recognizing or completing work that is imperfect 00:01:48.390 --> 00:01:51.030 but still highly valuable. And that distinction, 00:01:51.090 --> 00:01:52.950 you know, the difference between flawless and 00:01:52.950 --> 00:01:55.510 useful is really the crux of the issue here. 00:01:55.590 --> 00:01:58.769 It is. In a world of endless information, we 00:01:58.769 --> 00:02:02.170 often confuse flawless with useful. We see curated 00:02:02.170 --> 00:02:05.549 images of success everywhere. Totally. So we 00:02:05.549 --> 00:02:08.729 set a standard that defies reality. And the result 00:02:08.729 --> 00:02:11.090 of demanding that flawlessness is almost always 00:02:11.090 --> 00:02:13.909 paralysis. Like staring at a blinking cursor 00:02:13.909 --> 00:02:17.659 for an hour. Exactly. A useful solution. even 00:02:17.659 --> 00:02:20.699 if it has a few rough edges, actually moves the 00:02:20.699 --> 00:02:23.319 needle. It solves a problem for you or for someone 00:02:23.319 --> 00:02:26.439 else. But a flawless solution that only exists 00:02:26.439 --> 00:02:28.919 in your head. Or is perpetually stuck in a draft 00:02:28.919 --> 00:02:31.240 folder. Right. Sitting in a draft folder because 00:02:31.240 --> 00:02:33.520 it's never quite ready. That helps absolutely 00:02:33.520 --> 00:02:36.659 no one. Ouch. I feel personally attacked by the 00:02:36.659 --> 00:02:38.979 mention of the draft folder. But it really begs 00:02:38.979 --> 00:02:41.080 the question, why is that our default state? 00:02:41.460 --> 00:02:44.340 Well, tinkering feels like productive work. As 00:02:44.340 --> 00:02:46.990 long as you are endlessly revising. or adjusting 00:02:46.990 --> 00:02:48.830 fonts, or doing just a little more research. 00:02:49.150 --> 00:02:51.449 Oh, but endless research. Right. You are protecting 00:02:51.449 --> 00:02:53.949 yourself from the vulnerability of actually shipping 00:02:53.949 --> 00:02:57.150 a finished product. Perfectionism is often just 00:02:57.150 --> 00:02:59.849 procrastination wearing a really nice suit. Wow. 00:03:00.210 --> 00:03:03.189 That is a harsh but completely necessary reality 00:03:03.189 --> 00:03:06.439 check. So where does this idea actually come 00:03:06.439 --> 00:03:08.120 from? Because Voltaire usually gets all the credit 00:03:08.120 --> 00:03:09.900 for this, right? The French Enlightenment philosopher. 00:03:10.340 --> 00:03:12.819 He does. In the English -speaking world, the 00:03:12.819 --> 00:03:15.340 most famous attribution points to Voltaire in 00:03:15.340 --> 00:03:19.129 1770. Okay, 1770. Yeah, in his work, Questions 00:03:19.129 --> 00:03:22.289 sur l 'Encyclopédie, he quoted an Italian proverb. 00:03:22.669 --> 00:03:25.530 He wrote, Il meglio è l 'inimico del bene. The 00:03:25.530 --> 00:03:28.169 best is the enemy of the good. Right. And he 00:03:28.169 --> 00:03:30.330 clearly found the concept compelling because 00:03:30.330 --> 00:03:32.590 he used it again in his moral poem, La Beghe. 00:03:33.069 --> 00:03:35.550 He wrote about a wise Italian who says that the 00:03:35.550 --> 00:03:38.280 best is the enemy of the good. I have a really 00:03:38.280 --> 00:03:40.599 hard time believing an 18th century philosopher 00:03:40.599 --> 00:03:43.379 was the very first person to realize perfectionism 00:03:43.379 --> 00:03:45.539 is a trap, though. Does this go back further? 00:03:45.800 --> 00:03:49.020 Oh, it absolutely does. While Voltaire popularized 00:03:49.020 --> 00:03:51.439 it, another French philosopher, Montesquieu, 00:03:51.580 --> 00:03:54.020 beat him to the punch by several decades. Oh, 00:03:54.020 --> 00:03:57.199 really? Yeah, around 1726, in his work Pensée, 00:03:57.419 --> 00:03:59.900 Montesquieu wrote something very similar, but 00:03:59.900 --> 00:04:02.379 with a slight, incredibly impactful variation. 00:04:02.939 --> 00:04:06.439 He wrote, Le mieux est le mortel ennemi del bien. 00:04:06.810 --> 00:04:09.789 Translated, that is, the best is the mortal enemy 00:04:09.789 --> 00:04:12.229 of the good. Exactly. The mortal enemy. That 00:04:12.229 --> 00:04:14.569 shifts the tone completely. It changes the entire 00:04:14.569 --> 00:04:16.949 weight of the phrase. By adding the word mortal, 00:04:17.069 --> 00:04:19.389 Moscow is emphasizing that perfection doesn't 00:04:19.389 --> 00:04:21.990 just oppose the good. It literally kills it. 00:04:22.250 --> 00:04:26.129 Yes. The pursuit of the absolute best actively 00:04:26.129 --> 00:04:28.550 destroys the perfectly good reality you could 00:04:28.550 --> 00:04:32.430 have achieved. It's like assassination by overtinkering. 00:04:32.529 --> 00:04:35.269 You aren't just delaying your work, you are murdering 00:04:35.269 --> 00:04:38.560 its potential. What's fascinating here is that 00:04:38.560 --> 00:04:42.519 the roots of this idea stretch back way past 00:04:42.519 --> 00:04:44.680 the French Enlightenment, all the way to the 00:04:44.680 --> 00:04:46.920 ancient world. So your library background is 00:04:46.920 --> 00:04:50.100 really paying off right now. I told you. Specifically... 00:04:50.269 --> 00:04:52.370 We can look at Aristotle and his principle of 00:04:52.370 --> 00:04:54.629 the golden mean. The golden mean, the idea of 00:04:54.629 --> 00:04:56.730 finding the middle path between two extremes. 00:04:57.050 --> 00:04:59.089 Right. And we usually think of the golden mean 00:04:59.089 --> 00:05:01.629 in terms of emotional extremes. Yeah. Like finding 00:05:01.629 --> 00:05:03.769 the balance between recklessness on one end and 00:05:03.769 --> 00:05:05.889 cowardice on the other. Sure. But applying it 00:05:05.889 --> 00:05:08.089 to work ethic is a brilliant paradigm shift. 00:05:08.410 --> 00:05:11.329 The golden mean counsels against all extremism. 00:05:11.370 --> 00:05:14.370 And perfectionism is, by definition, an extreme. 00:05:14.430 --> 00:05:16.410 That makes a lot of sense. It is a fundamental 00:05:16.410 --> 00:05:18.970 refusal to accept the reality of human limits. 00:05:19.449 --> 00:05:22.649 By striving for the absolute extreme of flawlessness, 00:05:22.930 --> 00:05:25.470 you abandon the balanced rational middle ground 00:05:25.470 --> 00:05:28.259 of creating something good and useful. That totally 00:05:28.259 --> 00:05:30.920 reframes how I look at my own to -do list. We 00:05:30.920 --> 00:05:32.959 don't usually label ourselves as extremists when 00:05:32.959 --> 00:05:35.100 we're just trying to get a project exactly right. 00:05:35.220 --> 00:05:37.199 We really don't. But the literature backs this 00:05:37.199 --> 00:05:40.079 up, too. The overarching philosophy shows up 00:05:40.079 --> 00:05:42.920 vividly in English literature. Most notably was 00:05:42.920 --> 00:05:46.319 Shakespeare. Oh, yes. In his tragedy, King Lear, 00:05:46.360 --> 00:05:49.139 which was written around 1606, the Duke of Albany 00:05:49.139 --> 00:05:52.759 gives this warning. He says, striving to better, 00:05:52.939 --> 00:05:56.310 oft we mar what's well. Such a great line. And 00:05:56.310 --> 00:05:58.709 Shakespeare hits on the exact same theme in Sonnet 00:05:58.709 --> 00:06:02.829 103. He writes, Were it not sinful then, striving 00:06:02.829 --> 00:06:06.050 to mend, to mar the subject that before was well. 00:06:06.610 --> 00:06:09.110 Striving to mend, to mar the subject. It is a 00:06:09.110 --> 00:06:12.350 beautiful, poetic... description of self -sabotage 00:06:12.350 --> 00:06:14.610 it really is yeah and to make it feel a bit more 00:06:14.610 --> 00:06:16.230 modern for you listening right now think about 00:06:16.230 --> 00:06:18.089 a time you were working on a presentation oh 00:06:18.089 --> 00:06:20.689 boy you have a perfectly good slide deck the 00:06:20.689 --> 00:06:22.829 information is clear the narrative makes sense 00:06:22.829 --> 00:06:26.329 but you just keep striving to mend it just one 00:06:26.329 --> 00:06:29.970 more tweak right You change the font, you adjust 00:06:29.970 --> 00:06:32.910 the margins by a millimeter, you try a new transition 00:06:32.910 --> 00:06:35.490 effect, and suddenly the formatting for the entire 00:06:35.490 --> 00:06:38.230 deck is completely ruined. You strove to better 00:06:38.230 --> 00:06:40.769 it, and you marred what was well. I can actually 00:06:40.769 --> 00:06:42.589 speak to that from personal experience. You tell. 00:06:42.959 --> 00:06:46.139 I once spent three days reformatting a data report 00:06:46.139 --> 00:06:48.920 to make the charts look aesthetically flawless. 00:06:49.360 --> 00:06:51.740 And in the process of moving everything around, 00:06:52.019 --> 00:06:55.040 I accidentally deleted a crucial column of raw 00:06:55.040 --> 00:06:59.079 data that altered the final conclusion. I had 00:06:59.079 --> 00:07:01.220 to revert to a saved version from three days 00:07:01.220 --> 00:07:05.490 prior. I hit undo on 72 hours of my life. That 00:07:05.490 --> 00:07:07.970 is brutal. That is Shakespeare's warning playing 00:07:07.970 --> 00:07:10.029 out in real time. Well, here's where it gets 00:07:10.029 --> 00:07:12.129 really interesting. Let's transition away from 00:07:12.129 --> 00:07:14.750 your dusty library backdrop for a second. Let's 00:07:14.750 --> 00:07:16.649 imagine we are now sitting in the middle of a 00:07:16.649 --> 00:07:19.670 bustling modern airport terminal. Okay, shifting 00:07:19.670 --> 00:07:22.269 gears. I like it. Because the applications of 00:07:22.269 --> 00:07:24.629 this concept become intensely practical in the 00:07:24.629 --> 00:07:27.509 real world. Before we get to the literal airplanes, 00:07:27.790 --> 00:07:30.750 our source introduces a proverb from an 1893 00:07:30.750 --> 00:07:33.870 dictionary of quotations said to be of Chinese 00:07:33.870 --> 00:07:37.449 provenance that provides a stunning visual. Okay, 00:07:37.529 --> 00:07:40.329 what's the quote? Better a diamond with a flaw 00:07:40.329 --> 00:07:43.329 than a pebble without one. That imagery perfectly 00:07:43.329 --> 00:07:46.029 encapsulates the shift from theory to reality. 00:07:46.209 --> 00:07:48.970 Isn't it? A diamond has immense intrinsic value. 00:07:49.329 --> 00:07:52.069 Even if it has a flaw, a cloudy spot, or a small 00:07:52.069 --> 00:07:54.709 inclusion, it remains a highly valuable gem. 00:07:54.990 --> 00:07:57.550 A pebble, on the other hand, might be perfectly 00:07:57.550 --> 00:08:00.170 smooth, perfectly round, absolutely flawless 00:08:00.170 --> 00:08:03.009 in its execution as a pebble. But at the end 00:08:03.009 --> 00:08:05.310 of the day, its intrinsic value is virtually 00:08:05.310 --> 00:08:08.129 zero. It's still just a rock. Exactly. When you 00:08:08.129 --> 00:08:10.709 apply this to your daily life, a flawed but completed 00:08:10.709 --> 00:08:13.610 project, a product launched, a tough conversation 00:08:13.610 --> 00:08:16.410 had, a decision made that is your diamond. It 00:08:16.410 --> 00:08:19.389 exists in the real world. It has real, tangible 00:08:19.389 --> 00:08:22.949 value. An incomplete, theoretical perfect project 00:08:22.949 --> 00:08:26.889 that you never finish is just a pebble. You might 00:08:26.889 --> 00:08:29.209 have flawless ideas in your head, but without 00:08:29.209 --> 00:08:32.230 the flawed reality of execution, they carry absolutely 00:08:32.230 --> 00:08:35.529 no weight. I see the logic. But let me play devil's 00:08:35.529 --> 00:08:37.570 advocate for just a second. Go for it. I'm looking 00:08:37.570 --> 00:08:39.669 around this metaphorical airport terminal we're 00:08:39.669 --> 00:08:42.070 sitting in. If I'm getting on a plane I really 00:08:42.070 --> 00:08:43.950 want the mechanic who checked the jet engine 00:08:43.950 --> 00:08:47.509 to be a perfectionist. Fair point. I do not want 00:08:47.509 --> 00:08:50.250 a flawed diamond of an airplane engine. Doesn't 00:08:50.250 --> 00:08:52.070 this whole philosophy break down when the stakes 00:08:52.070 --> 00:08:55.559 are literally life and death? That is a completely 00:08:55.559 --> 00:08:58.139 fair pushback, and context is everything here. 00:08:58.460 --> 00:09:01.019 In highly constrained, zero -tolerance environments, 00:09:01.419 --> 00:09:03.919 aviation mechanics, structural engineering, neurosurgery, 00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:07.259 the good is explicitly defined by extreme precision. 00:09:07.559 --> 00:09:10.120 So perfection is the baseline. Or as close to 00:09:10.120 --> 00:09:13.299 it as humanly possible, yes. But the trap is 00:09:13.299 --> 00:09:15.340 that we take the standard required for a jet 00:09:15.340 --> 00:09:17.879 engine and apply it to a weekly newsletter, or 00:09:17.879 --> 00:09:20.840 organizing our garage, or writing a first draft. 00:09:21.120 --> 00:09:23.600 That makes a lot of sense. Most of us are not 00:09:23.600 --> 00:09:26.059 performing open heart surgery at our desks. We 00:09:26.059 --> 00:09:28.960 artificially inflate the stakes of our own work 00:09:28.960 --> 00:09:32.320 to justify our perfectionism. Precisely. And 00:09:32.320 --> 00:09:34.200 what's interesting is that even in life or death 00:09:34.200 --> 00:09:37.940 scenarios, speed sometimes still trumps perfection. 00:09:38.519 --> 00:09:41.200 Really? Yes. The history of the military and 00:09:41.200 --> 00:09:43.120 the tech sector provides a phenomenal example 00:09:43.120 --> 00:09:45.980 of this. Robert Watson Watt, who was heavily 00:09:45.980 --> 00:09:48.759 involved in the development of radar during World 00:09:48.759 --> 00:09:52.779 War II. Huge stakes. Massive stakes. He propounded 00:09:52.779 --> 00:09:55.340 what he called a cult of the imperfect. A cult 00:09:55.340 --> 00:09:57.940 of the imperfect. I love that phrasing. The guiding 00:09:57.940 --> 00:10:01.460 rule of his cult is incredibly pragmatic. He 00:10:01.460 --> 00:10:04.639 stated, give them the third best to go on with. 00:10:04.740 --> 00:10:07.700 The second best comes too late. the best never 00:10:07.700 --> 00:10:10.360 comes. The third best, not even the second best. 00:10:10.519 --> 00:10:13.480 Right. Because in a rapidly evolving high stakes 00:10:13.480 --> 00:10:16.399 environment like military defense, speed and 00:10:16.399 --> 00:10:19.240 implementation are infinitely more critical than 00:10:19.240 --> 00:10:21.639 delayed perfection. That makes total sense. If 00:10:21.639 --> 00:10:23.519 you wait to engineer the absolute best radar 00:10:23.519 --> 00:10:26.019 system, the war might be over before you deploy 00:10:26.019 --> 00:10:28.799 it. If you wait for the second best, you've still 00:10:28.799 --> 00:10:31.360 lost critical time and likely lives. The third 00:10:31.360 --> 00:10:33.820 best is the good improvement that you can implement 00:10:33.820 --> 00:10:36.990 today. The enemy isn't going to pause their advance 00:10:36.990 --> 00:10:39.830 while you tinker with your prototypes. It's the 00:10:39.830 --> 00:10:42.970 ultimate reality check. Perfection is a luxury 00:10:42.970 --> 00:10:45.950 you literally cannot afford when time is of the 00:10:45.950 --> 00:10:49.009 essence. Exactly. Which brings us perfectly back 00:10:49.009 --> 00:10:51.830 to our bustling airport setting and an incredible 00:10:51.830 --> 00:10:54.169 assertion from the economist George Stigler. 00:10:54.490 --> 00:10:57.490 He famously said, if you never miss a plane, 00:10:57.610 --> 00:10:59.110 you're spending too much time at the airport. 00:10:59.740 --> 00:11:02.419 If we connect this to the bigger picture, Stigler 00:11:02.419 --> 00:11:05.059 is offering a master class in opportunity cost. 00:11:05.279 --> 00:11:07.580 Let's break that down for the listener. In economics, 00:11:07.860 --> 00:11:09.980 opportunity cost is the potential benefit you 00:11:09.980 --> 00:11:12.379 lose when you choose one alternative over another. 00:11:12.720 --> 00:11:15.860 In this case, the cost of a flawless travel record 00:11:15.860 --> 00:11:18.460 is the hundreds of hours of your life you lose 00:11:18.460 --> 00:11:21.000 sitting at a departure gate. Okay, unpack that 00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:23.299 a bit more, because missing a plane sounds like 00:11:23.299 --> 00:11:25.860 a massive failure to most people. It does, which 00:11:25.860 --> 00:11:28.470 is exactly why we overcompensate. Think about 00:11:28.470 --> 00:11:30.590 what it takes to never miss a plane over the 00:11:30.590 --> 00:11:32.669 course of your entire life. A lot of waiting. 00:11:32.809 --> 00:11:36.909 A ton of waiting. To guarantee a 100 % success 00:11:36.909 --> 00:11:39.429 rate, to be perfectly prepared for unexpected 00:11:39.429 --> 00:11:42.870 traffic, long security lines, or a delayed shuttle, 00:11:43.029 --> 00:11:45.090 you might arrive at the airport three or four 00:11:45.090 --> 00:11:47.429 hours early every single time you travel. Yeah, 00:11:47.470 --> 00:11:49.789 we all know someone who does that. Over decades, 00:11:50.009 --> 00:11:52.730 that equates to weeks of your life spent sitting 00:11:52.730 --> 00:11:55.960 in an uncomfortable chair waiting to board. Stigler 00:11:55.960 --> 00:11:57.679 is arguing that if you are perfectly prepared 00:11:57.679 --> 00:12:00.700 for every single variable in your life, you are 00:12:00.700 --> 00:12:02.960 wasting a massive amount of your most valuable 00:12:02.960 --> 00:12:06.639 resource, which is... Because occasionally missing 00:12:06.639 --> 00:12:09.659 one plane in a 10 -year span is actually a cheaper 00:12:09.659 --> 00:12:12.019 price to pay than wasting weeks of your life 00:12:12.019 --> 00:12:14.600 sitting in a terminal just to maintain a flawless 00:12:14.600 --> 00:12:17.159 record. Exactly. The pursuit of the flawless 00:12:17.159 --> 00:12:20.080 travel record is a massive misallocation of resources. 00:12:20.519 --> 00:12:23.320 The flaw of missing a flight once a decade is 00:12:23.320 --> 00:12:26.059 the necessary, acceptable byproduct of living 00:12:26.059 --> 00:12:28.679 an optimized, efficient life where you don't 00:12:28.679 --> 00:12:30.779 waste your time. That completely flips the script 00:12:30.779 --> 00:12:33.210 on how we view preparation. The goal isn't to 00:12:33.210 --> 00:12:35.990 avoid failure at all costs. The goal is to price 00:12:35.990 --> 00:12:38.309 the failure correctly. Beautifully said. I think 00:12:38.309 --> 00:12:40.789 a lot of us need to audit our own lives and figure 00:12:40.789 --> 00:12:42.570 out where we are currently sitting at the gate 00:12:42.570 --> 00:12:45.110 for four hours. We absolutely do. We naturally 00:12:45.110 --> 00:12:49.029 fear the acute, highly visible pain of a failure, 00:12:49.190 --> 00:12:52.470 like missing the flight or publishing a typo, 00:12:52.470 --> 00:12:55.610 much more than we notice the chronic, invisible 00:12:55.610 --> 00:12:58.509 drain of the wasted time it took to prevent it. 00:12:58.860 --> 00:13:01.159 And this concept of over -optimization bleeding 00:13:01.159 --> 00:13:04.200 into wasted time is a foundational rule in computer 00:13:04.200 --> 00:13:07.340 science, too. Oh, definitely. Donald Knuth, a 00:13:07.340 --> 00:13:09.740 giant in the field of computer programming, has 00:13:09.740 --> 00:13:16.059 a famous statement. He said, In the programming 00:13:16.059 --> 00:13:18.679 world, premature optimization means that developers 00:13:18.679 --> 00:13:21.559 try and make their code run perfectly fast. or 00:13:21.559 --> 00:13:23.879 use perfectly minimal memory before they even 00:13:23.879 --> 00:13:26.200 know if the basic program actually works to solve 00:13:26.200 --> 00:13:28.179 the problem in hand. So they're fixing problems 00:13:28.179 --> 00:13:31.039 that might not even exist yet. Exactly. Imagine 00:13:31.039 --> 00:13:33.379 spending weeks optimizing a sorting algorithm 00:13:33.379 --> 00:13:35.820 for a database that only has 10 items in it. 00:13:36.120 --> 00:13:38.620 It's a massive waste of time, it makes the code 00:13:38.620 --> 00:13:41.100 overly complex, and it distracts from the actual 00:13:41.100 --> 00:13:42.860 goal, which is building a functional piece of 00:13:42.860 --> 00:13:44.919 software. You're polishing the diamond before 00:13:44.919 --> 00:13:47.919 you even dug it out of the mine. Yes. And while 00:13:47.919 --> 00:13:50.240 Truth was talking about code, this applies to 00:13:50.240 --> 00:13:53.629 everything. Premature optimization is the writer 00:13:53.629 --> 00:13:56.809 who spends three weeks picking the perfect font 00:13:56.809 --> 00:13:59.549 and formatting their title page before they've 00:13:59.549 --> 00:14:02.210 written chapter one. Guilty. It is the person 00:14:02.210 --> 00:14:05.029 who spends five days organizing a flawless digital 00:14:05.029 --> 00:14:08.429 workspace with color -coded tags to manage a 00:14:08.429 --> 00:14:11.090 project they haven't actually started yet. Or 00:14:11.090 --> 00:14:14.269 buying the absolute highest end, perfectly engineered 00:14:14.269 --> 00:14:17.210 running shoes before you've even proven to yourself 00:14:17.210 --> 00:14:19.830 you can jog around the block consistently. The 00:14:19.830 --> 00:14:22.269 optimization becomes a distraction from the execution. 00:14:22.590 --> 00:14:25.549 We use the preparation to avoid doing the actual 00:14:25.549 --> 00:14:28.750 work. And in the business world, this phenomenon 00:14:28.750 --> 00:14:31.470 actually have a name. In marketing and product 00:14:31.470 --> 00:14:34.230 development, there is a recognized concept called 00:14:34.230 --> 00:14:38.090 quality creep, and it is viewed as actively counterproductive 00:14:38.090 --> 00:14:40.690 to success. Quality creep is a very specific, 00:14:40.929 --> 00:14:44.370 very dangerous trap. It happens when a team keeps 00:14:44.370 --> 00:14:47.299 adding features. or endlessly polishing a marketing 00:14:47.299 --> 00:14:50.120 campaign well beyond what the consumer actually 00:14:50.120 --> 00:14:52.159 needs or cares about. So you're just sinking 00:14:52.159 --> 00:14:54.600 money and labor into it. Right. You are sinking 00:14:54.600 --> 00:14:58.000 hours into pushing a product from 95 % good to 00:14:58.000 --> 00:15:01.720 99 % good. But the reality of the market is that 00:15:01.720 --> 00:15:04.220 the customer was already entirely satisfied and 00:15:04.220 --> 00:15:08.559 ready to buy at 90%. Wow. That extra 9 % of quality 00:15:08.559 --> 00:15:11.659 you chased is counterproductive because the return 00:15:11.659 --> 00:15:14.039 on investment for that effort is effectively 00:15:14.039 --> 00:15:18.049 zero. You've marred what was well by trying to 00:15:18.049 --> 00:15:20.769 mend it for no practical reason. So what does 00:15:20.769 --> 00:15:22.990 this all mean? We have covered a massive amount 00:15:22.990 --> 00:15:25.149 of ground today. We really have. And the through 00:15:25.149 --> 00:15:27.850 line connecting all of these distinct ideas is 00:15:27.850 --> 00:15:31.429 incredibly clear across centuries, from the ancient 00:15:31.429 --> 00:15:33.909 wisdom of Aristotle counseling against extremes 00:15:33.909 --> 00:15:36.950 to Shakespeare warning us about marring what 00:15:36.950 --> 00:15:39.429 is well. Right up to modern economists, military 00:15:39.429 --> 00:15:42.460 strategists, and computer programmers. The consensus 00:15:42.460 --> 00:15:45.820 is undeniable. Flawlessness is a trap. Good enough 00:15:45.820 --> 00:15:48.320 isn't a compromise, and it isn't a failure. It 00:15:48.320 --> 00:15:50.960 is very often the smartest, most strategic goal 00:15:50.960 --> 00:15:53.879 you can aim for. It is the optimal strategy for 00:15:53.879 --> 00:15:56.320 navigating a reality where you have finite time 00:15:56.320 --> 00:15:59.000 and finite resources. You simply cannot afford 00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:02.019 to be perfect. So, to you listening right now. 00:16:02.519 --> 00:16:04.860 When you are absorbing new information, when 00:16:04.860 --> 00:16:06.840 you are doing research for that big presentation, 00:16:07.220 --> 00:16:09.740 or when you are just trying to finally finish 00:16:09.740 --> 00:16:11.919 a task that has been lingering on your desk for 00:16:11.919 --> 00:16:15.759 weeks, I want you to actively embrace the flawed 00:16:15.759 --> 00:16:18.320 diamond. Stop trying to smooth it into a useless 00:16:18.320 --> 00:16:20.860 pebble. Give them the third best to go on with. 00:16:21.370 --> 00:16:23.750 Respect your own time enough to risk occasionally 00:16:23.750 --> 00:16:26.610 missing a metaphorical plane. Your energy is 00:16:26.610 --> 00:16:29.149 entirely too precious to spend sitting at the 00:16:29.149 --> 00:16:31.669 departure gate of perfection. This raises an 00:16:31.669 --> 00:16:33.590 important question, though, and it's something 00:16:33.590 --> 00:16:35.690 I want to leave you to ponder as you step back 00:16:35.690 --> 00:16:37.669 into your day. Okay, let's hear it. We've established 00:16:37.669 --> 00:16:40.529 that perfection kills the good, and that striving 00:16:40.529 --> 00:16:44.470 to mend often mars what is well. But if the pursuit 00:16:44.470 --> 00:16:47.549 of perfection actively destroys the good, How 00:16:47.549 --> 00:16:50.289 do we identify that exact invisible tipping point? 00:16:50.409 --> 00:16:52.570 That is the big question. Is there a measurable 00:16:52.570 --> 00:16:55.610 moment in our work, a specific minute of editing 00:16:55.610 --> 00:16:58.149 or tweaking a design? We're researching one more 00:16:58.149 --> 00:17:01.250 article where our genuine desire to improve secretly 00:17:01.250 --> 00:17:03.929 transforms into the destruction of our own progress. 00:17:04.509 --> 00:17:06.789 Finding that invisible line where the return 00:17:06.789 --> 00:17:10.170 on investment drops to zero. Exactly. Next time 00:17:10.170 --> 00:17:12.410 you find yourself endlessly revising a project, 00:17:12.609 --> 00:17:15.109 stop and ask yourself, have I already crossed 00:17:15.109 --> 00:17:17.829 the line from polishing the diamond to crushing 00:17:17.829 --> 00:17:20.829 it into a pebble? That is such a brilliant, challenging 00:17:20.829 --> 00:17:23.250 thought to leave off on. Are you polishing the 00:17:23.250 --> 00:17:25.910 diamond or are you crushing it? Thank you so 00:17:25.910 --> 00:17:27.670 much for joining us on this deep dive. It's been 00:17:27.670 --> 00:17:30.190 a pleasure. We love unpacking these concepts 00:17:30.190 --> 00:17:32.069 and figuring out how to apply them alongside 00:17:32.069 --> 00:17:34.950 you. Now get out there, stop over -optimizing, 00:17:34.970 --> 00:17:37.950 and boldly make some perfectly good, gloriously 00:17:37.950 --> 00:17:40.230 imperfect things. We will catch you next time.