AS I MENTIONED, I WANT the last 5 posts to be about the "self-improvement values" that I have held dearly. That said, I have not always been able to practice them. There had certainly been times when I let my immediate emotion, gut feeling, belief, and heuristics took over my values, resulting in my failures to perform what I have set out to. These values are different from the "moral values" that I have outlined in my 12 rules.
In my last post, I wrote about my first self-improvement values -- incrementalism. Here're the other four. First, Quality (over quantity): There's no other way to put it: It's more important to me to get one thing done right, rather than get many things done half-right. We're living in the world dominates not only by speed and scale, but also the madness of obsession over quantity.
These things range from who earn more, to who have received more awards and recognitions, to who have more possessions, such as luxury items, houses, cars, etc. I grew up in a family that valued the quality of the work we did -- the kind of work that made us proud of our contribution to our family, company, institution and society -- and such quality was not always represented by how much we earned or how much we're being recognized publicly.
True, one would be lucky to be able to do massive amount of quality work. My point is that if I have to choose between quality and quantity, I would go for the former. Often, if not always, we don't have the luxury to choose both. Once the quality is achieved, and there's a possible that it can be achieved with multiplicity, then, certainly, why not.
Second, Process (over result): This has been the mantra with which I often shout at myself whenever I begin to expect that I should get whatever I want as a result of the work done well. Many thinkers, especially the Stoics, have reminded us again and again that we suffer when we try to control things we do not have any control over. We can control our value and opinion -- how much work we want to put into the work by ways of own willpower.
The result, on the other hand, unless it's judged by you as well, is not in your control. Of course, you may think that your work is good enough to get a good result (in fact, as the psychologists Daniel Kanehman and Amos Tversky have reminded us, we tend to overestimate our ability to plan and therefore over-expect our ability to achieve), but even if that which is the case, you must not undermine other factors that could shape the result.
So, as the Stoics suggest, we might as well ignore the anticipation for a desirable result altogether, and focus solely on the process. I am personally an "anti-consequentialist." Consequentialism preaches the idea that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences. In the words of Deng Xiaoping about whom I wrote in my Anti-Fragile Manifesto post, "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.
" This "Deng-ism," as some political scientists call it, came in timely and handy at the time when Deng had to deal with problems from all fronts and had lifted China out of its extreme poverty in the decades preceding his re-emergence in the chaotic scene of Chinese politics as the supreme leader; yet, there will be always be something rather unsettling lingering in many's minds about that statement.
If a "black cat," is a malignant means, it should not justify any result even if that result happens to be benign. Would you do anything to achieve your goal including hurting others? My answer is a qualified no. In fact, I suggest that you stay away from anyone who would do anything to excel, because for someone like that there's virtually no guarantee that hurting you won't be on that person's plan to benefit him/herself.
Historians, analysts, critics have argued that it's precisely the use of these "black cat" methods to catch the economic mice that erodes the collective sense of morality in the contemporary Chinese society the three decades that follow, causing massive and irreversible social problems that may have exceeded its initial benefits.
Third, Unconventional (over conventional): My favorite poem of all time by Robert Frost begins like this: "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both." Like the poet, "I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference" but not for the same reason. It could be the case that roads that are less travelled are dangerous, long and winding and therefore inefficient as a travel route.
It could also be the case that it's "easier" to just take the road frequently traveled because, that way, we do not have to think: We just follow. That's precisely what conventionalism means -- the idea that what is "generally" held by the mess is to be thought as acceptable at the expense of individuality. I don't care much about my own individuality.
I am only interested in the truth, in giving the fair picture to what is not "generally held by the mess as acceptable." As the clinical psychologist Dr Jordan B Peterson remarks, "In order to think, you have to risk" -- your life, damaging your own pre-existing belief, and offending other conventional minds who are too lazy to put their brains to work. When I see a road less travelled, I feel the urge to know more about it.
It's too easy to just do whatever most people like to do, which is another classic fallacy (i.e., "social proof"). In fact, I enjoy using my brain to think about the desertion of the road less travelled, and if I could not find any sensible reasons that render it dangerous, I will take the less, instead of frequently travelled road.
As the philosopher Immanuel Kant remarks, "enlightenment is mankind's emergence from its self- imposed immaturity," something in me makes me believe that taking the road less travelled is the path to that enlightenment. A bonus: Taking the road less travelled makes life more exciting. Why do you want to take the same road again and again? Fourth, Good enough (over perfect): Perfectionism isn't a quality but a mental state that only exists in the mind.
So, those who confuse what perfectionism are those who often suffer from their inability to let go, move on. They're usually burdensome to others expecting their timely delivery of a project, result, etc. I have met a number of seemingly intelligent people who could not finish anything on time. And their excuses?
You bet it is "Because I am a perfectionist." And these people always shake their heads when I tell them, "Why don't you try to be just good enough instead?" Whatever we do in life, we'll always be constrained by space and time. These are the two domains of the phenomenal world in which we live. Surely, if you have all the time in the world, you may be able to bring anything and everything into its finest perfection.
But when do we ever have all the time in the world? That's never the nature of any assignment. Space, too, plays in the same role in constraining our ability to maneuver and deliver our products. In addition, precisely because the space and time, what's "perfect" in one place and time might not be perfect in the other. I personally suffered a lot during the writing phrase of my doctoral dissertation.
Even after three years of data collection (which was unusually long for a doctoral research) I still felt as though my work wasn't good enough, Not because I was a perfectionist (spoiler alert: far from it) per se but because I feared my advisor' disappointment if the work delivered to him was of the less-than-perfect quality.
It was this advisor who guided me with his wise words, "Perfectionism is a form of arrogance." After that, I shifted my focus from "producing a perfect work that won't disappoint my advisor" to "producing a good enough work that reflects the three years of quality data collection and its careful analysis." You wouldn't believe how fast I could move with my writing that had stalled for more than a year preceding that.
As I believe in quality over quantity, I took time to focus closely on my collected data, analysis and writing. I wasn't able to deliver a magnum opus of a dissertation that was 500-page-thick, but I was able to complete a good enough work that represented some competence in my field of study. Of course, my advisor did not go over the moon with my work, but he wasn't dreadfully disappointed either.
For the philosopher Plato, "Forms" are being represented by objects in the real world; hence there will never be perfect. My dissertation was that object that represents the "ideal form" of that dissertation.
Problematizing Time