Perfection vs experimentation
April 21, 2025, 9:06 a.m.
Personally, I like to experiment with the world around me. My initial thought process follows a decision tree. Would this experiment be worth it? Is this experiment fun? What are the costs of experimenting? (materials, time, effort) etc. I’m planning before I begin the venture. If my conditions are met, then I experiment with small changes and see what results I get.
What brings me to the discussion of perfection vs experimentation? Here’s the backstory: As I’m doom-scrolling the internet, I come across an interesting article. An example scenario (totally made up) would be: plants do better with cold water rather than warm water. The responses to the article in the comments included the well thought out and sound argument akin to “duh, that’s obvious”.
I’d argue that even if seemingly obvious, there are plenty of variables to account for. The experiment unlocked a new way of doing things and by enacting the new insight the process was optimized.
On the other hand, striving for ‘perfect’ from the get-go is essentially impossible: everything must be complete down to the particle level, else-wise it is not perfect and can be further optimized (mic drop).
Further, where does feeling or looking silly for trying, come from? Too many things regarding this topic don’t make sense. Which gave me an idea: where does the phrase “Perfect is the enemy of progress” come from? It was Voltaire.
To conclude, ‘perfect’ in this context is flawed. Experimenting is where the cool cats hang and the feelings of looking foolish is silly. Judgy peeps should not be a reason for not trying something. Wouldn’t that essentially be hindering progress? Even if the feeling of silliness is insurmountable, if a small modicum of silliness is required for a lifetime of greatness, I know what option I’d take.