Comment by sebzim4500
1 year ago
>I still remember my grandfather telling us, everything you do, you must strive to do it well. It was about having pride in your work.
You aren't alone, but I think this is terrible advice. You should figure out what you want to do and find the best way to do it. The best way will probably involve half-assing a lot of stuff, since you only have a finite amount of time/energy.
I had a teacher at school who used to say "if it's worth doing then it's worth doing properly", but he mainly said it about things that weren't worth doing.
Relating to this, a big realization for me was in highschool when I was given the advice by an elder sibling that I didn't need to try to do everything perfectly if I had other important things to do. Eg. it's okay to take a small hit on one class's grade by skipping a weekly homework assignment if it means being able to focus on the term end project from another class.
In hindsight it seems kind of obvious, but I was so used to the parental pressure to just do everything perfectly from my earlier years that it had never occurred to me to prioritize. Although I suppose it does still require you to have a mature sense of priorities, since skipping all assignments to party every day is obviously not healthy.
I take pride in all of my work, but at this point, as a PhD student, if I put my 100% into everything, I'd have to forgo even sleep. I have to figure out which tasks are more important and which I can hand off to others or simply ignore because my supervisor probably won't even remember asking me to do them in a week.
> "if it's worth doing then it's worth doing properly"
Big life lesson for me was "if it's worth doing then it's worth doing poorly" Even if it's more worthwhile doing it a little better (and once done poorly you can work toward that if it makes sense).
I always liked this quote on officers which has been attributed to dozens of different generals throughout history:
> I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.
I try to be clever and lazy in all things :-)
This never made sense to me. Being intelligent and hard working is (to me) obviously better than being intelligent and lazy. The latter just thinks great thoughts, but does nothing about them.
6 replies →
A legendary academic from my country had a favorite saying to younger researchers: "Your activity doesn't give any results; all I see is consequences."
> "if it's worth doing then it's worth doing poorly"
Not sure if you're talking about the GK Chesterton quote, but https://qz.com/990130/in-defense-of-amateurs
Seems more extensively applied. e.g. If cleaning the bathroom is worthwhile then it is worth doing it badly. As opposed not at all. I'm sure someone loves cleaning bathrooms but that isn't the point.
Counterpoint to the the inner voice saying: It's not worth doing because it won't be great.
Woody Allen: "Showing up is 80 percent of life."
Is it terrible advice? Those are quite strong words. I don't think it is terrible. It may not be for everyone but I can surely see that such a philosophy and approach to life can be fulfilling. I think it can make you focus, do less but do it better. Quality over quantity, kind of.
I agree. I don't think it's inconsistent to implement said advice and to utilize Pareto Principle.