>if that's your profession, you should strive to be the best at the given task. My best takes 10x the time and, in most cases, is 100% unprofitable. Standards

>if that's your profession, you should strive to be the best at the given task. My best takes 10x the time and, in most cases, is 100% unprofitable. Standards and status quos exist for a reason - because they work. I used to work with a "perfectionist" personality and he was ultimately let go. He just couldn't keep up and had this ridiculous "I'm the best" attitude that was incompatible with most acceptable schedules. He didn't even seem all that talented, just obsessive. I suspect "being the best" usually translates into "learning the test." The reality is that when we look at creative and productive and satisfied people, we see a mix of traits. More common than not, the lazy half-asser wins out as she can provide something of value (convenience). She gets annoyed by problem y and produces solution x. The guy who looks at problem y and has a "okay I'll spend 10 hours on getting this perfect" attitude falls behind the girl who says, "Lets write a script for this and fully automate it." Why shouldn't the automator feel as much satisfaction as the obsessive perfectionist? Honestly, the "be your own mountain man with endless time on his hands to do simple things" ethos shouldn't be applauded. Its just a lot of questionable things taken to an extreme - obsessiveness, distrust of others, inability to be on a team, inability to be efficient, etc.