The Insitance on Perfection by the Imperfect

One of the great pressures we put on each other is to believe in some kind of perfection and it's an unnecessary pressure. Accepting that moral, physical or practical perfection is impossible will free us from a lot of self-doubt and metaphorical 'beating up' when we feel we are not quite getting things right and also prevent us from piling in on others who have made errors in judgement or other perceived imperfections.

However, we should strive to be the best we can where we have the power to change, but when faced with a body that doesn't conform to the current norms of beauty (which is 99% of us when we look in the mirror) we're best off remembering that no-one is perfect in that way. Or on realising that words have slipped out that we wish hadn't from our mouth or keyboard, sincerely apologise where necessary and move on. And if we are on the end of an apology for an 'offence', perhaps the humility of remembering out own imperfections will keep us from being bitter.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

Very well put.

We want "perfection" in ourselves - we do our best, but become dissatisfied when we don't reach goals we should have seen as unrealistic.

Worse perhaps we expect "perfection" in others, or in things like public services - and cannot understand that though the people involved are usually doing the best they can, nothing can ever be 100% efficient, 100% free of breakdowns oro failures. Nor understand that our own plans are always a bit of a gamble, always carry some risk of one or another hazard, slip or failure.

The rarer the problem or lower the risk the worse it is because it moves the expectation from an sort of catastrophism ("it's always happening" - really?) to an sense of false security.

This is an unusual example of this expectation of 100% perfection meeting unexpected failure; affecting me. It was many years ago - afore portable telephones even.

Travelling to visit friends in NE London, I arrived at Waterloo station on time, and studied the Underground map to see where I needed change trains. As we slowed to that junction I stood up - and nearly fell over as the train suddenly accelerated hard instead and hared into the next tunnel. Startled, I alighted at the next stop Northwards and took the next train back. This time we ran straight through the junction.

I alighted at the next stop Southbound, where I learnt the junction had been closed by an electrical fire, found a telephone kiosk and rang my friends.

As I waited at the entrance for my host to collect me, I discreetly watched and listened to the early-evening confusion this breakdown had caused.

I concluded the most confused were the locals, because a very rare event had broken their familiar ways. Whereas we who visit the city only rarely are likely to be on edge, constantly verifying our locations and routes, aware of the risk of the untoward including our own navigation mistakes; always ready for possible escape-routes.

That was a rare type of event, a technical one behind the scenes at that, so naturally unexpected. Yet even then, we so often hear "Heads must roll"; "Who is responsible?" etc. The message is the expectation as we are personally perfect, anyone operating any human-made system, and the system itself, must always be 100% perfect.

Doings one's best, it seems, is not good enough - though admission of imperfection comes in organisations following some fault or wrong-doing apparently having no staff, yet "issuing a statement" blandly saying things like, "We are committed to..." .

We are all human and humans are not "perfect" - yet we expect ourselves to be perfect and everyone else, even better.

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@ArishMell Very good example, thanks. I guess the old Boy Scouts motto of 'Be Prepared' came from understanding this kind of thing. I know I am not exempt from it, but the rush to criticise is a strong urge in most people as we forget our own mistakes.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@FreddieUK Oh of course we never make mistakes - just everyone else! :-)

I wonder if being all too ready to crticise others is defensive, deflecting even ourselves from our own weaknesses. Something that encourages that is the idea that it is not only "wrong" to make mistakes, even treated as if deliberate, but it is seen equally wrong to admit one's own limits.

For example, if you admit honestly you cannot learn some artistic or academic field to a high level, you risk being derided by cruel lies like, "It's easy! Anyone can do it if you only put your mind to it!"

Far more seriously it leads to scapegoats; even to essentially innocent people being prosecuted for mistakes that lead to disaster. Firstly they the ones least able to defend themsleves, but what it shows they were entrusted with operating a system obviously not designed to fail-safe in the face of simple errors.

The example I use for that came from the German Railways quite some years ago now (15 years? I forget).

A station officer gave the Right-away to the driver of a train, into a single-line section neither man must have not known was already occupied by a train coming their way.

Following the inevitable head-on collision the Police arrested the station-master, before any proper investigation. I don't know the eventual outcome but to me, if any people were at fault, it might have been the Bundesbahn's directors. Why?

I don't know if the track merger was at the station where the driver might have seen the direction of the points, or somewhere beyond; but my first questions would have been,

"Was there a signal before, and interlocked with, the points? If 'Yes', was it showing 'STOP' over-riding any indication from any station staff member?"

"If so, did the driver ignore it; if he did, why?"

If "No" so far, dig further. No signal - why not? Faulty signal? That can happen so would it have failed to 'Stop' or show no indication at all? (If either, still why did the driver proceed?) Poor maintenance - why? and so on.

I.e., as in so many other cases, was the system protected against simple human mistakes, as far as possible; if not, why not?

We know the hazard, that people can slip up - so we try to minimise the risk, and don't just take the easiest target's mistake as THE cause!

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@ArishMell I remember that and similar examples. Sometimes human based systems have built-in human frailty.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@FreddieUK I think that inherent frailty is the problem but does anyone in the right places recognise it?

It cannot be prevented, only guarded against by trying to think what might go wrong, and dealing with failures constructively and properly as rapidly as possible. Preferably without "knee-jerking" from outsiders like politicians and newspaper editors.

And without "putting procedures in place..." because I suspect sometimes it does happen again because the staff are so cramped by "procedures" they cannot use their initiative and experience.