How good is ‘good enough’? I suppose that depends on what you’re doing. If you’re building a bridge or a skyscraper or a submarine or a jetliner, ‘good enough’ is nearly perfect, at least as close to perfect as we are capable of achieving. If you are fixing dinner, ‘good enough’ might mean only that you can swallow it without gagging. ‘Good enough’ is always changing.

There are some guidelines, however, that you can use to decide how far ‘good enough’ needs to go. That’s what I’d like to talk about this week.

First, it is important to remember that ‘good enough’ is different from perfection. Achieving perfection is hardly possible in any endeavor (except, perhaps, pure mathematics). No matter how good you are at typing, you will occasionally hit the wrong letter. No matter how good you are on the dance floor, sometimes you’ll step off the beat or out of sync with your partner. No matter how good you are at saying the right thing, occasionally the wrong words will come out of your mouth.

Second, ‘good enough’ is contextual. If you are emailing a press release to the local news team, ‘good enough’ has a higher standard than if you are emailing a lunch invitation to your best friend. In each different context in which you can be doing something, there is a minimum level of correctness expected, and they are all different.

Third, ‘good enough’ is a function of experience. A beginning cook is going to make mistakes, and the people he cooks for will understand if something doesn’t turn out well; the same cook, after years of practice, is expected to get it right more often and in more subtle ways.

Fourth, ‘good enough’ is open to interpretation by the audience. What one person accepts today, they might reject tomorrow, and it could be for an entirely unrelated reason such as the mood they are in after sitting in traffic. We are at our core subjective beings, and many things affect how we interpret any given situation. A movie might do really well with one crowd and bomb with the next one; the movie hasn’t changed, but the demographic has, or the time of day has, or the weather outside the theater has.

So ‘good enough’ is not really something that you can control, and the race to be perfect is one you will always lose. Instead of trying to perfect everything, I would like to offer a different way to look at ‘good enough’:

‘Good enough’ is as correct as you can make something given your available skill, available time, and available resources, as judged by your available peers.

Still a beginner? Accept that your final product will offer much in the way of learning experiences even if it doesn’t come out the way you hoped or expected. Don’t have much time? Accept that your end result won’t be perfect and make it as good as you can in the time you have. Don’t have the tools you need to get the job done? Try doing it a new way or try creating those tools, and, again, accept that your creation won’t be perfect. Don’t have anyone else to give you feedback? Pretend to be your audience, and, yet again, accept that the output won’t be perfect when it is reviewed by the final audience.

The one thing that is in every one of those examples is the word ‘accept’. Really, that’s what this all comes down to. Most people expect things to be a certain way, and don’t accept them the way they actually are. Some people spend much of their time beating themselves up over details rather than taking a step back and looking at the bigger pictures of life. Typically, the masters in any field are also the most accepting, and it’s the people who are just learning who consistently place unrealistic demands on themselves and others.

Acceptance is the hardest part. I’ve explored it before, and I’ll do so again from another perspective next week…

Other news

• Stick to Reader’s Digest, for your own well-being: Magazines ‘harm male body image’ [www.bbc.co.uk]
• Yes, when I first glanced, I thought he was learning from a TV show: ‘I studied surgery as a Japanese PoW’ [www.bbc.co.uk]
• More proof that what hurts the life around us hurts us as well: Pesticide Parkinson’s link strong [www.bbc.co.uk]

From the editor

I’m in the process of reconfiguring how the newsletter gets distributed, so sometime in the next few weeks I’ll be posting the last issue through Zinester. If you receive this by email, then you will have to take a few steps to keep receiving it, but it should only take a minute or two. I’ll let you know what to do when the time comes. I just wanted to give you a heads-up.

It’s hard to believe I’ve been doing this for almost two years now. When I started, I hoped it might be popular, but I didn’t really know what I was getting myself into. I thank you all for making this worth my time and energy… if it weren’t for my readers, I wouldn’t be here.

Have a great week!

Healthy thoughts,
Jeff

If being productive is important to you (and for most of us, being productive is critical), you’re probably looking for any and every way you can find to improve your overall output and efficiency. However, productivity is not something that can be simplified to one or two principles. Hopefully you’re starting to see that. A very large number of physiological, mental, emotional, and external forces all affect what we do and how much we do it. Still, we have to start somewhere, and we can make a difference in our results with small changes in many places… the more changes we make, the bigger difference we’ll see.

I’ll start this one by referring back to a couple recent issues: Your Habits Create Your Outcome, where I discuss the need to be aware of the habitual behaviors that you have; and Gliding, in which I talk about the importance of doing only the right things rather than trying to do everything. These two factors, core habits and choice of action, have a huge impact on productivity. If your business or personal life suffers from not getting the important things done, these are the first things you should look at.

Another factor that affects productivity, and that is getting it done right the first time. What do I mean by this?

In the submarine (when I was in the navy), we had a saying: “Slow is fast.” In the fast-paced world of undersea combat, there isn’t time to do a job twice… it had to be done right the first time. It was all well and good that you got the crate tied down, but if it wasn’t tied well it would come loose again and have to be dealt with again. With a little more attention and effort the first time, however, you could do the job right and it wouldn’t have to be redone later.

This dovetails nicely into another saying, I believe from Anthony Robbins: “Perfect practice makes perfect.” By itself, practice makes good. What you practice again and again is what you get when it’s time to perform. On the field, this means if you practice at 55% then when it’s time for the critical play in the big game, what you’ll get is a 55% result. If you want to have perfect results performing at your best, you need to practice at 100% all the time. Practicing giving a speech? Make every word choice, pause, and inflection count. Practicing running a marathon? Every step you take should be exactly as you want to take it on race day.

Hopefully you’ve noticed that this is just another form of creating the habits to carry you through future events. What you practice when it doesn’t matter will drive your results when it does, so act as if it always matters. Make every effort your best effort.

If you do things right the first time, you won’t have to revisit them again and again, and you’ll find more time to spend on the important things. Whether it’s finishing a report for work or cleaning the garage, the extra few minutes you put into it now will save you those minutes many times over tomorrow.

But perfect results are not always possible (in fact, I believe they are never possible). So how good is good enough? That’s a question that applies fully and, unfortunately, has no one correct answer. However, I’ll explore that in depth next week. Stay tuned…

Other news

• Out with the bad cells, in with the good: Cloning treats mouse Parkinson’s [news.bbc.co.uk]
• If your girl jumps up and down, be concerned: Hyper girls ’struggle as adults’ [news.bbc.co.uk]
• Bon Jovi’s ‘Bad Medicine’ may be an exception: Music as Medicine [healthday.com]

Quote for the week

Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. - Leo Tolstoy

From the editor

I always enjoy looking into new topics and learning new things. If you have questions you would like to know more about, please drop me a line and let me investigate it for you. If you’re wondering about it, it’s likely others are, too.

Healthy thoughts,
Jeff

In many ways, the modern world is a true marvel. We have unprecedented access to information of all kinds. In many countries, even the lowest classes have the ability to research and learn from the vast knowledge that exists online. But the information age isn’t just about data, it’s also about communication. More than ever, people anywhere in the world can effortlessly and instantly contact each other and communicate at great length on any topic they please…

Furthermore, social networking sites have become an amazing phenomenon, offering us the ability to meet and share ideas with people from all walks of life, forming groups of friends and associates who exactly match our interests in any subject, giving us the platform on which to find peers wherever in the world they may be…

Other social networking sites are devoted to meeting significant others, to developing relationships of a more personal kind. Site after site promises us the chance to meet the love of our live and live happily ever after. We can finally express exactly what we are looking for and skip past the ‘hassle’ of meeting these people in person and dealing with the awkwardness that comes with trying to figure out if your date is potentially something more…

So why is it, that with communication and networking bringing millions of people together online, that so many people feel alone and estranged in the world? Why is it that at the height of the networking revolution, we are at the most isolated we have ever been?

The answer, as I see it, is exactly because we are conducting all of our communication from within our own bedroom or office or living room. The answer is because we are talking to a computer and not to a real person.

Let me clarify that. I don’t believe for a moment that most of the people I interact with online are imagined people. These are not automated pieces of software simulating humans in an effort to fool me.

Rather, what I mean is that all of the subconscious clues that are present when we talk with others face-to-face are gone. In our most primitive mental maps of the moment, we are talking to machines.

There is nothing new in this belief. It has long been understood that the way we interact in the presence of other people is vastly different from the way we interact online. How we present ourselves, how we judge each other, how we censor our actions and statements: these are all different when we have other humans in the room. And with more time comes deeper comprehension of just how differently we behave behind the keyboard than in person. There has been a growing understanding of the damage this separation is causing, and much of it is worrisome.

For some people, the deepest connections they share with other humans are through an online mechanism. I, personally, have noticed over time that many people either avoid or don’t make time for real-world socialization in their lives. With work and commuting, it just takes too much effort to actually spend the evening with another person. It is so much easier to just jump online and see how everyone around the world is doing than to try to meet up with one or two people per day.

And that’s exactly the problem. It’s so easy to be involved in whatever seems interesting at the moment online that we lose the desire to make an effort to have a real interaction with another person, one which might take hours to prepare for, experience, and clean up after.

What do we lose by making this tradeoff? First and foremost, our subconscious mind loses all the deep-seated cues that we are part of a community. These are the very clues we need for psychological well-being on a daily basis. And by need, I mean ‘Need’, the way we need food and water and air. We can stay healthy for months without chocolate or ice cream, without sports or TV or a car, but we need personal, human connection daily to maintain emotional stability; a few days without socialization and we display the onset of a variety of psychological problems. We need real connection, not just communication.

What people forget is that while it does take more effort to interact with others in person, the rewards are infinitely greater. What people lose touch with is the value of having intimate friendships and communication in physical proximity. When we stop interacting with others in person, we begin eroding our very humanity. When we stop making and spending time with friends, we start to die inside.

Other news

• No, you won’t look better dead: Doctors warn of superbug infection in facelifts [www.msnbc.msn.com]
• You mean hormones can be bad for kids?!? Growth hormone doesn’t boost athletic abilities [www.msnbc.msn.com]
• Hungry for popularity: Study shows midlife eating disorders on the rise [www.msnbc.msn.com]

From the editor

It’s been very cold in Korea, where I’ve been living recently, for many months now. Not a day has gone by since November that I haven’t been wrapped up and bundled in several layers and still found myself shivering underneath it all. Well, except for vacation. But anyway…

Today was the first day that I’ve been able to step outside without a hat and gloves and feel warm enough. Sure, I’m not cozy or anything, but I’m not uncomfortable either. It’s a good feeling.

Spring is here, and I, for one, welcome it with open arms!

Healthy thoughts,
Jeff

I love food. For a variety of reasons, I have had the chance to eat the staples and delicacies of dozens of different cultures. I love hot. I love salty. I love raw. I love fried. I love… well, I love it all.

Who here doesn’t have something they love to indulge in? For many of us, it’s something edible, like food, chocolate, wine, or candy. For others, it is staying in bed or reading pulp fiction. It could be spending hours every day browsing the Internet or watching TV or…

The list goes on. What do you indulge in? How much? How often?

Having entertaining ways to spend time and fill our bodies or minds a good thing. After all, it’s the pleasures that give life color and depth. Working all the time, living a life devoid of any special treats, or intentionally depriving yourself of luxuries can teach you a lot about yourself. These are all good in moderation.

These things are only bad when you become addicted to them. So the real question is, what are you addicted to? By ‘addicted’, I don’t mean in the clinical sense, I mean what can’t you live without for an extended period on a moment’s notice? What would be painful or traumatic to adjust to if it were suddenly not available in your daily routine?

One of the things I learned while living alone in the wilderness was that food is precious. Not precious in the sense that gold is precious, I mean that food is precious the way that air is precious. Modern living is such that, like most people, I have food in abundance around me all the time. It wasn’t until I went without food entirely for a week, then spent another three weeks on a diet of about half my daily metabolic requirements that I realized just how little I had respected food.

Could you fill the time if all your electronics were taken away? Could you remain at peace if the silence of your home were disturbed throughout the night by a barking dog or noisy neighbors? Could you continue to function if you had to go without alcohol or food for a week or more? If you lost all your money, could you keep your sense of humor and goodwill?

There is nothing to be gained by lifelong abstinence from your vices. You need indulgences to feed your senses and stimulate creativity. The things you can learn from an alcohol-free life can be learned even if you drink occasionally. But there is much to learn by taking away your guilty pleasures periodically and reminding yourself to respect the joy and pleasure you take in them.

What are your pleasures? Try abstaining for a while… you just might learn something about yourself.

Other news

• I’m not thrilled over how the vaccine is created; I’m glad to see this one go: Long-time smallpox vaccine is destroyed [www.msnbc.msn.com]
• Too mellow to dig out the stash: ADHD Drugs Won’t Raise Risk of Substance Abuse [healthday.com]
• Yes, losing weight is a good thing: Weight-Loss Surgeries Extend Lives [healthday.com]

From the editor

Just when I thought I was well and truly getting into spring, two more snowfalls rolled in back-to-back. I was already thinking about putting my hat and gloves away for the season. Now I have to brace myself for another few weeks of cold.

I am already longing to return to the tropics, and it’s only been two weeks since I returned from vacation…

Healthy thoughts,
Jeff

There are many cooking additives in wide use around the world, but often I have found that they take away from the food more than they enhance it. I enjoy simply-prepared dishes, like steamed vegetables, fried meat with a dash of soy sauce or curry, or yogurt and fruit. Whatever the French might say about the complex blending of flavors, I’ve found the natural flavors inherent in the foods I eat to be just as appreciable if I take the time to enjoy them. I don’t need a complex sauce with three kinds of cream, a simple curry or pico de gallo will do.

So it annoys me that some cultures still insist on putting MSG in everything. MSG, or monosodium glutamate, has the effect of ‘bringing out’ the flavors inherent in the food you eat. Glutamate is a simple additive to create, and dates back hundreds of years in Asian food. I understand why it is used, but it annoys me.

I am one of the small percentage of the population for whom MSG is a problem. I can eat almost anything and have no negative effects, but MSG wipes me out about half the time when it is in something I eat. I get extremely painful headaches and nausea, and nothing short of going to bed and sleeping it off seems to help.

My issue is not that MSG is a problem for me, don’t get me wrong. It has nothing to do with the question ‘Why can’t I eat it?’. It has, instead, everything to do with the question ‘Why is it deemed necessary?’. Why is it put into so many things?

And it is put into a lot of things. In America, it can be found in everything from soup stock to snack foods, from fast food to cheese. In some cases it occurs naturally, in others it is added. If it occurs naturally, I can accept that. It is when it is added, however, that I don’t like it: while I can taste the difference, I don’t see that the taste is better, just different. Why add something to food that has enough flavor on it’s own?

The answer lies in part with custom (’we’ve always had MSG in our potato chips, we will continue to use MSG in the future’), partly with competition (’we can’t compete on taste tests if we don’t add MSG’), and partly on ego (’why should we take out MSG for the five percent who have trouble with it’). If I were a shareholder in any of those companies, I would have to agree in practice. But in principle I would still feel that MSG was not needed to make a delicious product.

The real trouble lies with the fact that the vast majority of consumers, at least in the western world, expect every bit of flavor enhancement they can get. If it tastes this good now, imagine how it would be if it tasted just a little better! That line of thinking, while unnecessary, is exactly what the mass population comes up with on it’s own. And since foods are prepared to cater to the masses, MSG will not be going away any time soon.

It interests me that MSG is, for the vast majority of people, apparently safe. It’s safe the way salt is safe, in that (like most things) some is fine, more is OK, a lot is dangerous. I wish I were one of those people. It also interests me just how vehemently the anti-MSG crowd touts the dangers of MSG, as if eating it will bring about the end of the world. Unfortunately for them, I have to agree that for the most part, MSG isn’t going to do you much harm.

I just wish it weren’t in so many restaurant and packaged foods. And I wish it weren’t added to just about everything here in Korea. It tastes good, sure, but most of these foods would be just as good without it, in my opinion.

Other news

• Common cause, calamitous cure, or coincidence? Heart risk link to eye condition [news.bbc.co.uk]
• Chancy canine confrontations: Hospitals see rise in dog bites [news.bbc.co.uk]
• Childhood cigarette cessation : Child nicotine patches approved [news.bbc.co.uk]

From the editor

What food additives are you opposed to? What ingredients do you work to avoid in your shopping and dining out? Let me know! If I get enough feedback, I’ll post the results in an issue soon.

It’s been a while since I’ve asked, so I’ll throw the request out there: please let your friends and family know about Weekly Wellness News. I’d like to reach as many people as I can, and I depend on you, my readers, to spread the word. If you know someone who could benefit from one of the articles I’ve written, let them know about it!

It’s small gestures by everyday people like yourselves that make a difference in a world full of so much noise. If you like what you read, let others know so they can appreciate it as well.

Healthy thoughts,
Jeff