I believe, from personal experience, that perfectionism used in moderation is an asset. When you are shooting for perfect, but you don't beat yourself up or get upset when you don't achieve it, you try harder than if you are shooting for good or adequate. This leads to better results, and you don't become depressed.
Your correct, perfectionism differs slightly from person to person, as does everything, but that is irrelevant. The principle is that you are shooting for your individual perfect for the current situation. You are also correct in that perfectionism can't be achieved, that's why it's very important for people aiming for perfection not to be upset when they don't achieve it. The point is that when you aim for perfection, you come closer then when your aiming for good or adequate, because you are trying harder. What perfect means to you isn't important, nor is your ability to achieve perfection.
Perfectionism is a time killer. Many people, such as myself, are slower than the average person with actions in life. I shall give a personal example: I have sloppy hand writing when I write at a normal pace. If I write slowly, I write neater, but I have slowed myself down in the process of say taking notes. Perfectionism can also drive others crazy. Imagine working in say a fast food place and you make an order with all the right stuff, but someone watching points out that it is not neat enough. It is slowed down, the customer is waiting longer, AND you have the slight urge to kill that person that told you to organize the pickles properly.
Also consider that perfection is open to interpretation. Shooting for your idea of perfect may not be shooting for your boss's idea of perfect
Perfectionism isn't a time killer unless you take it too seriously, or you indulge it when it's not important. When your writing something like class notes, it doesn't really matter whether or not you have sloppy handwriting. If you're handwriting something for an important test, you might want to be a little neater, but it's up to you whether or not you want to to be a perfectionist about that. Working in a fast food restaurant is a little trickier. Technically the customer is always right, but you could probably choose whether or not to ignore them, because if their order is satisfactory, you don't really have to do anything else for them, and if you did, you could reorganize the pickles after you served them. Also in a work environment, if your boss wants you to shoot for standards above your normal perfect, and you want to keep your job, you would have to temporarily adjust your standards of perfect. The point is that you get to choose when you shoot for perfection. It isn't always rational to use perfectionism, such as when you're writing class notes, but there are other times, like when you're preparing a resume, that you might want to shoot for perfection.
If you choose when you shoot for perfection, that's not perfectionism. Perfectionism is the impulse to constantly adjust until you reach a standard of perfect. If you're never perfect, then we have a problem with things being perfect always, then you have a problem, and this was admitted by my opponent. But not being impulsively perfect isn't perfectionism. Being persistently in attempts to be perfect is perfectionism. If you moderately look for perfection, then you are not perfectionism. And my opponent is stating that if you aren't always perfect or something is too important to waste time trying to make it perfect then that is okay. Everyone wants to be perfect at some things. Trying to be perfect all the time at everything is perfectionism. If a so called "perfectionist" makes a handful of exceptions, then they aren't perfectionists.
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry but this one line tor Con's case apart form the inside, out. " If you're never perfect, then we have a problem with things being perfect always, then you have a problem, and this was admitted by my opponent."
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.