Thanks, I've been feeling like what I've been doing lately just isn't up to snuff, and have been getting frustrated. I think this will help change my perspective.

I took a really boring job, and it was a terrible experience but I came away with 2 lessons 1. python can be just as terrible or worse than java when written by ex-java programmers 2. I can now understand and read some seriously scary large and ridiculously bloated code bases - which is a valuable and painfully learned skill.

That's very helpful, Ed. I recently started a new job, and I've been frustrated that my work output isn't 'perfect' yet. I rationally know that I just need to keep my head down and churn through assignments over time, but it helps to hear that from someone else, too.

Rather than a poster, check out the original source[0], I find Ira Glass' delivery more relatable.

[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23U7U2aUY

Quoth Ira Glass. I wish whoever made that had attributed it - Ira certainly deserves it.

Ever consider setting up a freelancing profile on oDesk or Guru or wherever, and getting paid to do interesting, challenging, different kinds of work of your own selection (more or less)?

Depending on the definition of "getting paid", it's better to do it on the own time for free than bothering with oDesk or Guru if you are located in a developed country.

Have you tried finding some productive use for your downtime?

Practice makes perfect. It's a tired adage, but it's absolutely true.

True if you know what perfection is (be sure to have some guidance, mentors, etc)...

Otherwise practice makes permanent in many cases. Just hope you're doing whatever it is right.

True, for sure.

But then perfect is the enemy of good, which for anyone doing software should remember.

Until a customer or someone important actually cares about that 2px off CSS, that refactor you want to do, or your caching/performance numbers, just don't do it. Wait till someone asks and then get after it.

I love how OP put her work out there to prove her wide array of skills, or more important, her ability to learn random skills. Who else has put out 180 sites for public review?

Awesome!!

I agree - but I don't think the statement semantically means perfection. It really means "practice makes greatness." Perfect just has a P.

Yes, you said it much more succinctly than I did.

Only if you are making an active effort to improve yourself.

Thank you Ed, you have not idea how I needed those words right now.

I'd agree and add to that: go work in sales for a while. Pitching and selling becomes second nature :)

I like the story very much!

And that's a great project, Jennifer.

Perfect practice makes perfect!

I believe in "just do it" and worry about the details later.

However, on the internet, there is a worship of "hard work" that strikes me as emotional more than real.

Hard work is 1/2 of the equation.

The other part is your wiring: intelligence, skill, etc.

Not everyone can do everything.

We can dumb down any task to the point where anyone can do it... but at that point, it's a bubble waiting to pop.

Hard work is half of what equation?

Is the equation 'success in life as measured against everyone else,' or is the equation 'success in life as measure against yourself'? If the question is the latter--which is the only question a person should care about--then hard work is very close to 100%. This isn't an emotional claim, it's a rational and evidence based claim.

The reason that there is a rightful reverence to hard work is because working hard is the variable we can change. Not only that, it's guaranteed to produce results. If you intentionally build 180 web sites in 180 days, you will get better. You may not get better than someone more intelligent, but you can't be that person, you can only be who you are.

Not everyone can be everything, but anyone who does nothing will be nothing.

>>Hard work is half of what equation?

I'd say the full equation is to find a worthwhile goal to work hard on. While learning, the 'How to build 180 websites' goal works fine.

Hard work is fruitful only when applied in the right direction. Work 16 hrs/day in a large corporate and all you will get is some middle manager taking credit for all your work, grabbing all the milk and honey for himself and throwing some peanuts at you along the way.

If you are good, find a lofty goal, which is in your best interest and work on that.

> "If the question is the latter--which is the only question a person should care about--then hard work is very close to 100%.

'Success in life as a measure against yourself' is only a part of the consideration, though. Another part is 'Should I be doing this?'

You allude to this in your discussion but don't come out and say it, which is why 'success [sans the "in life" bit] as measured against everyone else' is an important question as well.

After n units of hard work, how much closer will I get to that someone more intelligent than I? Close enough to be competitive, or simply closer to my potential? Is my optimum potential competitive against my peers? If the effort is to be more than a hobby, the answer to that question (borne from the first of your two potential equations) is the key to deciding if the hard work is a variable we _should_ change.

In the case of that first equation/gate check, might wisdom and intelligence be the weightier reagent?

> "Another part is 'Should I be doing this?'"

Absolutely. I intentionally alluded to this but didn't enter into that discussion because I didn't want to draw from the point I was making, but it's just as valuable of a discussion to have.

> "Is my optimum potential competitive against my peers?"

I would say that your peers could only reasonably be defined as those people who have the same upper-bound of potential (optimum potential) as you. I'm not in the same optimum potential league as John Resig; both because I haven't worked as hard as he has up to this point (focused in the right areas) and because I don't have the same optimum potential (I would imagine). He and I are not peers in this sense, despite being peers across many other areas.

But if I interpreted the question of my success in terms of my self or my peers through the filter of that fact, I would do myself a great disservice. I can't live the life where he and I are peers and I can make changes in my life to compete with him. I can live in the life where I can make changes in my life that will affect my success compared to people in the same optimum potential as I am.

Besides that, despite the differences in optimum potential, I may still be able to reach the level he is at now after, say, twice as much work. In other words, his level is not unobtainable for me, I just have a lot further to run in the race.

And I, for one, welcome that challenge. Anyway, great point, thanks for making it!

Better is potentially a difficult term when you're only judging against yourself. Especially with forms of art, where our appreciation of beauty is going to be informed by social standards. When we start talking about better and worse, then we're inviting a general standard into the discussion. After which the question might go something like: To push themselves and at the end of the day just be a bad web designer (or whatever). Is this what people really want to get out of effort?

Doesn't that seem kinda sad to imagine?

Maybe that's another variable people can change: If they can identify the similarities amongst what they enjoy doing, then they can form more abstract goals that can be satisfied by multiple approaches. If they've done that, then the ability to recognise their relative strengths and weaknesses becomes more important again.

Also context is important: the hard work of the poor guy in Mozambique can make an infinitesimal part of his alter ego in US.

But it could mean the difference between life and death.

> Is the equation 'success in life as measured against everyone else,' or is the equation 'success in life as measure against yourself'? If the question is the latter--which is the only question a person should care about--then hard work is very close to 100%. This isn't an emotional claim, it's a rational and evidence based claim.

I can't agree here. Success is measured in terms of what you accomplish, and that's not solely a personal measurement. Life is not subjective.

Then again, success isn't entirely external either.

However, I can't agree with the notion that "hard work" (a conveniently vague term) is 100% of anything. If it is, that means the work is robot-work.

More likely, it's a lot of careful thought, applied by the amount of work required to make the idea come into reality, and then the missing "fourth wall" of creation, which is: is it actually useful?

I feel like we have an equal problem of thinking of intelligence and skill as immutable constants. I think of both as a muscle, the more I exercise them the better they become. While I realize that everyone starts with certain advantages if you find something you enjoy or want to do and you work hard at it, you will be successful.

I like the muscle analogy. If Mozart had languished and not applied himself, he never would have been a great composer. But not everyone can be Mozart.