''The degree of annoyance associated with an imperfection is inversely proportional to the degree to which the subject of consideration differs from the ideal.''

In other words, things that are almost perfect, but not quite, are a lot more frustrating than those things that are totally wrong.

This explains why so many people spend so much time arguing over apparently trivial problems. It is the trivial problems that really grab attention and arouse passion, because it seems like it would be so simple to get the RightThing with a trivial amount of work. Big problems don't have the same effect.

----

'''Discussion'''

An interesting idea. What evidence is there for it? I suspect that what's going on is somewhat different: that there's a certain "radius" about the status quo within which possible improvements are visible, but that inside this radius worse imperfections lead to more annoyance, not less. -- GarethMcCaughan

----

Perhaps because something that is totally fubarred is too hard to discuss. Something that is close to perfect is easier to discuss because the problems are somewhat contained. If the only difference is an extra meatball, then the difference is easier to talk about than if you have two bowls of spaghetti with completely different noodle arrangements.

----

Counterevidence: Using a Java IDE like IntellijIdea, you really appreciate all the problems (of varying size) that it takes care of. The IDE is getting better and better (though never perfect) with each build, and I get less annoyed with it each build. This would suggest that annoyance and difference from perfection are proportional. What I really believe is that there is a HiddenAssumption here that perfection can ever be reached, which I strongly believe to be false. Likewise, there is an assumption that one should still strive for perfection even if it is not possible to completely achieve. I personally believe this to be the source of the frustration and annoyance described on this page. If you drop these two assumptions and instead strive for GoodEnough, which is definitely achievable, the annoyance disappears.

''It may be that this concept is only relevant at the atomic level. Many of the functionalities provided by your ide have reached the correct solution for the tasks you perform. Once they have hit the point of correctness, their annoyance level drops to zero. With each new feature, the jump is from mild annoyance of a bad way (manually doing it) to the correct way (complete automation), so your annoyance level has dropped. The fact that the product as an aggregate is approaching correctness is irrelevant''.

----

Example:

When I think there are 2 different ways to do something ''chop down a tree'', and
* I find out option 1 ''push on it with my gloved hands'' is ''completely'' wrong in the first 30 seconds, while
* I keep thinking option 2 ''hack at it with my old, dull axe'' is very, very close to working, and I keep banging on it 2 days in a row before I convince myself that it's not the right solution either,

I find that option 2, which at least *seemed* closer to the ideal solution on the first day, caused more annoyance.

But I wouldn't say that the annoyance is precisely ''inversely proportional''.

-- DavidCary

Using the above example - If you have no option but to chop down the tree, having to work with the "push it over" solution would be much more frustrating than hacking at it with a dull axe. If you were pushing it, and you knew there was a better solution ("If I only had a sharp axe"), then it would be more frustrating than if you didn't know about axes. If you were hacking at it with a blunt axe, and you knew there was a better solution ("If only this axe was sharp"), that would be more frustrating than if you didn't know about axe sharpness. AnnoyanceIsProportionalToKnowledge?