Be Wrong as Fast as You Can

The question is how to structure your work to get feedback quickly. Feedback can be self-directed. Bob the Builder has an idea for a building, draws up some preliminary blueprints, and sees that his idea is unfeasible. Or it can be external-Bob's satisfied with the design and shows it to his customer, who then realizes that having 17 spires arranged in a heptadecagon looks stupid after all.

This is why outlines, specs, designs, etc. are so important. The goal is not to achieve 100% accuracy with the spec and then build the software. It's to iterate quickly to get to 70% accuracy, and then switch to a finer level of detail once you're not learning rapidly from the outline. It's not just about saving time or building a higher-quality product, it's about learning as quickly as possible.

Another fun, famous example is the Wright brothers: they had less funding and less education than most people trying to achieve flight, but they came up with a way to iterate in days instead of months, which meant that in a few months they made more progress than others had made in years.

If you want to get incredibly good at what you do, find a way you can iterate faster and learn more than others in your field. You're effectively buying time and experience. And if you create a structure that allows others to iterate faster, you can allow a swathe of people to become massively smarter and learn more, which to me is one of the greatest feelings in the world.

I guess ideas for movies and creative stuff are similar.

And for those who follow startup culture we all know there is a massive gulf between those who try to actually do stuff and those who just tinker forever. This guy in the article is the sad "I never tried" type.

As a guy who has built a bunch of big startups myself (a.sarva.co) I meet these guys all the time and feel bad when I do. The only advice is DO IT!!!

It's a whole other ball of wax once you meet those guys who DO start -- it's not just DO IT DO IT till it works (repetition). At that point you have someone who DOES stuff. So now they/we/me must work intelligently to do successful stuff.

I think folks in the comments here may be missing that distinction.

Essentially,accordingly to Pressfield, those writers who identify strongly with problems the writer has in the article would do well to adopt a "hard hat" mentality of doing creative work; grab your lunch pale, sit in front of the computer and suffer, and don't worry about whether what you write is good or not-just do the damn work. 'Pretend' that you only write for money (you don't, but money is nice).

The problem for me and I think for the writer is identifying one's ego and with one's work. You start to worry you're not cut out, good enough, etc. But when you start thinking of creative endeavors like grabbing your lunch pail and heading off to the construction cite to put in a hard day's work, everything changes. It's kinda zen like in that way. Success or failure-the construction worker doesn't take it personally-he still has a beer at the end of the day and laughs with his family.

That's the way I see it anyway.

The withering self-criticism might even be merited the first few times around, but every iteration of creation hones our skills.

Perhaps, instead of hoping that our first work is a masterpiece, we commit to putting it out as fast as we can and aim to learn from it what we can to make our next reiteration better.

After we commit enough atrocities, perhaps it's actually possible to hit a place where we no longer have that withering self-criticism as it's no longer merited. Perhaps that withering self-criticism isn't just unwarranted insecurity - it's accurate, but the only way to get rid of it is to keep creating crap until we learn not to create crap.

I can't. Why?