If my dog Freddie were human, he’d be a perfectionist. Note my choice of the word “if.” I generally try not to anthropomorphize animals because imagining they’re capable of higher order cognition can lead us to expect too much of them. Still, sometimes it’s hard not to project our own emotions onto their mutely expressive faces.
Last night I gave each of my dogs an “educational” Swedish puzzle toy to entertain them. The dog has to figure out how to move swiveling layers, lift off bone-shaped covers, and open sliding hatches to get to hidden morsels of food. Just like my kids did when they were little, my dogs show as much interest in the packaging as in the toys themselves. But since I shelled out a ridiculous amount of money on these “fun, interactive games,” I occasionally try to put them to use.
The ads for the Dog Tornado and Dog Twister promise hours of stimulation for your pet. Once the animal has figured out how to get to the treats, you can increase the difficulty in a variety of ways to build brainpower. The designer clearly hasn’t encountered a dog like Freddie.
Freddie is a quick learner. If he were human, he’d be the kid in the class whose hand shoots up before the teacher has even finished asking the question. When I’m giving a command to Baxter, who’s a little slower on the uptake, Freddie pushes him out of the way and responds first.
So I decided to give Freddie the harder puzzle. Baxter got the easier one. I filled both with identical bits of kibble.
And guess what? Baxter, whose skills I grossly underestimated, swiveled the stacked trays with his nose, pawed frantically at the little trap doors, and scarfed down all the food before Freddie had even extracted one piece. Then I switched the puzzles, giving Freddie the easier one. Baxter had to work a little harder on the more challenging toy. Undeterred, he kept at it until he had emptied almost every compartment. With a final, vigorous push with his snout, he upended the whole contraption to dislodge the last bits. Freddie managed to slide a few of the covers on his toy open before he dropped to the ground, whined, and looked up at me expectantly with his head between his paws
That’s the downside of being clever and always following the rules, wanting to get it just right. If success comes too easily to you, you can’t cope with the frustration when something doesn’t go your way.
Freddie was too tentative and gave up. Baxter had his eyes on the prize and didn’t quit. He wasn’t afraid to make mistakes and tried different strategies to get what he wanted.
But they’re just dogs.
As I promised in my last post about SparkPeople, I’m going to share my reservations about one of their motivational techniques: streaking. I’m not talking about college students or sports fans dashing naked in front of large crowds in public venues. In fitness circles, streaking means exercising every single day.
There’s actually an association for running buffs (as opposed to runners in the buff) called the US National Running Streak Association. It keeps records for the numbers of consecutive days and years its members have run. Former Olympic marathoner Ron Hill, 73, has maintained one of the most famous running streaks in the organization’s history. He hasn’t missed one day of running since 1964. He even jogged a mile the day after he fractured his sternum in a head-on collision, and he kept his streak going while in a plaster cast after bunion surgery by hobbling a mile on crutches every day for six weeks. Granted, he defines running pretty loosely. But, still, his accomplishment is mind-boggling. Most of us average mortals who aren’t made of Olympic material wouldn’t be capable of pulling it off.
Which is why I have my reservations about streaking. You might find it motivating to see the days and weeks add up. But what if you’re derailed by illness, injury, or just plain life and, unlike Ron Hill, end up missing a day or a week of exercise? You might just throw in the towel, especially if you have any perfectionistic tendencies. The concept of a streak lends itself too easily to all-or-nothing thinking.
Instead of aiming for a streak, I recommend shooting for consistency, making sure to allow for occasional lapses. Because life happens.
May I brag a little? I am an excellent parker, parallel and otherwise. One look at my car’s bumpers, though, and you’d see that my vehicular handling skills haven’t always been so advanced.
The garage in my office building is a poorly lit labyrinth of narrow turns and awkwardly positioned posts. As my Toyota will attest, I used to have a lot of trouble gauging the angles for optimal entry into a space. Once, rounding a corner too fast and too sharply, I heard the sickening crunch of side panel meeting concrete. I had to improvise some creative bodywork on the spot so I wouldn’t have to face my husband’s reaction when I got home.
Now I’m extra careful and much more accustomed to the ins and outs (literally) of the parking garage. I approach it as a game, seeing if I can back into a space on the first try and taking great pleasure in a perfect execution. I admit, it’s become a bit compulsive.
Today I parked badly. There were no dings or dented bumpers; the car was within the lines. But it was crooked, and it really bothered me. I resisted a powerful urge to go back and straighten it out.
If I’d spent the extra few minutes parking again, I would have been happier with the results. But I also would have been late for my first appointment. So I did a quick cost-benefit analysis and decided to adjust my priorities instead of the car. Walking up to my office, I recalled the 80% rule: since I value punctuality much more than parking, I could tolerate an 80% parking job. Not perfect, but perfectly acceptable. It’s a useful mantra for any perfectionist to remember.