The Shortcomings Of Perfection

Perfect shortcoming The word "Utopia" was first introduced by Sir Thomas More in 1516. He chose it as the title of this book to explain the ideal society or perfect society. Ironically, this word was made from Greek and translated literally, meaning "there is no place". Sir Thomas More's view on perfect society is similar to that of courageous new world writer Olds Huxley and thorn author John Wyndham.

Nobody is perfect. Everyone has their own drawbacks, and these disadvantages often recur when no one consciously knows. No matter how many times there are reasoning or threats, there is no change. For those who are always puzzled, people who do not want change are often considered not considerate or even selfish. I remember the manager of my colleague who introduced Dr. BJ Fogg's b = mat model, but I noticed that my freezer door experience is a perfect example of this model. In other words, when three factors of motivation, ability, trigger converge, action occurs. Of course there is a motivation to confirm that the door of the freezer is closed: I would like to prevent food from falling down, but I do not want to waste electricity. More importantly, I do not want to discuss with my wife. I can of course close the door of the freezer and should realize that it is actually closed. But what is missing is trigger - a small piece of paper as a reminder

Do not think your claim is perfect. There is nothing perfect. If you make the perfect one, your readers and listeners will never trust you. As Levitt and Dubner say, "There are few panacea drugs, if you record the drawbacks of your plan, it only gives your opponents a reason to doubt the rest" (174). Please insult yourself. This should be obvious to lawyers, but we will often hear and read about mistakes. Levitt and Dubna remind us that humans are not well criticized. Criticizing or insulting the discussion is one thing, criticizing or insulting writers and speakers is another matter. In other words, I never read Levitt and Dubner. It can not be said that someone's claim is defective, or in the case of a lawyer another person misunderstood the judgment or judgment