Dear_one wrote:
At my first "real" job, I was using a stamping machine to put terminals on wires for toys. Nobody else seemed to care if the wire insulation ended in the gap where it belonged and thought I was slow, but I wouldn't do it sloppy.
I can see a valid practical argument in favour of going for 90% of the quality for 10% of the labour time (or some other such attractive percentages), but it's questionable whether people have such good control over the art of corner-cutting. It's very task-specific and can take a lot of careful thought to figure out what can be disregarded without doing more harm than good. For me it's an emotional thing as well. I get a lot out of knowing I've gone the extra mile with a task and created an excellent result, and I dislike seeing sloppy work.
So I was a good fit in my science job, as a rule, because science usually demands a lot of rigorous attention to detail. But even there I saw some travesties. They had a DNA sequencing service where they'd always get the client to tell them what results they were expecting, and they'd modify the report accordingly. Rigorous science doesn't do that, it would simply report the sequence as the procedure said it was, accepting the fact that there were gaps. A second report after plugging in the client's expectations, suitably labelled as of lower reliability, would be of value, but it always seemed rather dodgy to me to just give out that one report with no such admission of the "fudging" and no record of how the stated results had been adjusted.