Fair enough! I have revised the title to include “self-care”, which hopefully makes it clearer (the previous title, for later arrivals to this comment thread, was just “Aiming for the minimum is dangerous”).
On a similar note, I actually parsed the title as the opposite of the intended meaning. That is, I thought the article was going to say that aiming for the minimum [amount of impact, or something else related like career capital] is dangerous, rather than that that aiming for the minimal amount of self-care is dangerous.
I reached this article through a link that already revealed that it was about self-care but didn’t notice the “self-care” in the title, and I expected the rhetoric to be a bait-and-switch that starts by talking about how aiming for the minimum in directly impact-related things is bad and then switches to arguing that the same reasoning applies to self-care.
FYI when I read the title and skimmed the hover-preview (~first paragraph) of this essay, I didn’t at all realize you meant psychological minimum
Fair enough! I have revised the title to include “self-care”, which hopefully makes it clearer (the previous title, for later arrivals to this comment thread, was just “Aiming for the minimum is dangerous”).
On a similar note, I actually parsed the title as the opposite of the intended meaning. That is, I thought the article was going to say that aiming for the minimum [amount of impact, or something else related like career capital] is dangerous, rather than that that aiming for the minimal amount of self-care is dangerous.
I reached this article through a link that already revealed that it was about self-care but didn’t notice the “self-care” in the title, and I expected the rhetoric to be a bait-and-switch that starts by talking about how aiming for the minimum in directly impact-related things is bad and then switches to arguing that the same reasoning applies to self-care.