People often perform tasks measurably better when the tools they’re using put them in a state of enthused confidence.

You are right to consider this statement obvious, but obvious statements are no more immune to being run through the gamut and deconstructed into their atomic elements than are ambiguous ones. Moreover, it is the humor of the universe that any statement, no matter how initially obvious, will, when dutifully inspected, eventually become so ambiguous as to make further inspection impossible.

To start, tasks can be parsed and categorized numerous ways; here, I’ll opt for a straight-forward parsing and claim that the opening statement applies both to creative and non-creative tasks, and all tasks in-between. I’ll use three example professions representative of the regions of interest for a task spectrum defined this way. Each example has associated with it a secret door (SD) that opens onto a subtle nuance.

1. An assembly line worker tightening bolts might really be on top of his game and applying consistent torque if he’s wearing the comfortable leather boots he prefers over tennis shoes.

SD = the notion that a person’s task performance depends on the tools they’re using can be expanded to include the articles they’re wearing, as well as other items around their person which lack the direct relation to task completion that, for example, a wrench, or other tool, has.

2. If his pencil is not dull, a novelist who likes the clean lines of a sharpened pencil is more likely to produce work that draws the reader in.

SD = while perhaps uncommon, it is perfectly acceptable for someone to prefer tools with characteristics which most others in the same profession detest, and the result, in terms of task completion, should be the same. For example, an author who prefers blurry, wide lines will write better stories with a dull, rather than sharp, pencil.

3. Cooking is an artful science, or a scientific art, by which I mean it falls somewhere near the center of the non-creative to creative task spectrum. A chef irritated at having to use a cheap KitchenAid whisk instead of a hand-crafted Scandinavian piece may nonetheless prepare eggs beautifully.

SD = frustration at having to use tools not to one’s liking won’t necessarily lead to the task being performed poorly, but may, rather, be expressed as audible obscenities. This is especially true in cases where one recognizes that a task performed even slightly less than superbly jeopardizes one’s employment status.

It’s natural to wonder whether the enthusiasm of working with preferred tools likewise has an audible outlet option. Theoretically, such an option shouldn’t exist, since all the enthusiasm should silently manifest itself in the good quality of the task performance and/or final product. But sometimes there is enthusiasm left over even after these avenues have been filled, in which case the chef might use up what remains by exclaiming “God damn, I benedicted the fuck out of those eggs!”

An important difference exists, however, between the nature of the exclamations when preferred and non-preferred tools are used. In the preferred case, the exclamation is usually a self-compliment, pointing to the quality of performance or end product. When non-preferred tools are used, symmetry would dictate that the exclamation be critical of the performance or end product, but this would be dishonest since, for the job security reasons previously mentioned, the performance/end product are as good as in the former case. This predicament forces the exclamation in the non-preferred tool case to be directed toward the non-preferred tool itself, i.e. “Fucking cheap-ass KitchenAid piece of shit whisk!”