As numbing as detail may become it is for my part irrepressible, very much the sine qua non when it comes to a satisfactory performance overall. To pretend ignorance - or to misrepresent the scope as de minimis - is destined to fail. Inevitably the predominance of exactitude will rule; and only its face off will soften its burden. I am nonetheless alive - albeit hesitatingly - to the assertion that the immediacy of the concern is not entirely pressing. The absorption of detail requires a degree of patience if for no other reason than fully to appreciate the magnitude of the information. Dissecting a larger matter into its constituents is protracting if nothing else. It behooves one's social graces to allow time for the comprehension of detail. Remember too that not everyone focuses as readily upon the intricacy of the dilemma. It may be necessary to herald the polemic with a reasoned argument in order to gain the assurance of legitimacy.
While it may appear possible to avoid the disruption of detail by limiting the scope of one's involvement, it is a pursuit of dubious resource. The preferable undertaking is to insist upon clarity rather than upon abstinence. Instinctively our enterprise is prompted by achievement not defeat. If this entails at times the need to refine our behaviour, then we are commanded to endure it. Seldom is the motive for imprecision sufficient to sustain it. Things will naturally flow in the manner most comfortable; and I perhaps flatter the inertia to suggest it will out in the end. An initial reluctance is all that is required to stimulate the pursuit of detail.
One doesn't wish to become mired in the weeds. I view this qualification as a provocation for temperance; that is, accommodation without capitulation. Rarely however am I convinced to rise above detail because of an assertion of insignificance. Instead there may exist the plausibility of delay only. In that respect detail - like Christianity - is uncompromising; viz., there is one and only one god.