My mind now is going right to that part and saying to me, "See, that didn't work, it isn't a magic cure." and I always figure if something isn't 100% then what's the point. If you know something will only work half the time, you would keep trying to find something that works ALL the time. Just like my goals, rather than choosing a goal that has a lot of flaws, it would be smarter to choose a goal that has no flaws (or at least as few as possible).
But that's another mistake which you habitually make, in different forms.
The reason for picking something that doesn't work 100% of the time is that at least it works 50%, or 70% or 90% of the time. That's still infinitely better than doing nothing, a decision that will yield you 0%.
To put it another way -
1. you could have 20 interests and go nowhere with any of them; or
2. you could have 5 interests and go somewhere with each of them; or
3. you could have 1 interest and go a very long way with it.
It's debatable whether (2) or (3) is preferable, but what's clear is that both (2) and (3) are superior to (1).
Unfortunately it sounds like you're consistently choosing (1). In your search for the "best" possible option, you consistently end up picking the worst possible option.