Perfecting the Process?

I understand why both Boice and Rodgers would want to portray writing as a process that can be objectively improved.  After all, that's why they're writing; they are hoping to appeal to and inform people who want to write better, or people who teach writing and want to know how to teach it more effectively.  I understand, recognize, and agree with a lot of what they both say when it comes to the effectiveness of planning and prewriting.

The parts of both of these pieces that come off as forced and insincere are the firmer indications that following these rules can make writing impartially better.  Rodgers's affirmation that reflection "can be practiced, assessed, and perfected" (864) threw me for a bit of a loop.  Perfected?  And since Rodgers recommends expressing of one's ideas as part of the act of reflection itself ("merely to think without ever having to express what one thought is an incomplete act," 856), does this mean that writing, too, can be "perfected"?

In a similar way, Boice claims that imagination is a tool that can be sharpened and made more effective.  I agree with this to some extent, but Boice's suggestions come across as more of a stepwise recipe in the midst of an easy "How to" book, rather than as a difficult, ongoing negotiation with an abstract part of our own minds.  Does Boice think that accessing our own imaginations can be perfected, too?  Although I respect a lot of what Boice delineates and a lot of the room he leaves for reactions against his advice, I balk at the idea that the process should be touted as applicable to any who read it.