Lectures on “An Examination of Perfectionism” by Azarakhsh Mokri

Lectures on “An Examination of Perfectionism” by Azarakhsh Mokri

Videos of all sessions are available at the end of this article

What makes human beings strive? Some take it easy, and some become perfectionists. Perfectionism is the feeling that I must present the best version of myself. Perfectionism is a feeling beyond obsession. The idea that everything must be in its place and the house must be very clean is a part of perfectionism. Perfectionism is more pervasive than an obsessive feeling.

Is perfectionism, and the fact that I like everything to be its best and I am hard on myself and do not forgive myself, a personality trait? Some say this is not a personality trait but rather an intrusive thought, and they call it perfectionism cognitions, not a personality trait.

Is perfectionism specific or pervasive? For example, someone who likes to get the best grade in their studies or produce the best art, do they also tend to be the best in other matters? Specific means individuals zoom in on one particular area, and other areas are not important to them.

*Is perfectionism beneficial or does it harm us?

*When humans wake up in the morning, what makes them tidy the house, go to work on time, and deliver good work? Well, a large part of this depends on perfectionist traits. But on the other hand, it is accompanied by self-blame traits. When individuals have an intense state of self-blame, they experience feelings of failure and depression when they do not succeed. Whether perfectionism is good or bad, or where it is good and where it is bad, is very important.

*Question: What is this issue of effort, motivation, and will? Because some people, when they neglect their surroundings and do not finish tasks well, presenting a symbolic, half-done job and working just to meet the need—for example, when studying, they say getting a 10 or 12 and passing is enough, and I don't want more. But someone else will not let go until they have grasped the material thoroughly and are sure they will get a 20. In the matter of body physics, it is very important: one person insists intensely that their body appearance be very fit and have no excess fat, while another person accepts, what's wrong with a little fat around the waist or on the stomach and neck? Does a person have to be perfectly flat and very proportionate? Perfectionism has a close connection with eating disorders, meaning individuals who want to have an ideal physique.

*Question: Does perfectionism stem from trauma, or does it stem from growth and is it healthy? For example, do those who were in environments where they were always humiliated, blamed, and frustrated move towards perfectionism?

*Question: What should we do with this perfectionism? Should we keep it or let it go?

*Question: Fundamentally, what is the relationship between perfectionism and success? Is perfectionism more or less common among top students?

*Question: Perfectionist traits have been strangely observed to have a peculiar connection with the category of fatigue. In chronic fatigue syndrome, which was once believed to be caused by infections like severe influenza viruses, this is now somewhat questioned and it seems more related to people's personality traits, especially this perfectionism.

*Question: How does this perfectionism form? Does it appear in children and at young ages or in adolescence? There are some children who cannot rest until they have written the best homework from the book and organized everything, while others write quickly and wait. The question is, at what age does this emerge and take root?

*Question: We have gentle perfectionism and annoying perfectionism, types that give a person a good feeling and which people boast about, saying, for example, I am very tasteful and I keep the house very well, or if a part of the car breaks down, it must be fixed immediately. Where does this come from?

*Question: We also have narcissistic perfectionism, which we must address. The person not only wants to be completely perfect themselves, but also has this expectation of others, and if others are not perfect, in their view, they are worthless, and they adopt a contemptuous approach toward those who deliver second- or third-rate work, believing that they themselves are the best and that others must also be the best. For example, the person says, I am the best man, therefore I want the best woman as my wife, and if she is anything less, I do not accept it.

*Perfectionism can truly be a kind of addiction, meaning individuals become addicted to delivering the best work, and when they cannot deliver the best, they experience withdrawal symptoms, agitation, and a bad feeling.

-This presented series is not a self-help guide, meaning the goal is not to tell you what to do so that you do not suffer from your perfectionism or to conduct your affairs correctly, but rather it is more of a theoretical and educational topic. However, if you suffer from these states, if you follow these discussions well, you will extract good solutions for yourself from within them.

The topic of perfectionism has become very prominent over the past two decades.

Sources:

1- The Psychology of Perfectionism: Theory, Research, Applications

Book by Joachim Stoeber

This book has numerous authors, who are perhaps the best theorists of perfectionism: Gordon Flett, Paul Hewitt (we will later see that Flett and Hewitt have famous questionnaires for the classifications of perfectionism in general), Ms. Danielle Molnar, Fuschia Sirois, David Dunkley.

2-erfectionism: A Relational Approach to Conceptualization, Assessment, and treatment

By Paul L. Hewitt, Gordon L. Flett, Samuel F. Mikail

3-Perfectionism, Health, and Well-Beingedited by Fuschia M. Sirois, Danielle S. Molnar

Part Two

There are two figures who address the subject of perfectionism in the twentieth century, Karen Horney and Alfred Adler.

These two thinkers differ somewhat on the subject of perfectionism. Horney believes that perfectionism is fundamentally troublesome, meaning she does not have a positive view of perfectionism and mostly believes it is a phenomenon associated with neurotic personalities. That is, perfectionists have a neurotic substructure. Horney speaks of the tyranny of the "shoulds," or the dominance or rule of the "shoulds."

Tyranny is where a tyrant or dictator is present.

Dictator is a Latin word, but tyranny dates back to before the Roman government and Roman dictatorship, and in fact, some of these Greek cities were democratic, meaning their leader was chosen by the people's vote, and others go back to the tyrannical cities, as Farabi experiences it, meaning the city of dominance and rule. And the tyrant was in fact the one who gave orders. In political science, there are differences between a tyrant and a dictator.

****Horney believed that in the lives of these perfectionists, the absolute power is the category of "should," meaning my car should be very good, and I should be accepted into the best university, and I should study the best field, and I should have the best grades, and my clothes should be the best, and my physique should be the best, and this dominance of "shoulds" wears a person down and is accompanied by a sense of frustration.

****Alfred Adler takes a friendlier view of perfectionism. He says the striving for perfection is innate and intrinsic, so perfectionism is an inner need and a part of life. It is a striving and a desire without which life would be inconceivable. In other words, he believes we have a drive or pull toward perfection, and all humans try to reach absolute perfection. In a way, perfectionism is also intertwined with the issue of religions. He believes this striving exists in all beings, but it has adaptive and non-adaptive aspects; at one point it benefits you and you try to deliver better work and grow in your field, and at another point it torments you. So Adler believes perfectionism has adaptive and non-adaptive aspects. Horney takes a much more negative view and is more liberated, saying one must break free from the tyranny of shoulds. Alongside Horney and in the same direction is Albert Ellis, who also addresses this issue of the tyranny of the shoulds tyranny of the shoulds and says those who operate heavily with “shoulds” in their lives suffer greatly.

Do we have a desire and inclination to always choose the better thing, or do we basically settle for what is available and say it is acceptable enough, and why insist on making it better?

Are humans inherently competitive?

Do humans inherently like to compete with each other?

Or do we have an internal system arising from evolution or creation that makes us compete to pursue the best, and do humans learn this from society, and is it a product of civilization, and would people find it sufficient to merely meet their needs, and would they not insist that it absolutely must be the most elegant and beautiful?

Perfectionism was not a very prominent topic until 1990. People focused heavily on anxiety, depression, and obsession. But from the 90s onward, it received intense attention again.

Definition of perfectionism: Demanding from oneself and others a quality of performance higher than what the existing circumstances require.

Now we must identify the components and subcategories of perfectionism.

The first coherent attempt to classify perfectionism was made by Frost, and indeed this view that perfectionism is multidimensional becomes prominent roughly from the 90s. Of course, there were categorizations before that, for instance, they spoke of neurotic perfectionism, narcissistic perfectionism, destructive perfectionism, or productive perfectionism. Using questionnaires on a multitude of clients and patients is a more modern approach, and a number of these are announced:

Frost believes that this issue of perfectionism has 6 components and can be measured along 6 axes or six dimensions:

The first dimension is higher personal standards: meaning some people have standards that are higher than others.

The second dimension is concern over mistakes: meaning I must not make a mistake, and my car must not have any flaw anywhere. The thing I have decorated must not have two burnt-out light bulbs, the corner of the sofa must not be torn. In fact, they zoom in excessively on mistakes.

An issue that greatly aided the study of perfectionism was the matter of athletes; for example, some athletes say I must not concede a goal, I must not have that mistake in my game history, I must not have made that wrong pass in that game.

The reason it is said to be multidimensional is that high standards, for instance, do not correlate with an absence of mistakes. Some people have very high standards but easily forgive their mistakes, whereas some perfectionists do not have very high standards, but when their performance breaks down at some point, they feel terribly bad.

The third dimension is doubt about actions; these individuals cannot start a task because they are always waiting for it to reach an ideal stage. This is the state of procrastination, putting things off until tomorrow, saying,

Many have said that self-oriented perfectionism may be the product of parents, especially fathers, who have other-oriented perfectionism. That is, fathers who believe that since you are growing up in this family and are my child, your grades must be exactly like mine, and you must have my good reputation, and your biography and achievements must be among the very top.

Another part of this is a phenomenon called dyadic perfectionism. I believe that many of the things you see as psychiatric illnesses in symptomatology are not really centered on the individual, but are centered on a dyad. Physicians who visit addicted individuals realize that sometimes a malignant dyad forms between the user and their spouse, father, or mother; that is, when these two are together, they are intensely aggressive, with very harsh language, and sometimes you even hear loosening of associations, and when these two are together, you feel that they are experiencing states of delusion, hallucination, and psychosis, yet they behave quite normally with other people. In other words, the malignancy is not in the individual people, but rather the malignancy is in this dyad, and when these two clash, they become malignant. We also have a type of this malignancy called dyadic perfectionism, which is mostly seen in couples. For example, one person, say the wife, is very perfectionistic and must study the best field, must have the best education, and the highest career positions must always be hers, and she expects the same from her spouse, and if she does not see this standard, that is when the arguments begin. In fact, when you look at it, the marital discord is not due to a specific phenomenon; the phenomenon is that a malignant dyad has formed, when one of them does not meet the perfectionistic standard and you see that state of malignancy.

Yet another state, where this is other-oriented perfectionism, is that they say it is found in the relatives of those who suffer from addiction or psychosomatic illnesses and psychosomatic disorders. The reason for this assumption is that they say, suppose you have a mother who has other-oriented perfectionism; she has the characteristic of demanding a very high standard from her child, and because the child cannot meet this standard, they constantly feel that they have fallen outside that standard, and therefore they are forced to turn to substance use, such as marijuana or hashish or such things, to control their mood and spirits.

You see these dyads in some addicts. For example, an individual comes in whose three brothers and sisters are top university professors, and the fourth child, in their own words, turned out to be the black sheep, does not study, has become a source of disgrace for the family, and is far below their standards; this is very malignant. No matter where you take this person for rehabilitation, you will not succeed. The reason is that this is within a dyadic perfectionism. And around that individual are other-oriented perfectionists, and you practically feel that since you cannot move with those standards, you have lost the battle and, in fact, have given up on everything.

So, let us move away from the topic of other-oriented perfectionism for now and address it in the discussions of pride, narcissism, and Machiavellianism.

The third type of HF was socially prescribed. What is the difference between self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism? In both, the individual imagines something about themselves. Visualize it and close your eyes and think about these standards you pursue—if they are high, like I must have a very fit physique and no belly, and my education must be excellent and my grades top-notch, this is a bit difficult, but try to clarify this for yourself: do you really want this yourself, or do you feel that it is others—like the figure of a mother or father or friends or fiancé or spouse or Almighty God—who demand that I have these high standards? That is, when my physique is out of shape, do I become upset myself, or do I feel a kind of reproach and a kind of non-acceptance in those faces of others and become upset? This is where the boundary of self-oriented is distinguished from the boundary of social acceptance. Many theorists of the psyche and perfectionism believe that this is a very important distinction, meaning are you trying to deliver the best for your own heart's sake, or do you see others as observers of your actions and are trying to keep them satisfied? This is an evolutionary leap and very significant.

Of course, similar classifications have been presented, but the gist of the matter rests on this axis.

The next classification

1- Personal standards: This is self-oriented perfectionism, meaning my standards are high.

2- Self-critical perfectionism: The perfectionism of this category is self-critical, and if my standards are low, I reproach myself.

As perfectionism researchers progressed, they said we are sticking with this duality, but they gave it different names.

Classification with other names

First category: Perfectionistic thriving: perfectionistic striving: I strive to be perfect.

Second category: Perfectionistic concern: In this state, I am concerned in the direction of perfectionism. I am worried because of what people say, and worried because of the reproach that will be imposed on me by others.

The dualities that were mentioned practically all pursue one concept.

The duality is a very serious duality, and most studies conducted in recent years on whether perfectionism is good or bad, what should be done with it, and how it arises, say that it seems the secret and the riddle of the matter lies in which facet of this perfectionism we are in, that is, the first category or the second category, and the dividing line between these two categories is whether the boundary of reproach and the boundary of decision-making is me or the words of others.

One of the questions was: where does the source of this reproach within us spring from?

They also examined other aspects of perfectionism, and those were the traits of perfectionism; here we also have the representations of perfectionism, meaning in fact, when you have a perfectionistic desire and a desire to be number one and the best in everything, to have the most correct state, the next step is: what things do you like to show, and what should your representation or display be?

Again, researchers saw that this apparently also differs among humans, and they have identified three groups:

First type: Perfectionistic self-promotion: If I like to be the best, I also like to show my certificates of success, my plaques of appreciation, my being top of the class, and my very luxurious and perfect house; in fact, my strategy in displaying my perfectionism relies on promoting my achievements. These people show they have a good car, they show their children's grades, and they place great emphasis on displaying every very good and perfect thing they have.

But seeing that this strategy is not very widespread, and while it is true that the main concern of some is self-promotion, it is not their primary concern; it is secondary and tertiary. In the second type: their primary concern is the none display of imperfection, or not showing their flaws. That is, in areas where their score is low and they feel they are not perfect, they do not put it on display, and in fact, their effort is to not show the flaw. It seems that this option is more malignant than the first.

The third type: a more malignant form of perfectionism strategy is seen in another group, which is called the third type: not only do they not display it, but they try to hide, cover up, and censor it; that is, they actively try to conceal their flaws. It is said that when you reach this type, the sense of malignancy and the connection to illnesses and problems becomes much more pronounced.

When you want to approach that domain of perfectionism, what is your way of dealing with it? In fact, do you try to constantly test yourself, or do you flee from places where you are tested? copying style

Humans are intensely social, and just seeing that someone is observing them, even if they know that person has no control or dominance over them and their paths will never cross, still changes their behavior. This phenomenon is so strange that if you put up a picture of an eye somewhere, people's behavior changes.

In Adam Alter's book, I referred to an example where it was observed that some people would come to the office water cooler to take tea, sugar, or instant coffee. The arrangement was that these individuals should put the money in the box without anyone supervising, and it was observed that practically, the amount of money put in the box each day was far less than the milk, coffee, instant coffee, and sugar that people consumed. Then they put up several posters of flowers, landscapes, or the eye of a woman or man on the wall. The strange thing they saw was that when others were watching them, the amount of money put in the box doubled or tripled. These studies were repeatedly replicated in various places, and the conclusion was reached that if you have the illusion that a group of people are watching you, and those people have no power over you, you pull yourself together and act more perfectly; you even try to suck in your stomach, whereas when others are not around, you just sprawl out. The difference between when others are present and when they are not distinguishes, to some extent, our self-oriented approach compared to when it is socially prescribed. So, the more we act for ourselves and our internalized self, it shows that a substantive difference is formed when we are under the influence of others.

Robert Zajonc wrote an article in 1965 in which he made ten important discoveries about collective behavior and realized that humans and monkeys, not to mention even cockroaches, see other cockroaches as observers of their actions, and their behavior differs; they move and work more seriously. He showed that in the presence of others, we have better efficiency and perform our tasks better.

If control, demand, and power exist externally, what is the process of its internalization? That is, what stages are there where we initially work solely for the pleasure and under the pressure of others, and then gradually this feeling becomes internalized? So, the internalization of reproach or ideals holds an important place in perfectionism.

Deci and Ryan laid the foundation of self-determination theory in 1985 and have worked on it until now. It is interesting to know that the main root of this theory goes back to psychoanalysis, specifically where the issue is internalization, identification, and the internalization of reproach, and what causes our standards to rise, us to pull ourselves together, and try to do the right thing. This theory holds that we are on a spectrum; this spectrum starts from extrinsic and moves toward the maximum intrinsic. He specifies five stages, but it is better not to tire your mind by memorizing these five stages.

Deci and Ryan believe that on this spectrum we begin with external regulation, then it becomes introjected regulation, then identified regulation, then integrated regulation, and finally intrinsic regulation.

Alan Baddeley says: our working memory actually overlaps with our spatial attention.

At the far left, which is external, it is called external regulation. That is, you get up and tidy your room because there is force over your head. You run in the barracks because someone is standing there with force over your head. They believe that in perfectionistic concern, that state we said was external is at the peak of this war, meaning I am striving because of the presence of others.

We come one step further this way, which is called introjected regulation; the force is not direct, meaning no one is standing over us with a club, but you know that if you do certain things, the external pressure will be reduced. For example, some of you attend the sessions regularly and march well because you do not want to be penalized and do not want to be given extra guard duty. You want to pass the unit, and you drive exactly on the line because you do not want your license to be suspended. In other words, you yourself decide to carry out a task to the end with the intention that doing this task will satisfy the opinions of others and place you in a better position. That is, the external pressure has been internalized to some extent. But it is still believed that this symbolizes extrinsic motivation, meaning I study to get a grade, but if they say there is no exam, I do not study. As this process moves inward, you enter the subsequent phases: identified regulation, then integrated regulation, then intrinsic regulation.

In the later states, it is such that you find a set of goals, and you run for your own goals, but gradually you come to the conclusion that you yourself like these goals. For example, for fitness, someone sits in front of you and does not allow you to eat; the next stage, you say I will not eat so that I lose weight so that he will love me; one step further that way, you feel that you yourself like losing weight, you have a goal and you want to exercise and achieve thinness through it, meaning thinness is an ideal for you, that is integrated regulation. Interestingly, Deci and Ryan believe that this is still not the final stage of internalization; here it mixes a little with happiness theory, life purpose theory, meaning in this state you say I like to exercise to lose weight, because I myself like losing weight and it is not because of what others say, and I enjoy my thinness in front of the mirror. He believes this is still not the ultimate internalization of motivation. You are still pursuing a goal, and he says internalization becomes complete when you are not pursuing the goal but rather pursuing the means and enjoying the means. That is, I like the mere act of exercising, regardless of whether it makes me thin or not; this is called the peak of internalization of motivation, intrinsic motivation or intrinsic regulation. And he believes that in that state, perfectionistic striving, at its extreme, humans are in love with performing the act, regardless of whether they achieve the goal or not.

1- There was a time when parents stood over us by force and said sit down, study your lesson, and the television is off.

2- The superior plan: I study because their affection increases and they buy me gifts, meaning that is introjected.

3- One step further that way: I study because I like being top of the class, because I enjoy becoming top of the class, and this is not because of parental encouragement; I myself enjoy it, meaning it is my perfectionistic striving, it is self-oriented.

4- Finally, the last stage is that I do not study for grades, I do not study to be top of the class, I do not study for employment; I simply like studying. Here, whatever material I learn, even if it is of no use to me, I like it. This is the peak of the matter.

Now the question is, what connection do these have with the categories of perfectionism?

It was said that there are two categories:

1-Perfectionistic striving

2-Perfectionistic concern

or

1-Self-oriented

versus

2-Socially prescribed

The observation here is that in cases like perfectionistic concerns or that model of socially prescribed perfectionism, motivations are more external, and at the peak of perfectionistic striving, motivations become entirely internal.

You who suffer from perfectionism and say, what should I do about this? Think about what your perfectionism is oriented toward. Is it pressure from others or standards that others have set for you, or standards you have set for yourself? Or, in a very transcendent form, is it not for any specific goal at all—meaning, I enjoy being orderly and clean, and exercising, even if my weight doesn't become proportionate.

The question is, if you were in an absolute vacuum and knew that this matter would never come back to you, and no one would ever notice it, would you still strive? It is believed that at the peak of perfectionistic striving, the answer is yes. That is, I will pursue this for my own heart's sake.

Perfectionism in itself may not be good or bad. The question is, what is the nature of its internalization? The more the nature of its internalization moves toward external control, the more distressing and tormenting that perfectionism is, accompanied by depression, fatigue, psychiatric illnesses, a sense of failure, self-blame, addiction, and other things. And the more that perfectionistic striving moves toward internalization—meaning, if no one is watching and if you are not going to reach anywhere, there is no goal, what value does the mere performance of that act have, that you pursue it? Well, the mechanism of internalization says it has value, and a person goes so far that even in a vacuum or on an island where you see no one, when you wake up in the morning, you still make your bed. And the mere act of cleaning and tidying up is pleasurable.

This is perhaps the equivalent Adlerian concept, that is, striving toward perfection.

The question is whether such a thing is truly possible, and whether human movement can be solely for the pleasure of the movement itself, with no one to find out or benefit, and with nowhere to reach, yet you still do that act.

Years ago, a psychoanalyst named Robert Lee White, who later turned to experimental psychology, had this question about animals and posed this question about rats: whether rats, if their food is provided and all their physiological needs are met, would still move and walk around. And what he very strangely noticed is that the rat even runs, and this rat runs for its own heart's sake, not to obtain food or escape an enemy or pain.

Is it possible for a human to reach a stage where their perfectionism is completely internal? And not even for a reward in the afterlife.

Perfectionism seems to have both benign and malignant forms. Those that are self-oriented are more benign; those that are perfectionistic concerns are more malignant, and the reason for their malignancy is more oriented toward how external or internal the root of that motivation is. The more the motivation and control are internalized from the outside, the less harmful it is and the more it fosters a sense of pleasure, vitality, and happiness, and the opposite is true for the external.

.

---

.

Session Five of the Lectures on “An Examination of Perfectionism”

We know that the evolutionary system insists that no useless or excessive work beyond need be undertaken. That is, if you do something that suffices to meet your need, evolution offers no support for doing more than that. The question arises: is a person who has perfectionism a disease? A deviation? In other words, if you are going to achieve a result by performing an act to the extent of meeting a need, what insistence is there to present it above that standard?

This is a puzzle: whether perfectionism might be a virus, an error, or an illness. If you assume you can structure your home in a way that merely meets your needs, why do you want the best one? What advantage does it have for you, and what force and energy lie behind moving beyond necessities? Is this higher standard an illness?

Could it be an arms race that ultimately leads to the destruction and defeat of the perfectionist individual? We see this often in evolution: sometimes creatures begin to act beyond what is required, engaging in excessive activities, and these excessive activities ultimately lead to their destruction. For instance, there was a concept taken from Ronald Fisher, the prominent geneticist and statistician. Fisher explains the very bright colors and the beautiful tail of the peacock, saying these might have no adaptive role whatsoever, but in fact, male peacocks enter an arms race with one another to attract the attention of female peacocks, constantly trying to become more and more perfect. How much energy and resources they invest in this, entering a futile competition that ultimately leads to their destruction. In fact, many aspects of perfectionism are an evolutionary error, valueless, a blind arms race that leads to the party's destruction.

Our brain, too, does not seem very insistent on functioning perfectly,

A book recommendation for those who believe the brain functions very ideally, with ultimate precision and high cognitive quality:

Book title: Kluge, by Gary Marcus. Translation title: The Human Brain: A Masterpiece of Evolutionary Tinkering.

The book points out that, contrary to your thinking that the brain is a masterpiece and processes very precisely, a computational and computer-like system, Gary Marcus claims the opposite: that our brain operates in a very makeshift, kludged-together manner. It draws conclusions from a few examples and, with the scant information it gathers, quickly reaches a conclusion, and in fact, it is not very inclined to function perfectly. The origin of the word Kluge is questioned; some said it was German, which is incorrect. It has been about seventy years since this word entered English literature, and many believe it comes from slang, meaning to kludge something together, when someone cobbles together an engineering device just to meet a need.

Sedanet argues that our brain operates with monkey-like capabilities, and he is right. Most of our processing is biased, and in many cases, when we want to draw a conclusion, we try to reach grand conclusions with little information. We are overly confident in ourselves, and most of what we know are cognitive errors.

If Gary Marcus's claim is correct, it means that evolution and our cognitive system operate very economically. If it sees that something suffices, it stops there and does not insist on higher quality beyond that.

This puzzle exists: is perfectionism a movement toward perfection, or an evolutionary error where these evolutionary errors temporarily take shape and after a while lead to the collapse of their owner? You try to improve it, unaware that the cost of perfectionism increases so much that it ultimately knocks you down. So, this is a pathology and a harm.

Karen Horney believed that perfectionism is entirely pathological, and researchers in cognitive science and modern psychology are also not very fond of perfectionism. That is, they say we are doing something more than is needed, above the standard and requirement. It is no art; you might think you are building the chicest house and how precise your work is, with no errors in it, but do not forget this is not economical. A factor operates with extreme stinginess and economy; it does not exist for accumulation, showing off, luxury, and high quality, unless that showing off has some value.

Now, regardless of whether perfectionism is a pathology, a harm, or a transcendent movement toward quality, we have understood that the more intrinsic your desire is and the more you deliver a perfect work for your own sake, the more it correlates with mental health; conversely, the more you seek to deliver perfect work for the sake of others' opinions and approval, and out of worry about others' blame, the more it will be associated with harm.

A great figure who has researched happiness and life satisfaction for years says in one of his important statements: Happy people, instead of comparing themselves to others, derive their sense of satisfaction from internal standards. That is, they do not concern themselves with others; they work for their own heart's sake. If you want to deliver something perfect for your own heart and delight in it, this can contribute to your happiness, and if this is absent, you are stuck and it will bring you down.

Book introduction: Invisibles, The Power of Anonymous Work in an Age of Self-Promotion, by David Zweig.

This author says that those who suffer in life and are always tormented are constantly seeking to introduce themselves. We are stuck in an era where everyone tries to broadcast their abilities through a loudspeaker, show off, and promote themselves, and in fact, they work not for their own heart's sake, but to gain the approval of others. He believes we have a duality: people who constantly try to promote themselves to gain approval and avoid being blamed by others, and another group who are the invisibles, those who, as it happens, have no interest in their name being mentioned and no interest in showing off their work, and they work for their own heart's sake.

An interesting point he makes about the invisibles is that their names only become talked about when they make a mistake. Examples of invisibles include anesthesiologists or the sound recordists on an excellent Hollywood film. There are individuals in society who are extraordinarily perfectionist but do not seek external benefit, and he calls these people invisibles.

This book says that in society, we are always in need of invisible people—that is, people who, for the sake of the act itself, seek perfect delivery—and whenever these people become scarce in a society, that society faces the danger of collapse. That is, the health of a society depends on having invisible individuals, where you look at the person and say, you were never appreciated, never praised, and no one knows you, yet you created this masterpiece; these are the invisibles. These people are, as it happens, also happy, and they say they love the work for its own sake.

You know, many artists of the Renaissance insisted on not showing their artwork and hid the paintings they created; it was not for display, and they painted for their own heart's sake.

Think for a moment how much truth you might have discovered for your own heart's sake, not to show it to others. The decline of invisibles in a society is dangerous.

Is our perfectionism moving from intrinsic to extrinsic, in which case it is harmful to society, and in fact, how can we keep perfectionism intrinsic so that they remain safe from harm?

.

---

.

Sixth Session of the Lectures on "An Examination of Perfectionism"

There is a deep connection between the sense of happiness and intrinsic and extrinsic perfectionism. Extrinsic perfectionism is the source of many problems. Whereas intrinsic perfectionism, that state of being invisible, and in fact, the one who truly pursues a task for their own heart's sake, is associated with a sense of happiness.

Perfectionism, in its extrinsic type, is influenced by social concern or social worries, or is painfully influenced by socially prescribed impositions.

What about that intrinsic type of perfectionism that we apply for our own heart's sake?

Colleen McCullough, the author of a 1977 novel called The Thorn Birds, says a beautiful sentence: the best and that perfect element is only purchasable at the cost and expense of great pain. That is, the best and most beautiful stage is attained in exchange for great pain and suffering.

Is perfectionism necessarily a painful and suffering-laden phenomenon? And to reach it, must you exert painful effort? Or can you reach those degrees with pleasure?

The answer to this question depends on your worldview; is it that in the world you cannot reach those heights except with great pain and suffering, while some say this path is, incidentally, a very beautiful one. When you are seeking truth and not prestige, you therefore suffer no pain and attain perfection.

We have two spectra: an internal spectrum and an external spectrum.

If you suffer from a perfectionism that is mostly socially prescribed, a perfectionism that is worried or concerned about the views of others, unfortunately, most articles have shown that this type of perfectionism is accompanied by negative mood, depression, anxiety, and that job burnout, so it is not a good thing at all and is a pathology.

It has also been shown that individuals who constantly try to deliver a perfect work with the intention of having an imaginary audience and are worried about what society will say about them, suffer damage in life satisfaction, feeling good, and feeling worthy, and it can almost be said that contemporary thinkers in psychology and cognitive science are unanimous that external perfectionism is a type of pathology, and they have even shown that it is not accompanied by progress either, and these people are more prone to addiction, eating disorders, or anorexia nervosa. They have more chronic fatigue. They have lower life satisfaction and more psychopathology. In other words, if you run beyond meeting your own needs due to an external motivation, all miseries befall you, and this is the source of all tribulations, and this matter is so prominent that many believe that many psychiatric disorders can be classified on this basis. Depression, anxiety, and these things come from here, that you feel you do not have the life that is worthy and befitting of you, the worry that you will not succeed in exams because it is not for your own heart's sake, but rather the worry about what others will say about your exam. Or that they will blame you.

Modern literature revolves around this issue that the more external perfectionism is, the more harmful it is, and it is not accompanied by any kind of career or academic success. When you are constantly running for the sake of others, you cannot run to that extent in another area, and its stress constantly increases, and to calm yourself down, you turn to substances.

The one who wants to deliver a perfect thing for their own heart's sake, you are at a crossroads: Ronald Fisher is right that this is a futile arms race, meaning why do you make life so hard and want to deliver a perfect thing beyond meeting needs, what insistence do you have that there be a great deal of harmony and coordination, lest you are caught in a competition.

In contrast, individuals like Adler believe that no, this is the pinnacle of growth, and at the peak of growth, you want to create a masterpiece, but on the other hand, evolutionary psychologists ask, what is the necessity of creating a masterpiece? What advantage does this masterpiece have for you? Think, for example, you created the most beautiful work of art, well, so what?

They said, let us find a group of people who move towards a masterpiece for their own heart's sake, and how are anxiety, depression, and stress in them?

The answer has been that those who have a completely perfectionistic approach are either normal or slightly damaged. It has rarely been observed that this type of perfectionism leads to a very high feeling of satisfaction. Now, it might be said that this does not align with previous statements, because this is in descriptive psychology and giving questionnaires and structured psychiatric psychological interviews. It has been observed that these individuals are not more afflicted with DSM disorders than others. But they have not produced such a masterpiece-like thing in it either.

Summary:

If perfectionism is of the external type, it causes misery, but when it becomes internal, those complications do not exist. But is the movement toward perfection truly meaningful? Does something strange strike you about it? This discussion is still open.

How does perfectionism relate to personality traits? Contemporary psychometrics and psychology say that perfectionism is a personality trait.

Some have criticized this, arguing that perfectionism is not a personality trait but rather a situational and specific phenomenon. We do not have a pervasive thing called perfectionism, but for now, the coin is in the hands of those who believe perfectionism is a personality trait. And what is this personality trait related to:

One of the famous personality classification systems is the well-known FFM system, which posits that we have five innate traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. These five factors form the building blocks of our nature, part of which is internal, genetic, and innate or intrinsic, and humans are born with them and display them from childhood.

I also do not accept this, and I am somewhat skeptical. Does a human being fundamentally have an innate nature, or is it a blank slate? Psychiatrists interested in biological psychiatry or behavioral genetics believe, how could it be otherwise? Humans are born with innate traits they inherit from their parents. It is true that this thought is in the majority, but it is not universal and has critics, and some think we may be born as a blank slate, with no differences between us, and everything is environment, learning, and culture.

It was said that we have two types of perfectionism: one is self-oriented perfectionism, and the other is socially prescribed perfectionism.

1- Neuroticism has a relatively strong correlation with socially prescribed perfectionism. However, its correlation with intrinsic, self-oriented perfectionism is mild, and some say it exists while others say it does not.

2- Extraversion has no relation to perfectionism.

3- The openness factor: Those who seek diverse experiences and are, in fact, receptive to new experiences have no relation to perfectionism.

4- The agreeableness factor, meaning that feeling of being kind, empathetic, sympathetic, and cooperative, has no relation to perfectionism, but it may have a mild connection with socially prescribed perfectionism. The dark perfectionism where others must be perfectionists has an inverse relationship with it, marked by three stars; that is, these people who are very narcissistic and expect others to be intensely perfectionistic are extremely low on this agreeableness index.

5- The conscientiousness factor: This sense of responsibility, diligence, hard work, and having a strong work ethic has a very strong connection with self-oriented perfectionism.

The HEXACO model has six factors.

It is like the model above, except instead of the word neuroticism, it actually uses the term emotionality, and it also includes the other factors above, and it adds the honesty-humility index as the first factor, in addition to the factors above. It has been observed that honesty and humility can be a prominent index as a nature in humans. It has been observed that honesty and humility have an inverse relationship with that dark type of perfectionism. And it also has a strongly inverse relationship with the socially prescribed perfectionism type. And its relationship with self-oriented perfectionism is mild and slight.

People who seek social prescription are not honest people because they want to promote themselves, conceal their weaknesses, and seek promotion, and they lack a sense of humility and honesty, while the self-oriented group possesses this sense of honesty and humility.

Perfectionism is not a personality trait and may be a cognition, and we must see what cognitions perfectionists have?

.

---

.

Session Seven of the Lectures on “An Examination of Perfectionism”

Perfectionistic Cognitions

So far, the approach has been that perfectionism is a personality trait, meaning it is pervasive and manifests itself more or less across most times and places, having somehow penetrated the person’s essence. But this is not the only view, and some others say we do not have something called a perfectionist personality; we merely have perfectionistic thoughts and cognitions. Perfectionistic cognitions. It is said that just as in depression, panic disorder, and social anxiety we have a series of thoughts—where these thoughts, beliefs, and cognitions are intrusive—in everyday life we also have a certain amount of intrusive thoughts, which are usually acquired from the environment and have nothing to do with the real personality, and these constitute perfectionistic tendencies within us. Perhaps someone who points to this is, in fact, a kind of moving away from the concepts of Karen Horney and Adler, because they believed in the neurotic personality, but it is a sort of moving closer to modern cognitive matters, put forward by two people: one is Albert Ellis and the other is Aaron Beck. Albert Ellis presents it under the title of irrational beliefs, and in fact, he also presents it under the title of dysfunctional attitudes. Ellis’s description is more fluent and elegant; he says there are some people who have acquired a set of beliefs, for example, that everything in the world must be good, and if something is not good, it is worthless, and if I do not have the best, I do not want number 2 at all. One of the most famous of these beliefs is the one that says, all or nothing: either I get into the best university or I will not study at all; either I will own the best house or I will not be a homeowner at all; either I travel to a very good country or I will not travel at all. He believes these are among the erroneous thoughts that humans cultivate in their minds, and these thoughts enter intrusively and hinder their growth. All or nothing is, in fact, a very destructive approach and is seen abundantly in perfectionist individuals. If I am not first or second in the exam, then the rest is useless. If I do not study in the best field, then I will not study anymore and it is better to give up on everything. Unfortunately, they cannot explain precisely where these thoughts come from, and they only believe they are in the mind. For example, Beck, with the help of a pathological critique called the DAS, that is, the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale, one of the axes is precisely this: the attitude you have toward this matter—either the best or nothing at all.

Another attitude that is a subset of these perfectionistic cognitions is what they call catastrophizing, and Ellis popularized this term more, meaning that if events are not ideal, complete, and perfect, a catastrophe has occurred. If I prepared a text and that text had three spelling mistakes, I severely blame myself, and this is catastrophic. This category of catastrophizing and catastrophe-oriented thinking is one of the interesting points, about which one of the authors has an article titled Catastrophic Thinking: A Transdiagnostic Process in Psychiatric Disorders. The claim of this article, which was prepared by Beck and under his supervision, is that, as it happens, we have a common thread in several psychiatric disorders. Including phobias, panic disorder, depression, PTSD, various anxiety disorders, eating disorders such as anorexia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and pain syndromes—they share a common feature, and that is catastrophic thinking, and this catastrophic thinking might be the basis for classifying them, and it is a nice consensus. For example, you come and separate panic disorder from obsessive-compulsive disorder, social anxiety, social phobia, and specific phobia, and you say these are each separate illnesses, but this article very nicely shows that they have a common thread, a transdiagnostic thread, and that is catastrophic thinking. And it is based on this: if things do not turn out the way I want, then I do not want it at all, or if it is not perfect, then it is a catastrophe. So, the affairs of the world are divided into two categories: they are either perfect or they are a catastrophe. If they are perfect, how good, and they must be obtained, and if they are catastrophic, they are terrible and utterly inconceivable.

You cannot put them side by side, and it is interesting that it has been shown that in all these psychiatric disorders, this common thread is very prominent, and we interpret something catastrophically. For example, in panic disorder, it is said that you have a heart that beats very well and regularly, but if one or two new, irregular beats occur, and slight shortness of breath appears, and something happens that deviates from that perfect rhythm, its complete rhythm, you interpret that as a catastrophe. This is broken; surely something very malignant is underway, and they see this as applying to the rest of life's affairs as well. So, in fact, Ellis, and after him Beck, and following them, a large number of thinkers in cognitive science and cognitive psychology consider this catastrophic thinking to be the central core of perfectionism.

There is another small thread in it, and it is said that some people who are perfectionists have the characteristic of beating the odds. That is, in their minds, they are always trying to beat the probabilities; for example, they are told, look, you cannot be a sports champion, an artistic champion, know 5 languages, and have three PhDs, and no one in history has ever been like this. This person says, I want to be the first, and I want to try my luck, meaning I want to try my one-in-a-million chance. That is, they have a cognitive fixation on pursuing very low probabilities.

For instance, if someone is told they have a 30 percent chance of success, it is not very appealing to them, but if these perfectionist individuals are told their chance of success is one in a million, some of these people are overcome by a weakness, a whim, and a temptation: what if it happens? It's true the possibility is very low, but if I can achieve it, it's a masterpiece. So, beating the odds is another characteristic of perfectionism.

Another feature present in cognitive perfectionism is called the self-reproach dialogue, and it is said that, like an obsessive thought, when these individuals are doing these things, whenever something is not perfect, that error or mistake is constantly ruminated upon in their minds. You have even seen this in athletes, especially footballers, and some footballers who are very perfectionistic; when they make a mistake in the 10th or 15th minute, that mistake does not leave their mind until the end of the game—why did they make that mistake? And this creates a cognitive burden for them until the final moment, and it is called a self-reproach dialogue, which leads to a feeling of irritability.

These cognitive theorists of perfectionism believe that these intrusive thoughts, with the characteristics described about them—that is, catastrophizing, all-or-nothing thinking, the attempt to break the ceiling of statistics and probabilities, and self-reproach—come together and create perfectionistic behavior in the individual.

The harm of this thinking lies along several axes:

When you fail to do the best work, your performance immediately drops, and you immediately feel that everything has fallen apart and a catastrophe has occurred, and that mental rumination begins, and you start engaging in a self-reproachful dialogue with yourself.

Just as individuals develop panic disorder or a social phobia—if I stutter in front of others, or my voice trembles, or when I am speaking, the sound of my breathing becomes audible, and I forget the subject, it becomes a catastrophe, and my reputation is ruined, and no one will pay attention to me anymore, and no one will invite me—it is said that a similar issue exists in the perfectionistic approach.

These do not necessarily deny the category of the perfectionist personality, but rather emphasize its cognitive dimension more, and their belief is that, in fact, perfectionism is not as resistant to treatment as others say, and people can change it. At the same time, there is another belief that this perfectionistic behavior is not very pervasive, but you might have this all-or-nothing thinking in some domains, or catastrophic thinking in some domains; for example, you might not catastrophize a mistake in family matters, but in professional matters, you might catastrophize a professional error, and it completely unravels you and remains in your mind for a long time.

Errors remain in the mind and create a heavy rumination.

Some say that perfectionistic behaviors or perfectionistic cognitions are not necessarily an illness, and perhaps this is simply the norm of our mind; unfinished and unsuccessful tasks linger in our minds, and it is no one's fault—it is simply the structure of our brain.

There is a principle called the Zeigarnik effect. Bluma Zeigarnik, a Russian psychologist born in 1901 and died in 1988, noticed something that relates to the phenomenon of perfectionism and perfectionistic cognitions. The story is that she wrote an article in German in 1927. She was a student of great figures like Kurt Lewin, Leon Tief, and Vygotsky, and was, in fact, part of that brilliant era of Soviet psychology. Unfortunately, under Stalin and the dominance of his extremist views, she was sidelined, and that school of thought and the growth of Soviet psychology collapsed. The title of her article is "On Finished and Unfinished Tasks." Zeigarnik's study was simple. She asked a number of volunteers to perform a task—for example, to make a craft, arrange letters, or do various other tasks—and then move on to the next stage. However, her creative twist was that in half the group and in half the cases, she would stop the person while they were performing the task. For instance, before they finished the craft, she would tell them to leave the table and go to the next one. Or if they were coloring something, she would take the paper before they finished and tell them to go to the next table. The interesting thing she noticed was that at the end of the activity, and even after some time had passed, when she asked the individuals what those 40 or 50 tasks she had asked them to do were, the tasks that had remained unfinished and were interrupted midway, not allowed to be completed, were, on average, remembered twice as often or more by the participants. In fact, Zeigarnik concluded that an unfinished task puts pressure on our brain and stays in our memory longer, and this is one of the pervasive and interesting discoveries of cognitive psychology, sometimes linked to perfectionism. Some suggested that perhaps the intervention and interruption in the middle of the task had strengthened the individuals' memory. So, she conducted her experiments differently, interrupting some cases but then allowing them to resume after a period of time. To her surprise, she saw that when you interrupt and later give the opportunity to finish, it is as if they had completed it, and it is quickly erased from memory and forgotten; only the unfinished and unfulfilled tasks weigh heavily on our memory. At that time, the question arose: why are we like this? Is this a demand of culture? Do all humans experience the Zeigarnik effect? Why, when we leave a task unfinished, does it actually stay in our memory more? And it constantly comes into our conscious mind, and we remember it. A book or movie left unfinished, or an event you did not follow through to the end, and surely you have unfinished articles, an unfinished thesis, an incomplete gym registration, and unfinished artwork. Interestingly, you sometimes forget all the completed tasks; only the unfinished and unfulfilled ones remain in the mind. This leads some to say that perhaps the human brain wants to have completed tasks, and unfinished tasks affect our nerves. Despite the passage of a year, the Zeigarnik puzzle still stands, and the question remains: why do we have this phenomenon?

If this is the case, with the growth of industrial life and the diversification of affairs, the increase in those things you can do in life will gradually be accompanied by an accumulation of dissatisfactions and discomforts. They will bother you in a disorderly way, and you will constantly resort to self-reproach. So a question arises here: are these pathological, or is it a natural tendency of our brain that wants us to finish everything, and when it is not finished and perfect, it gets on our nerves? Therefore, as you age, just like sediment that gets trapped in its pores and particles, you too will encounter this problem. Zeigarnik herself suffered from this phenomenon and attempted her dissertation three times. The first time she wrote a dissertation, it was rejected. During the Stalin era, the second time she wrote a dissertation, a thief stole it. Although her dissertation was stolen, she had a copy, but she was afraid to publish her copy. The account goes that she was afraid, telling herself, what if the one who stole it also goes and publishes it at the same time, and then it gets published in two places, and then in Stalin's government and a communist country, they don't mess around with anyone, and if you have done fraudulent work and cannot prove that the original work is mine and not that fraudulent one, the punishment there is not light, and if they don't execute you by firing squad, you go to Siberia. Therefore, despite having a copy, she does not publish her completed dissertation and archives it, and twenty years later, she finally defends her doctorate and finishes her dissertation.

.

---

.

Session Eight of the Lectures on “An Examination of Perfectionism”

Where does perfectionism come from? Why do some people have extreme perfectionism, and what happens in their minds, development, and brains?

The foundational theories of the formation of a sense of perfectionism are classified into three axes or three categories of theories:

Of course, these overlap, and none refutes the other. Some are more prominent, and some, depending on the time and period, become fashionable and gain many proponents, and then fall out of fashion again.

1- Social learning

2- Development in an insecure environment and defective parenting

3- Social and familial expectations

Social learning is a factor that has fewer proponents than the other two, and at first glance, it seems to be one of the etiologies, but articles in recent years, from 2000 onwards, have diminished its role.

Social learning means that perfectionistic individuals grow up in family environments where there were very successful, perfectionistic, and competitive people around them, and they model themselves after them. For example, a boy sees that his father is very disciplined, serious, and his work is his entire life and existence, and in fact, he does not rest until he delivers an ideal piece of work, and he becomes very nervous and agitated about mistakes. It is said that this child models himself after his father and learns. When questionnaires were administered, they arrived at a few points:

1- There is no significant correlation between the perfectionism of parents and older siblings and the individual. You may have grown up in a family where you are intensely perfectionistic, but your parents themselves are not like this; they are very comfortable with their own mistakes, do not expect much from themselves, and forgive themselves easily. They do not have self-reproachful internal dialogues.

2- Warning: When individuals themselves are asked, many people who are perfectionistic declare social learning to be a major reason. That is, from the perspective of the perfectionistic individual, they say my family was perfectionistic and I modeled myself after them, but it was found that this is more the perfectionistic individual's perception of their family. That is, when they interviewed their family, they saw that their family was not perfectionistic.

Perfectionistic people have this problematic perception that they think those around them were very perfectionistic, and they too became like those around them.

The role of this theory is not very prominent, and if it is very prominent, it is more related to the perception of the perfectionistic individual than to reality.

Second theory: This theory has many adherents, and it can be said that the main cause of perfectionism, according to this view, is growing up in an insecure environment and defective parenting. That is, for roughly 30 to 40 years, psychologists and psychiatrists believed that this phenomenon stems from a parenting pathology. Families that raise children in an emotionally insecure environment, are not supportive, are constantly indifferent or reproachful, and do not allow the child much secure attachment and emotional connection, causing the child to become anxious. So, in fact, perfectionism is linked to anxiety and insecure attachment. These are even used together in the literature on parenting and insecure attachment, and in these environments, there is a lack of precise attunement, like an instrument being out of tune. Parents are misattuned to the child's innate needs; for example, the child is neurotic by nature, and the parents insist they become extroverted, or the child is very extroverted, and the parents insist they stay at home. In fact, when parents are not in sync and attuned with the child, the child feels out of tune and becomes anxious, and this anxiety persists throughout their development. As a defense to correct this defective emotional connection, the child tries to be the best. They criticize them about order in one instance, call them sloppy in another, ask why they don't come to parties in one instance, and say there's no need to come to every party in another. They constantly ask why you do this or why you don't do that. These children try to be the best and become so perfectly attuned that they can, in fact, regulate their parents' demands.

Syncron synchronous Asyncron asynchronous

Parental attention and interventions are not temporally secure with the young child; when the child needs attention, they don't give it; when the child needs independence, they constantly want to interfere in their affairs; when the child needs you to come to them, you abandon them; when the child wants the parents to move away, they insist on coming toward the child. Being out of tune and asynchrony have the same meaning, with one focusing more on time and the other on behavior. Asynchrony indicates more of a temporal mismatch. For example, the child says they don't spend money on me, they don't take me out for fun, they never show me affection or hug me, or conversely, they come to me when I don't want these things. The simple version is that the connection in these families is not regulated, and as a result, the child becomes anxious, and it is to escape this that the child tries to move toward perfectionism. So, perfectionism is linked to childhood anxiety. This theory still has many supporters, and in fact, many believe that the basis of perfectionism is fundamentally defective parenting. If you have that empathetic, kind emotional environment and respond well to the child's needs between the ages of 3 and 6, the traits of striving for perfectionism will not form in the child.

This theory is very negative, and individuals who are perfectionists might say their parents were very reproachful or abandoning. The second theory is somewhat dynamic and psychoanalytic, related, for instance, to the work of Kohut.

Third theory: This theory is more social and says that the family's high expectations are transmitted to the child. The parents may not be perfectionists themselves and may know they haven't achieved much, but they see its compensatory, vicarious fulfillment in their children. In this theory, we move away from that structure of deep family pathology and arrive more at a normal family influenced by the norms of its time. The evidence for this theory is numerous; for example, some say let's look at whether perfectionism is increasing. In recent years, children have a greater sense of perfectionism. There is an article stating that perfectionism is on the rise; there is a very substantial meta-analysis of individuals from 1989 to 2016. This article states that for nearly three decades, we have been witnessing an increase in perfectionism among adolescents and children. The authors of this article have leftist leanings and oppose the growth of liberalism and neoliberalism. They believe that three events have occurred in affluent countries in recent years, which are gradually spreading to developing countries as well, and these have caused children to be raised much more perfectionistically and, in fact, to move toward perfectionistic states.

1—The rise of neoliberalism, meaning the issue of individualism, free competition, and the free market, and it is said that when societies become highly competitive, on the basis that it becomes every person for themselves and everyone must strive to pull their own weight, and a tight competition in the economy, the market, success, and even on Facebook you see having more likes, more followers, more sales, and becoming first in the board exam, all of this leads individuals to conclude that in the chaotic, intensely competitive market, it is now every person for themselves, meaning there is no longer any place for incomplete work, and they believe that in high school many kids become this way, that if you haven't gone to good colleges and good high schools and don't have a good rank and aren't accepted into a good place on the university entrance exam, then your hat is left in the arena. In its second clause, it says the growth of elitism: the story is that we constantly try to hire more perfect people, and someone who went to a better university and has a stronger CV, has no criminal record or history, has never been fired and has no red flag in their file, and has never been interrogated or reprimanded, and in fact, with the increase of the free market and elitism, individuals move toward the idea that if you are not an elite, it's impossible. So you see that much of this is not from family trauma and the refrigerator mother and the neurotic mother, but rather more in the effect that people have fallen into a path where they must be perfect, and perhaps this is the very thing where people have become engaged in an arms race. The third principle that exists is the issue of parental practice, and they believe that in recent years, parenting styles have changed, and a substitute parenting style has emerged, and this third factor has caused an increase in the category of perfectionism.

This meta-analysis is such that it says and has shown that from 1989 to this very 2019, all three axes of perfectionism have increased, but there is also an interesting point: that self-oriented perfectionism, which is for one's own sake and is not socially prescribed, has not increased very much, meaning it hasn't changed much from 1989 to 2016, and the perfectionism that has risen very badly and has increased in the last 30 years is social prescription. Social prescription is the very thing that says if I am imperfect, the blame of others is upon me, and one is always worried about the blame of others.

This meta-analysis has shown that people in the last thirty years have been more and more and more worried about the views of others, and in fact, for this reason, they are creating more worry within themselves; you might have learned these matters much more easily in 1980, but now this story that I must be perfect for the sake of others has increased.

When people expect more from themselves, they do not come to terms with themselves so easily and lack that indulgence and kindness toward themselves, and they constantly blame themselves. This increase is due to those three axes that were presented to you. That is, the supply and demand market becomes more unevenly linear, acceptance into good jobs is harder, and competitions have become more compressed, and as a result, people think they must push themselves harder and be stricter with themselves, and this strictness toward oneself has caused an increase in psychiatric disorders. In the third axis, other-oriented perfectionism is on the rise.

Therefore, people are strict not only with themselves but also with those around them, and it is as if we have somehow fallen into an arms race, pushing ourselves and trying hard to be strict with ourselves, and we say the same to others.

.

---

.

Session Nine of the Lectures on “An Examination of Perfectionism”

In the previous session, 3 perspectives on the formation of perfectionism were raised, the third of which was parental expectations and social expectations. That article in the previous session showed that people are exhibiting more perfectionistic concerns in industrialized countries, and social prescription is growing the most, and perhaps this lays the groundwork for a bad feeling and psychological disorders. The growth of this phenomenon is linked to individualism, elitism, and changes in parenting. However, by changes in parenting, it does not mean that parents are anxious and neurotic and have psychiatric disorders themselves, but rather it says they are more preoccupied with and involved in their children's lives.

Ramey and Ramey, economists, write an article; after World War II, from the 1960s to 1990, people didn't spend much time on their children—that is, beyond basic care, they didn't devote any other time. From 1990 onward, they realized, and mothers and fathers began spending time on their children at a steep rate. Especially mothers who attended university. That is, they became thoroughly involved with their children. For instance, 30 years ago they didn't pay much attention to our lessons and homework, but now they attend to our studies. Since 1990, mothers have cut 10 hours from their free time and devoted it to their children. With the advent of household appliances, housework took less than 15 hours a week. Consequently, mothers gained 15 more hours of free time, which was filled by work outside the home. The time that was for the mother's leisure was spent on the children. Elementary and middle school children take more time from their parents, and now many are saying, could this have caused a change in children's psychology and led to perfectionism? It has come to pass that mothers spent about three hours driving their children to various classes.

He said this work was done in America, and then they compared what this increase in time spent on elementary school children and older is proportional to, and the answer is that it is proportional to the competitive atmosphere and the difficulty of university entrance in that country and region, and the harder the entrance exam, the more mothers sacrificed their own time. In countries where entering university is easier, this happened less, but when the entrance exam and competition became tough and society became individualistic, and mothers were forced to spend more time supervising their children, this resulted in malignant perfectionism in children. That is, the same perfectionism that stems from social anxiety.

Hewitt and Flett say it is true that competition and expectations have increased, and despite the three theories mentioned, they are still not sufficient for a child to develop malignant perfectionism, and another event must also occur for the child to develop malignant perfectionism. They named this the social disconnection model in perfectionism, and in this theory, it is said that we have two stages, the first stage being the three mentioned earlier, meaning the aspect of family and social expectations becomes more prominent and the aspect of defective parenting diminishes. They said this is not enough to make your child suffer from defective perfectionism. Another bad event must also happen, and that is social disconnection. It is said that when a kind of perfectionism and striving for perfection forms in a 10- or 12-year-old child due to the parameters mentioned, they may take one of two paths: avoidant coping or problem-focused coping. Now, the child may either dive into problems and try to confront environmental demands and interact with others' demands and test themselves, or conversely, try not to confront them. You see children who say, we don't go to our friends' houses much because we might do something wrong; I don't participate in many sports activities lest I mess up in them. The core of perfectionism does not become malignant on its own, but becomes malignant when you accompany it with social avoidance. The person says, I don't go to many parties because I might not be perfect there; I don't delve deeply into issues because I might not present a good image there. It is said that this avoidance causes the individual's beliefs to become entrenched and prevents them from finding an opportunity to correct them.

It is said that when you immerse yourself in the heart of problems, you realize that even if you mess up somewhere and weren't perfect, it's not so bad, and people don't blame you that much, nor are they so preoccupied with you that your grades weren't perfect or that if we heard you came in third, it would matter to us. But when the individual chooses avoidant coping, they retreat into their defensive shell, their socializing and interactions with others diminish, and gradually their thinking becomes fixated on the idea that people actually don't care about imperfect human beings. Whereas if, during adolescence, they had gone to a friend's house and seen that the friend's father didn't care much about it, and in another family, others didn't express any negative feelings toward them about a low grade, then it is said that perfectionism is corrected and growth becomes self-directed. For it to become self-directed, it is necessary that you go into the heart of difficulties; this confrontation leads to your correction. But if you have placed your child in social-emotional quarantine, the path to correction will not be found. It is said that as long as social disconnection does not occur, perfectionism does not become malignant, and the individual will not suffer from these neurotic states.

Parents are told, first of all, not to have excessive expectations of their children, but even if you do have expectations, do not let them become quarantined and adopt an avoidant style.

Are gifted children and brilliant talents more prone to perfectionism? The answer is negative, and studies conducted show that perfectionism has a broad explanation, and that studying at an elite school or university and being the top student does not necessarily make you more perfectionistic than others.

However, it is said that there is another mechanism for the formation of malignant perfectionism in individuals; for example, someone is so intelligent that they have never been second in class, and as a result, they have always avoided the seemingly bitter experience of failure. What makes perfectionism malignant is that individuals do not face things and avoid failure. Because if they face it, fail, and make a fool of themselves in childhood, their anxiety dissipates, its malignant nature is destroyed, and the benign nature remains underneath.

.

---

.

Tenth Session of the Lectures on “An Examination of Perfectionism”

Phenomena associated with perfectionism that guide us toward the pathology of perfectionism:

One of the things seen more frequently and specifically in perfectionistic individuals is that states of chronic fatigue syndrome have a correlation with the phenomenon of perfectionism. If this is confirmed, it will make the puzzle and complexity of the perfectionism process even more intricate for us, namely, why those with perfectionistic thinking tendencies, especially the type concerned with social perspectives, are more prone to states of fatigue.

If you ask people on the street, what percentage of you have repeatedly felt fatigued in the past two weeks—meaning there have been two-week periods where you felt you had no energy, were tired, were running low, and this lack of energy and fatigue is not just physical but also mental and cognitive, meaning you cannot read new material or do serious intellectual work? A quarter of the population will answer positively. That is, fatigue lasting up to two weeks, which is considered transient fatigue, covers 25 percent of society.

If you ask whether there have been periods of 6 months where you had no energy and constantly felt fatigued and sensed you were running low on energy? Five percent will answer positively. Which is itself a significant figure.

Psychiatrists and esteemed residents, keep one point in mind: at the beginning of the twentieth century, that is, the 1900s, the most common diagnosis by general practitioners in European capitals was this very phenomenon of fatigue, which at that time was given the name neurasthenia.

I don’t mean psychiatrists, but general practitioners. That is, it shows how widespread neurasthenia was in society, but for reasons we don’t know—and which historians of psychiatry have greatly debated and worked on—this diagnosis virtually disappears from about the 1920s onward and gives way to other disorders, such as anxiety disorders, and ultimately, in the last 30 to 40 years, to depression and major depression. Yet I still believe that fatigue remains a strategic diagnosis in psychiatry. Today, much of psychiatric reasoning rests on the fact that a percentage of those who say “we are tired” and appear depressed are not depressed women, because when you talk to them, they have no thoughts or feelings of hopelessness, no suicidal ideation, no guilt, and not even a negative or depressed mood. They just say, “I wish our battery would last longer.” These individuals say, “If we are resting, our spirits are fine.” These fatigue syndromes have been somewhat clinically neglected in recent years. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the concept of neurasthenia was a nicer concept. Those who say “our energy is low and we tire quickly” have lower life satisfaction. This fatigue appears in girls three times more often than in boys, emerging after the age of 13.

When fatigue becomes chronic and lasts several months, interesting hormonal events occur in the body. That is, it is accompanied by hormonal changes, but we do not know whether the hormonal changes occur first and then the feeling of fatigue arises, or vice versa? And could it be due to another reason?

In chronic fatigue syndromes—that is, those lasting six months—cortisol levels are lower, meaning individuals actually have less cortisol, and as you know, cortisol is the anti-stress hormone. When you face stress, two things happen: one is fear and psychological pressure, and an intense demand for activity, where two events occur: one is the adrenaline reaction, which is actually driven by the central part of the adrenal gland and fuels the fight-or-flight response—heart rate and blood pressure rise, they sweat, and breathe rapidly, and this is due to the secretion of adrenaline from the adrenal gland. Alongside this, another reaction takes place, carried out by the adrenal cortex, and cortisol secretion increases. That is, the complete pathway is: CRH is secreted in the brain, then CRH goes to the pituitary gland, where ACTH is secreted, and ACTH, released into the blood, goes to the adrenal gland and increases cortisol secretion. In chronic fatigue, cortisol is lower. If you face stress, you secrete less cortisol, and it is generally said that the hypothalamic-adrenal axis—that is, the brain and pituitary—is underactive. When you experience this chronic fatigue a lot, your cortisol immune system or your cortisol response is, in a way, diminished and shuts down. Many of those who get caught in chronic fatigue say, for example, “We’ve been feeling bad for six months.” When we ask, “What happened that it started?” they say it began after a period of hard work. For instance, “I wanted to finish my thesis,” or “We were moving house,” or “There was a funeral for a loved one that put a lot of pressure on us, and we worked nonstop for two or three weeks,” or after a period of intense physical activity preparing for competitions. For example, “For the championship, I went hard on weight loss for two or three weeks, and then suddenly I became like this,” or another very interesting case: it starts after an infectious illness, especially influenza. This is why it appears the coronavirus does not cause chronic fatigue very much. In chronic fatigue, our cortisol system is inhibited and underactive, and the onset of fatigue traces back to an intense physical or psychological stress. Perfectionist personalities are more prone to these states.

Boom bus activity periods of high and low activity

It has been observed that those with chronic fatigue who have perfectionist personalities, when we follow the course of their daily activities, we see periods where they are intensely hardworking and active, and periods where they suffer from severe fatigue. For example, one period they go all in on diet, exercise, the gym, and walking, and another period they lie around resting, to the point where they couldn’t wash the dishes.

At first glance, some might say that these are bipolar or on a bipolar spectrum. However, they are not bipolar; rather, a more complex process is underway.

Why is the adrenal system suppressed in these individuals, and why is it more active in perfectionists, and why is it accompanied by periods of hyperactivity and hypoactivity, or why does it begin following a stressor? What happens in the brain? How does the close interplay between the brain and hormones lead to this state?

Introducing a classic book from 1994: Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers? Its author, Robert Sapolsky, is a neuroendocrinologist, and these are people who focus on the workings of the brain and its shared power, meaning the interaction between the nervous system and the hormonal system.

Where does the book's title come from? The author says that acute stresses, even if very severe, are not very destructive to the psyche and body. A zebra has a peaceful life, roaming the grasslands, and every so often encounters one of the lions in that thicket; it experiences a massive release of adrenaline, its heart rate skyrockets, it panics, is scared to death, and flees from the lion. If the lion cannot catch it, it escapes and then returns to its normal life. This does not happen very often; for instance, it might happen to the creature once a month. Millions of years of evolution have allowed us to adapt to these. The question is, what eats away at humans? And the answer is chronic stresses, even if they are very mild. For example, I have to argue every day over a parking spot, or every day I have to struggle with my colleague over whether he should answer the phones or I should, or every day we fight with my child over homework, or every day my spouse and I have a disagreement over a trivial family matter.

The author says that if our hormonal system faces chronic stresses, however small, it initially works well; cortisol secretion rises, and you confront the stress. But afterward, the system undergoes a kind of wear and tear, a term Bruce McEwen calls allostatic overload, or stress-out. That is, the stress itself is not the issue; rather, it is that stress-out, and you become worn down and burn out. He believes that when you get upset every day over a small thing, it is far more dangerous than getting upset once a year over a life-or-death matter. And this destroys the hormonal system.

Question: Where does this relate to perfectionism? Perfectionists have a problem: they get on their own nerves every day over small things. For example, they say, I went to read the article and saw it had a typo; I went there and saw the statistics don't match; or the staff are not punctual, and I constantly want to deliver perfect work, but something is always amiss. When you upset yourself every day over something, you experience that allostatic overload.

What are the symptoms of allostatic overload? The individual's cortisol system is destroyed and can no longer respond; the person experiences states of weakness and fatigue, succumbs to illnesses, and very quickly develops psychosomatic illnesses as well. This is why it has been observed that in perfectionists, contrary to their desire for everything to be good and healthy, high blood pressure, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, autoimmune diseases, psychosomatic disorders, and weight gain are more common. And they live shorter lives, and this is due to the chronic stress these individuals experience. Moreover, states of depression and anxiety are also more common in them.

Getting upset every day over small, trivial things is dangerous. You don't realize that this is destroying your system.

Why does it have that oscillating state? And why does it begin following stress? They answer that if you recall from earlier parts of this file, we said that perfectionists have an all-or-nothing mental philosophy.

In fact, when they came and examined which perfectionists suffered more from chronic fatigue, they observed that it was those who suffer from these all-or-nothing syndromes. Indeed, it is the all-or-nothing mindset that is their bane. For instance, they are exercising well and trying very hard to exercise perfectly, and then their routine is disrupted for a few days, and they conclude that since their system has malfunctioned, they might as well abandon it altogether. When these people go on a diet, they follow it well for a while—these are the periods referred to as the manic or euphoric phase, when everything is good, they are losing weight nicely, managing their affairs well, sticking to their diet, and approaching their ideal physique. Then they slip up; something goes wrong somewhere, and when it does, because their mental philosophy is all-or-nothing, they then say it's no longer worth it and abandon it completely, falling to the other extreme. It can be said that these boom-and-bust cycles are again explicable through the perfectionist mindset.

Regarding the fact that it begins after a major stress, they say it is true: after a major stress, when individuals exert all their effort to become more and more perfect, at some point their resources run out. For example, you go to the gym, attend language classes, perform excellently at your job, and try to manage your home very well. There is a point where you break, and when you break at that point, the question is: why do you free-fall to the bottom of the valley? The reason is that you have an all-or-nothing mentality.

You are realizing that because perfectionism entails an all-or-nothing mentality, when you are on a winning streak, you progress well, feel very good, are very successful, and life is very pleasant for you. Then, when something breaks down, you quickly plummet from absolute victory to absolute defeat, your morale is shattered, you become grounded, unmotivated, and drained of energy, and you fall to the other extreme in a corner, until after a while you can start this cycle all over again.

One of the keys to solving the puzzle of mental fatigue is perfectionism

.

---

.

Eleventh Session of the Lectures on "An Examination of Perfectionism"

Our summary so far has been that perfectionism based on others, meaning social concerns, appears to be destructive and dysfunctional. However, the model that is self-oriented, meaning personal striving or that sense of individual effort, suggests that perfectionism is not entirely negative. Although some also see this as harmful and claim that a person who strives and runs so hard, is never satisfied, and expects more from themselves stems from a pathology, if we want to be more nuanced and precise, some say that this type of perfectionism has its ups and downs; it is good in some places and bad for the individual in others.

If environmental conditions are bad and you are in an environment that is unsupportive, with high pressure, high stress, and many adversities from others, this personal, self-oriented perfectionism also turns out to be destructive, and if you did not have it, life would be easier. Because when others do not support you and you are constantly at war, in addition to being at war with the external environment, you also have to fight with yourself, and a self-critical dialogue exists. Ultimately, it exists even in individual striving and hinders personal growth and transcendence. But it is said that if conditions were good and you were in a supportive environment, had a warm family, and your family and professional circles were very good, and others not only do not bother you but actually support you, then those with personal striving get ahead. So, this personal striving in good conditions—good communities, economy, society, and work environment—leads to the individual's brilliance, but when the situation is bad and falls apart, you can no longer maintain those standards and you decline.

Self-oriented perfectionism is beneficial when you are in a supportive environment.

Socially prescribed perfectionism has a negative relationship with positive affect. That is, the more sensitive you are to the views of others, the less vitality and extraversion you feel. It also has an inverse relationship with a future-oriented approach. People whose attitude is more directed toward the future and who plan for the future are those who have more vitality, energy, willpower, and success. In contrast, those who only make decisions for the moment, are not very engaged with the future, only want to solve their immediate problems, and plan only in the moment become people who lack future orientation. Those who have the socially prescribed type of perfectionism have very little future orientation.

If a person has a future-oriented approach, they value their health; they do not smoke now because they know they will see its complications thirty years later. But if you do not have a future-oriented approach, you engage in impulsive behaviors because the future is not important to you, and your diet is poor, you do not exercise, you smoke, and your assumption is that these things do not have bad consequences right now.

We can understand why many of those who become addicted say, "I am a perfectionist." It is true; they are not self-oriented perfectionists, but rather socially prescribed perfectionists.

Socially prescribed perfectionism, or perfectionistic concerns, has a relationship with negative affect. That is, depression, anxiety, aggression, and irritable moods are actually seen in these individuals. What happens in addition to this is that their behavioral style becomes avoidant, and so as not to be embarrassed, not to be put to the test, and so their perfectionism is not tarnished, they avoid engaging in affairs. They do not give lectures and do not write anything, because a flaw might be found in their speech or writing. This is called avoidance coping.

Self-oriented perfectionism has a relationship with positive affect, leads to vitality, and in these individuals, people become very future-oriented, plan for the future, and are less likely to suffer from illnesses associated with bad habits such as obesity, substance use, and smoking.

In addition to having extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation, there is a state that is a complete lack of motivation, namely Amotivation.

Someone who has no self-control whatsoever. For example, a person has complete amotivation, sits somewhere, and smokes hashish. Although hashish is not a good thing, advancing studies have shown that amotivation is not related to hashish. It seems the root of amotivation lies elsewhere. There are some people who have no goals and no self-control, and it is not that their goals are external or that they do things for others; rather, they do absolutely nothing for anyone. They just wander around and idle away their time.

Here we say, it is true that when we talk about perfectionism and say you should work according to your own needs and not beyond, but when perfectionism is absent, the next alternative is not necessarily a pleasant state, and some people, when you take perfectionism away from them, practically fall into a syndrome of worthlessness and amotivation.

The Puzzle of Effort

Where does human effort come from, and what makes people get up in the morning and engage in work? They are active and have goals in their life? And in contrast, another group has no goals and is completely adrift. Some say that severe amotivation can be due to brain damage or schizophrenia. But a large percentage of society, especially among adolescents, pursue nothing, and no matter how much we trouble ourselves for this individual and push them, they do not move.

Various names have been given to this phenomenon, such as will, industriousness, or effort, will power, but the name given does not solve anything, and the question is, where does this amotivation and aimlessness come from? Where do individuals reach the conclusion that they must strive, a striving that in some becomes excessive and takes the form of perfectionism.

Where did perfectionism originate in human history, and at what point did humans feel the need to do something that was not necessary, in order to create something above the standard?

Göbekli Tepe

Göbekli Tepe is a remarkable site in Turkey, seemingly fascinating, located in southeastern Turkey. The interesting thing about this hill is that there are a series of stones that are well-carved and arranged in an orderly fashion. It is older than Stonehenge in England. It was built ten to twelve thousand years BCE and represents the first signs of humanity's striving for perfect architecture and discipline. Stonehenge is a prehistoric monument on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, southern England.

At this hill, the first traces showing that humans attempted to create a masterpiece exist. What makes this significant is that there is no pottery around this hill, meaning these people had not yet reached the metal age or even the pottery age, and were, so to speak, in the pre-pottery period. When you still do not have a jug to drink water from, why would you create such a masterpiece?

This indicates the first traces of perfectionism, without it having any vital function for them.

Klaus Schmidt, an archaeologist, says: first came the temple, then came the city.

Contrary to him, everyone else says that urbanization, street construction, and building first began, and then people turned to worship, developed moral codes, and turned to rituals, religion, and traditions, and civilization took shape.

Whereas this archaeologist says that first, a series of religious and ideological beliefs emerged, and then the city was built. That is, civilization first arose from the formation of beliefs from which primitive religious aspects and self-restraint were created. In other words, self-restraint and self-regulation, which can lead to perfectionism, were formed in humans through traditional religious beliefs. A scholar of religion says that self-restraint, and the point where you find motivation and get out of bed and strive beyond primary matters like eating and sleeping—that is, you move beyond that daily routine—is where ideological thoughts and early human rituals appear, and that, because it gives you perfectionism, provides the opportunity to create civilization. This perhaps also confirms those classical Freudian views that civilization is, in fact, closely tied to the superego, and that superego can be said to be, in a way, the internalized perfectionism of the environment. That is, at a certain stage, that human who was completely unmotivated and roamed like animals began to create things perfectly for their future, and perhaps this is one of the most beautiful transitions, passages, and stages of passage in humanity.

There is an interesting experiment conducted by a person named Michael Lewis in 1964. He attaches a 5-gram weight to some rats and forces them to pull that 5-gram weight if they want food, and attaches an 80-gram weight to another group of rats. Then, when these rats pull the weight and reach the food container, he notices that the rat with the 80-gram weight attached likes the food more and eats it with greater relish. These studies were repeated for years, and in 2002 we again have a similar article conducted on birds, the summary of which is that if animals strive and work hard for something, they like that thing more, and it is not just that they become hungrier, but they value their effort. That is, the first traces of this subject are found, that a creature enjoys its own effort. And the reward and pleasure centers in the brain are stimulated more when they follow effort, so perfectionism has been one of the paths and entry points to the subject of self-control and effort, and it is interesting that the article linked effort with the subject of life satisfaction and a feeling of vitality, meaning if we do not make more than the standard effort, we do not feel well. It is as if human striving, when there is no external goal, is related to a feeling of satisfaction with the world. However, it is related when we consider this striving to arise from within ourselves, not the imposition of external conditions that lack internal effort. It is possible that nothing prods them and compels them to move, but because they do not experience effort, they also do not experience a feeling of satisfaction and quickly fall into states of depression and lack of motivation, and then, to escape these bad feelings, they turn to substance use.

.

---

.

Twelfth Session of the Lectures on "An Examination of Perfectionism"

Perfectionism is the formation of the traces of self-control. That is, if we want to achieve self-control and individual motivation, a type of self-regulation must form within us, and this self-regulation apparently comes from outside, from parents who have expectations of us, and before parents, it seems to have come from civilization, religion, and external beliefs, and this is initially completely external and gradually enters us during childhood and is progressively internalized.

We should not fight perfectionism, but rather we should sublimate and refine it and steer it in a direction that is beneficial for us, because if we want to negate it, we have negated the category of will, self-control, and self-regulation, and if we remove these, you reach a stage where you have no self or motivation at all.

So, what should we do so that it does not bother us, is not malignant, and allows us to grow:

The first thing is to make the internalization process as complete as possible, to avoid seeing it more as an external audience, but rather to make it arise from within. If we feel it is for our own heart, and not even for reaching a specific goal, but to experience the process, meaning I simply love the effort, it is pleasurable for me, and this is complete internalization. We should foster complete internalization and try to move from that socially prescribed state towards personal striving.

The second is to fight problematic beliefs and problematic cognitions. The principle of catastrophizing, meaning wherever we feel that I am making my effort to create something perfect and enjoy this process, and this means the process of doing a perfect task, meaning wherever I fall short and see that it did not work out, I do not feel a catastrophe and only enjoy my own effort, and now, what becomes of my effort, being one step less is not important, and if my desired outcome is not achieved, I should not consider this a catastrophe. I should avoid this all-or-nothing rule. If I see that it is one step, two steps, or ten steps below my perfection, I should not say that since it is not perfect, I do not want it. That is, the more perfect it is, the better, but if it is not perfect, I should not reject it. Another principle is that I should not feel, like gamblers, that I must break a record and must reach that boundary. The fact that I search and see which is the most perfect and I want to break its record can become an addictive or compulsive process or behavior. I will enjoy my own process.

3. Refraining from avoidance: When we are faced with a complete process, we have two paths: either we try to create something perfect, or we try not to experience failure. That is, our goal becomes avoiding failure, rather than creating something perfect. We should not have an avoidant approach, such as avoiding an exam so as not to take it imperfectly. I should not shy away from creating a work because it might not be perfect, nor should I flee from a type of connection that I might sense is not perfect. In order to risk facing imperfection. These are avoidant approaches, but if you have an avoidant approach, it means you are moving toward regression and your perfectionism becomes harmful; conversely, you go into the heart of the matter, make your effort, and enjoy it greatly, the fact that you are moving toward something perfect. But if it doesn't work out, we do not conceal it and we do not retreat.

The fourth point: Hewitt and Flett had said that there are three axes: either we show our perfect works, or we are reluctant to present imperfect works, or, worst of all, we try to conceal our own imperfections. It seems the third state is the most malignant. The fourth point is not focusing on concealing weaknesses, meaning I expend energy to somehow hide my weak points and cover them up, and I go to great lengths to destroy a work that I think was not good, and this matter of the non-disclosure of imperfections is harmful. Conversely, we should move toward promoting whatever is not perfect.

The fifth suggestion is avoiding a dialogue of self-blame and striving for acceptance and a sense of compassion for the self. It is said that self-compassion is very important in perfectionism. That is, in addition to striving for my own heart and not for the praise of others, I value this effort of mine and try to sympathize with it. I have made an effort and did not present it perfectly, but in any case, I feel a sense of kindness toward myself and I accept myself. Ellis and Beck both pointed out that if I spend time with myself, bringing up my own inefficiencies and blaming myself, it leads to dysphoria, and the next step is the formation of depression and all those harms. So the main suggestion is that in the process of perfectionism, we actually try not to spend time blaming ourselves. In an interview, a footballer once said that much of the game is spent, in the first 10 minutes, if he had made a mistake, constantly ruminating on it and saying to himself, why did I do that? Why was I so stupid? Therefore, that process of self-blame must indeed be set aside.

The sixth important act is valuing the concept of effort and the culture of effort. Even if that effort is futile. That is, futile effort is actually better than lethargy and complete lack of motivation. You should value sheer effort, and it is there that the self finds meaning. Many experiments have shown that when you create an obstacle and you exert force and strive to overcome that obstacle, it seems that well-being is formed there. That is, many people feel that well-being comes from surrounding conditions being good, the environment being good, others serving me, and everything I want being available. But when you look at it, in the formation of the self, it is strange why evolution would have done this and placed something in our nature such that if we don't strive for something, we don't feel satisfaction. Either this is a creation of culture, or humans have this feeling even without encountering culture, and Michael Lewis and later many researchers showed that even animals feel better when they take trouble and make an effort. Many puzzles of psychiatric illnesses are solved this way too. Why are addicts so irritable and in such a bad state, and it's always said it's the destructive and toxic effects of substances, while that's not all of it. But when you put aside the substances for two or three weeks, your mood improves, and what seems to cause harm in the lives of many humans is the absence of effort in life. Now, we don't want to give a mysterious sanctity to the phenomenon of effort, but if we lack effort in some areas of life, depression and a feeling of irritability lie in wait for us. And one of the things I truly tell residents is that these amotivational syndromes, which we especially see in methamphetamine users after quitting, where they are dissatisfied with life, constantly complaining, and at the same time making no effort, sitting in a corner and slumped on the sofa like a piece of meat. Some, in response, very quickly say these are the destructive effects of substances on the addicts' brains, while perhaps one can look at this issue in a more complex way. Neuroscience sometimes, simply by saying a phenomenon is organic, tries to simplify it, whereas we must explain why effort gives humans a feeling of pleasure, and this feeling that 'I escaped the feeling of effort' is not necessarily correct. Perhaps sheer effort itself is a hygienic element.

If you observe these 6 points, then that perfectionism is not destructive; perfectionism is in the formation of your personality, and there, Adler is right that beings have an innate desire for perfectionism. Of course, it must be specified what Adler means by innate, whether he means it is genetic.

A Point

Perhaps all of this can be discussed in the mold of addictive behaviors. It's not just a matter of the self, and sometimes we get involved in a series of compulsive behaviors, and these compulsive behaviors are not necessarily drugs. The site Reddit is a site like Instagram that is popular in America. This site had launched a trick or prank as an April Fool's joke and had fooled people to see what would happen. So, it had created a virtual button where, whenever you pressed this button, a 60 would appear next to it, meaning it showed the number 60, and then it would start counting down one by one every second until it reached zero. However, the point was that wherever you pressed it, it would become 60 again. And it had told those on the site to press this so it wouldn't reach zero, and it also had the condition that anyone who is a member of this site could only press it once from their own account, so the rest of the people also had to contribute. However, the strange thing that was observed was that for several months, this button did not reach zero. That is, a bunch of idle people had stayed awake at 3 in the middle of the night and were lying in ambush so that as soon as it approached zero, they would quickly press it so it wouldn't become zero, and it would become sixty. But as soon as they came to press it, someone else had pressed it. As a result, you might be waiting in line for hours for your click to register. That is, a truly absurd task with no purpose in it. A group had given themselves insomnia and were striving for it, and it seems that sometimes our effort to perfectly complete an action can have no purpose and be completely addictive in nature.

Some compulsive behaviors are not necessarily futile and actually contribute to our well-being. For instance, there are people who are said to have a running streak, and these are individuals who resolve to run at least one mile every day—more is even better—and each day that passes, you must have run that one mile, otherwise you fall out of the loop. A habitual, addictive state forms where I must run every day, and it is a type of perfectionism. The champions of this matter are a few people, some of whose names are Ron Hill or John Simpson, and their interesting characteristic is that they have been running every single day without interruption for nearly 50 years, meaning there hasn't been a single day they haven't run; you wonder how such perfectionism is possible. For example, Ron Hill's record was 19,032 days, that is, 52.11 years, during which this person ran at least one mile every day—meaning even on a day he was sick, he held his IV pole and ran a mile, and it was even said that a treadmill was acceptable, so the individual runs on a treadmill in the hospital after having surgery, and the list of these people is on the USRSA website. I don't want to say their actions are like that futile clicking; rather, it is an activity beneficial for health, and one should congratulate them as they are such valuable athletes. On this list, there are individuals who have surpassed the fifty-year record. What makes humans become perfectionists in this way? According to a number of thinkers, this is compulsion. Isaac Marks, an English psychiatrist famous for his work on depressive and anxiety disorders with many articles, has a beautiful saying: life is a series of addictions, and without them we die. That is, everything is a kind of compulsion and addiction; some compulsions, like running a kilometer a day, are good, and some are masterpieces—creating a masterpiece work of art, doing scientific work, or building an engineering tool that represents the pinnacle of precision and effort. It seems that as soon as you leave humans be, their behavior takes on an addictive and compulsive aspect. Some compulsive behaviors are futile, and some are like those prominent Renaissance artists who spent their entire lives carving that perfect church dome or a statue, expecting no external reward, the matter being entirely internal, and they told themselves, until I finish this, I will not feel at peace. In any case, this topic is closely related to the subjects of effort, will, self-development, and happiness. Can we continue our lives without engaging in the effort to create a perfect act? Or, as Isaac Marks says, do we die without them?

.

---

.

Video Lectures on “An Examination of Perfectionism” by Azarakhsh Mokri

.

Session One on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session One on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Two on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session Two on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Three on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session Three on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Four on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session Four on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Five on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session Five on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Six on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session Six on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Seven on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session Seven on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Eight on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session Eight on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Nine on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session Nine on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Ten on YouTube (Part One - Part Two)

Session Ten on Aparat (Part One - Part Two)

.

Session Eleven on YouTube

Session Eleven on Aparat

.

Session Twelve on YouTube

Session Twelve on Aparat

.

---

.