Between the years 1657 and 1934 the word perfectionist was used in a theological sense to make reference of “one who believes moral perfection may be attained in earthly existence.” Thank God that finally changed 277 years later to mean “one only satisfied with the highest standards!¹” Isn’t that what all parents wish of their children so they can be proud of them? . . . that their children strive to do the best they can with whatever challenges they’re faced with in life? This does not mean parents actually believe their children can be perfect (or at least I hope not!). God doesn’t even expect that of us. That’s His whole point behind Him sending His son to save us from the hell of trying to be good enough to meet His highest standard, but that’s a completely different topic I won’t deviate into from here.
The word perfect is synonymous with complete. The reason we end up with a negative connotation more than a positive one to the labeling of a person as being a perfectionist is because of losing sight of what it means to be complete. To be complete is to lack nothing. Only the creator of the universe could possibly have that quality. No human being is that crazy (or at least I hope not!) as to believe s/he is perfect (complete; i.e., lacking nothing good).
Many things in life are neutral and only change towards being good or bad depending upon the motive. An example of this is money. Money is not evil. It is the love of money that is evil, because when one loves money, that means that one will use people. If money is used and not loved, then that financial user probably loves people (why aren’t these folks getting protection on the endangered species list?!). Just like the example of money, perfection is also another item that can be molded negatively or positively; depending upon motive. Whenever people (like those who create these lists of characteristics describing the ’symptoms’ of someone with Asperger’s Syndrome), they are doing it with the motive to eliminate those of us who have higher standards than what typical people have. Why? Without these typical people to answer this question honestly, those who are atypical in this manner are left to assume we must be a threat by making those with lower standards look like they have lower standards. So what’s the big deal? Who cares? We don’t . . . that is until we’re put down because of being different for our ways such as this!
What I’m trying to say is that the term perfectionist is NOT an objective, scientific, unbiased label. It’s a derogatory statement when said by competitive people. Look at the true masters of genius in art, music, science, etc.² Did Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach, act like people who wanted to be the best in music? . . . to win the prize for being the most famous? No! They just were passionate about what they did and felt driven to strive at doing their best. Wouldn’t that look comical to read about them in history books as being perfectionists? . . . that they should not have practiced so much? What higher arrogance can someone have than to think they know what is too high of a standard for another person to aim for?³ Everyone is different. People should mind their own business instead of judging what they think is best for someone else. The world has a place for everyone on the standard spectrum.
How would the non-perfectionists like to be called lazy? People of higher standards don’t usually do such things. Why? Because we have thought it through more thoroughly due to having higher standards built into our genetic nature. That explains why those with lower standards are at a disadvantage for being able to perceive what it is they’re doing when they’re herding the masses against us on the higher end of spectrums. Both those on the autism spectrum and neurotypical spectrum have their share of perfectionists, but unfortunately it’s the less conforming autistics that get ill-labeled.
¹This is where the deviation exists, because of the open-ended statement of what highest standards means. A standard is a measure, but . . . to not specify what that measure is, enables the one making an implication to have their way. There are usually just two different standards people use. One is based on comparing a person with other people (i.e., Guinness World Records) which is what most people seem to do. The other is based on comparing one’s own latest accomplishment against his or her own previous accomplishments which is what parents should train their children to do.
²Some of these brilliant masters in their field however were competitive, but the general trend though has been (and still is) that the best of the best minds actually are too busy with their passion (or ’special interest’ as those in the mental health industry like to derogatorily say) to be concerned about how they’re scoring against a potential competitor.
³If people can have enough sense to realize how ridiculous it would be to call a young person, who has been injured in an accident that has to learn how to walk all over again but is told s/he mostly likely can’t by doctors, a perfectionist because s/he is pushing her/him-self to recover and get back to her/his previous abilities — then why would the reverse (going beyond rather than catching up) be unacceptable? Why is it okay to degrade someone who is seeking to complete a task at a higher standard than what s/he accomplished previously? The only reason for something like that to happen would be because the standard that is being used is the Guinness (comparing self against others; neurotypical style) Spectrum rather than the Individual’s (comparing self against self; autism style) Spectrum.
