research topic advertisment and perfectionalism borders of normal amd nevrotic
defining /commenting the borders among the nevrotic and the normal
*_note-consider  perfectinalism as a possible visual aspect

Not to be confused with Perfectionism (philosophy).

*In ethics and value theory, perfectionism is the persistence of will in obtaining the optimal quality of spiritual, mental, physical, and material being. The neo-Aristotelean Thomas Hurka[describes perfectionism as follows:This moral theory starts from an account of the good life, or the intrinsically desirable life. And it characterizes this life in a distinctive way. Certain properties, it says, constitute human nature or are definitive of humanity—they make humans human. The good life, it then says, develops these properties to a high degree or realizes what is central to human nature. Different versions of the theory may disagree about what the relevant properties are and so disagree about the content of the good life. But they share the foundational idea that what is good, ultimately, is the development of human nature.

The perfectionist does not necessarily believe that one can attain a perfect life or state of living. Rather, a perfectionist practices steadfast perseverance in obtaining the best possible life or state of living.

Perfectionism, in psychology, is a personality disposition characterized by an individual striving for flawlessness and setting excessively high performance standards, accompanied by overly critical self-evaluations and concerns regarding others’ evaluations. It is best conceptualized as a multidimensional characteristic, as psychologists agree that there are many positive and negative aspects.[3] In its maladaptive form, perfectionism drives individuals to attempt to achieve an unattainable ideal, and their adaptive perfectionism can sometimes motivate them to reach their goals. In the end, they derive pleasure from doing so.

When perfectionists do not reach their goals, they often fall into depression.
——————————————————————————————–
Perfectionists have also been described as those who strain compulsively and unceasingly toward unobtainable goals, and who measure their self-worth with their productivity and accomplishment.
Pressuring oneself to achieve such unrealistic goals inevitably sets the individual up for disappointment. Perfectionists tend to be harsh critics of themselves when they do not meet the standards they set for themselves.Definition

Normal vs. neurotic perfectionists

Hamachek was one of the first psychologists to argue for two distinct types of perfectionism, classifying people as normal perfectionists or neurotic perfectionists.

Normal perfectionists pursue perfection without compromising their self-esteem, and derive pleasure from their efforts.

Neurotic perfectionists strive for unrealistic goals and consistently feel dissatisfied when they cannot reach them.[]

Today researchers largely agree that these two basic types of perfectionism are distinct.[]

They have been labeled differently, and are sometimes referred to as positive striving and maladaptive evaluation concerns, active and passive perfectionism, positive and negative perfectionism, and adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism.[7] Although there is a general perfectionism that affects all realms of life, some researchers contend that levels of perfectionism are significantly different across different domains (i.e. work, academic, sport, interpersonal relationships, home life).

[edit]Perfectionistic strivings vs. perfectionistic concerns

Stoeber and Otto (2006) stated that perfectionism consisted of two main dimensions: perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns.[7] Perfectionistic strivings are associated with positive aspects of perfectionism, whereas perfectionistic concerns are associated with negative aspects (see below). Healthy perfectionists yielded high scores in perfectionistic strivings and low in perfectionistic concerns, whereas unhealthy perfectionists yielded high scores in both strivings and concerns.[7] As expected, non-perfectionists demonstrated low levels of perfectionistic strivings.[7] Prompted by earlier research providing empirical evidence that perfectionism could be associated with positive aspects (specifically perfectionistic strivings),[8] they challenged the widespread belief that perfectionism is only detrimental. In fact, people with high levels of perfectionistic strivings and low levels of perfectionist concerns demonstrated more self-esteem, agreeableness, academic success, and social interaction.[7] This type of perfectionist also showed fewer psychological and somatic issues typically associated with perfectionism, namely depression, anxiety, and maladaptive coping styles.[7]

Perfectionism has also been defined as a unitary combination of a desire to be perfect, a fear of imperfection, and an emotional conviction that perfection (not “near-perfection”) is the only route to personal acceptance by others.[9] Perfectionism itself is thus never seen as healthy or adaptive.[9] Greenspon also makes a distinction between perfectionism and striving for excellence.[9][10][11][12] The difference is in the meaning given to mistakes. Those who strive—however intently—for excellence can simply take mistakes (imperfections) as incentive to work harder. Unhealthy perfectionists consider their mistakes a sign of personal defects. For these individuals, anxiety about potential failure is the reason perfectionism is felt as a burden.

[edit]Measurement

[edit]Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS)
Hewitt & Flett (1991) devised the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS), a 45-item measure that rates three aspects of perfectionistic self-presentation: self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, and socially prescribed perfectionism.[13] Self-oriented perfectionism is having irrational expectations and standards for oneself that lead to a perfectionistic motivation.[14] An example is the constant desire to achieve an ideal physical appearance out of vanity. Other-oriented perfectionism is having irrational expectations and standards for others that in turn pressure them to have perfectionistic motivations of their own. Socially prescribed perfectionism is developing perfectionistic motivations due to the belief that significant others expect them to be perfect. Parents that push their children to be successful in certain endeavors (such as athletics or academics) provide an example of this type of perfectionism, as the children feel that they must meet their parents’ lofty expectations.

[edit]Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R)

Slaney and his colleagues (1996) developed the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R) to identify perfectionists (adaptive or maladaptive) and non-perfectionists.[15] People are classified based on their scores for High Standards, Order, and Discrepancy measures. Both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists rate highly in High Standards and Order, but maladaptive perfectionists also rate highly in Discrepancy. Discrepancy refers to the belief that personal high standards are not being met, which is the defining negative aspect of perfectionism.[15]Maladaptive perfectionists typically yield the highest social stress and anxiety scores, reflecting their feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem.[6] In general, the APS-R is a relatively easy instrument to administer, and can be used to identify perfectionist adolescents as well as adults, though it has yet to be proven useful for children.[6] Interestingly, in one study evaluating APS-R in an adolescent population, maladaptive perfectionists obtained higher satisfaction scores than non-perfectionists. This finding suggests that adolescents’ high standards may protect them from challenges to personal satisfaction when their standards are not met.[6] Two other forms of the APS-R measure perfectionism directed towards intimate partners (Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale) and perceived perfectionism from one’s family (Family Almost Perfect Scale).

[edit]Physical Appearance Perfectionism Scale (PAPS)

The Physical Appearance Perfectionism Scale (PAPS) explains a particular type of perfectionism – the desire for a perfect physical appearance.[3] The PAPS is a multidimensional assessment of physical appearance perfectionism that provides the most insight when the sub-scales are evaluated separately.[3] In general, the PAPS allows researchers to determine participants’ body image and self-conceptions of their looks, which is critical in present times when so much attention is paid to attractiveness and obtaining the ideal appearance.[3] The two sub-scales it uses to assess appearance concerns are Worry About Imperfection and Hope For Perfection. Those that obtain high Worry About Imperfection scores are usually greatly concerned with maladaptive aspects of perfectionism, physical appearance, and body control behavior.[3] They also demonstrate low positive self-perceptions of their appearance, whereas those scoring highly on Hope for Perfection yielded high positive self-perceptions.[3] Hope For Perfection also corresponded with impression management behaviors and striving for ambitious goals. In sum, Worry About Imperfection relates to negative aspects of appearance perfectionism, while Hope For Perfection relates to positive aspects. One limitation of using the PAPS is the lack of psychological literature evaluating its validity.[3]

[edit]Psychological implications

Daniels & Price (2000) refer to perfectionists as “ones”. Perfectionists are focused on personal integrity and can be wise, discerning and inspiring in their quest for the truth. They also tend to dissociate themselves from their flaws or what they believe are flaws (such as negative emotions) and can become hypocritical and hypercritical of others, seeking the illusion of virtue to hide their own vices.[]

Perfectionism can be associated with various mental disorders, particularly depression, anxiety, OCD, and eating disorders. However, each disorder has varying levels of the three measurements.[14] Socially prescribed perfectionism in young women has been associated with greater body-image dissatisfaction and avoidance of social situations that focus on weight and physical appearance.[17]

The book ” Too Perfect: When Being in Control Gets Out of Control ”  by Jeanette Dewyze and Allan Mallinger contends that perfectionists have obsessive personality types.[18] Obsessive personality type is different from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
in that OCD is a clinical disorder that may be associated with specific ritualized behavior.

 According to Mallinger and DeWyze, perfectionists are obsessives who need to feel in control at all times to protect themselves and ensure their own safety. By always being vigilant and trying extremely hard, they can ensure that they not only fail to disappoint or are beyond reproach but that they can protect against unforeseen issues caused by their environment. Vigilance refers to constant monitoring, often of the news, weather, and financial markets.[18]

[edit]

Positive aspects! *y, there are!

Perfectionism can drive people to accomplishments and provide the motivation to persevere in the face of discouragement and obstacles.
Roedell (1984) argues:

“In a positive form, perfectionism can provide the driving energy which leads to great achievement. The meticulous attention to detail, necessary for scientific investigation, the commitment which pushes composers to keep working until the music realises the glorious sounds playing in the imagination, and the persistence which keeps great artists at their easels until their creation matches their conception all result from perfectionism.”

Slaney and his colleagues found that adaptive perfectionists had lower levels of procrastination than non-perfectionists. In the field of positive psychology, an adaptive and healthy variation of perfectionism is referred to as Optimalism.

Exceptionally talented individuals who excel in their field sometimes show signs of perfectionism.

High-achieving athletes, scientists, and artists often show signs of perfectionism. 

For example, some contend that Michelangelo’s perfectionism may have motivated him to painstakingly complete his masterpieces including the statue David and the Sistine Chapel. Scientists that intently pursue their interests in the laboratory are often considered perfectionists. This obsession with an end result may motivate them to work diligently and maintain an impressive work ethic. Famous figures have publicly admitted that they have perfectionist tendencies. Martha Stewart once described herself to Oprah Winfrey as a “maniacal perfectionist.”[21] An intense focus on one’s passion can lead to success.

The adaptive form of perfectionism is typically considered the positive component of this personality trait. Adaptive perfectionism includes preferences for order and organization, a persistent strive for excellence, and conscientious orientation to tasks and performance.[22] All of these characteristics are accompanied by low criticism and negativity, and high support and self-esteem.[22] The positive, adaptive forms of perfectionism are more closely associated with the Big Five personality factor of Conscientiousness, whereas maladaptive forms are more similar to Neuroticism (see below).[22]

[edit]

Negative aspects! !

In its pathological form, perfectionism can be damaging. It can take the form of procrastination when used to postpone tasks and self-deprecation when used to excuse poor performance or to seek sympathy and affirmation from other people. In general, maladaptive perfectionists feel constant pressure to meet their high standards, which creates cognitive dissonance when one cannot meet their own expectations. Perfectionism has been associated with numerous other psychological and physiological complications as well.

Author Hillary Rettig has identified more than a dozen characteristics of perfectionists, including:[23]

Grandiosity –
The deluded idea that things that are difficult for other people should be easy for you.

Focus on Product over Process –
Neglecting the journey of work while fixating on the outcome.

* humanizing the tecchnology (mid70) -urban movements- showing material video as an archtctural object-video in realtion to architecture  

Focus on External Rewards over Internal Ones

Deprecation of the True Processes of Creativity and Career-Building

Labeling – Harshly branding oneself with terms like stupid, lazy, wimpy, etc.

Hyperbole – Overstating the negative.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

visualizations of quantitative research

The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and/or hypotheses pertaining to phenomena. The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships.

Quantitative data is any data that is in numerical form such as statistics, percentages, etc. In layman’s terms, this means that the quantitative researcher asks a specific, narrow question and collects numerical data from participants to answer the question. The researcher analyzes the data with the help of statistics. The researcher is hoping the numbers will yield an unbiased result that can be generalized to some larger population. Qualitative research, on the other hand, asks broad questions and collects word data from participants. The researcher looks for themes and describes the information in themes and patterns exclusive to that set of participants.
Quantitative research is widely used in social sciences such as: psychology, economics, sociology, and political science, and information technology, and less frequently inanthropology and history. However, research in mathematical sciences such as: physics is also ‘quantitative’ by definition, though this use of the term differs in context. In the social sciences, the term relates to empirical methods, originating in both philosophical positivism and the history of statistics, which contrast qualitative research methods.
Qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied, and any more general conclusions are only hypotheses. Quantitative methods can be used to verify which of such hypotheses are true.
A comprehensive analysis of 1274 articles published in the top two American sociology journals between 1935 and 2005 found that roughly two thirds of these articles used quantitative methods.[2]

The acceleration of technological development in contemporary society has a direct impact on our everyday lives as our behaviours and relationships are modified via our interactions with digital technology. As artists, we have adapted to the complexities of contemporary information and communication systems, initiating different forms of creative, network production. At the same time we live with and respond to concerns about anthropogenic climate change and the economic crisis. As we explore the possibilities of creative agency that digital networks and social media offer, we need to ask ourselves about the role of artists in the larger conversation. What part do we play in the evolving techno-consumerist landscape which is shown to play on our desire for intimacy and community while actually isolating us from each other. (Turkle 2011) Commercial interests control our channels of communication through their interfaces, infrastructures and contracts. As Geert Lovink says ‘We see social media further accelerating the McLifestyle, while at the same time presenting itself as a channel to relieve the tension piling up in our comfort prisons.’ (2012: 44)

Many contemporary artists who take the networks of the digital information age as their medium, work directly with the hardware, algorithms and databases of digital networks themselves and the systems of power that engage them. Inspired by network metaphors and processes, they also craft new forms of intervention, collaboration, participation and interaction (between human and other living beings, systems and machines) in the development of the meaning and aesthetics of their work. This develops in them a sensitivity or alertness to the diverse, world-forming properties of the art-tech imaginary: material, social and political. By sharing their processes and tools with artists, and audiences alike they hack and reclaim the contexts in which culture is created.
This essay draws on programmes initiated by Furtherfield, an online community, co-founded by the authors in 1997. Furtherfield also runs a public gallery and social space in the heart of Finsbury Park, North London. The authors are both artists and curators who have worked with others in networks since the mid 90s, as the Internet developed as a public space you could publish to; a platform for creation, distribution, remix, critique and resistance.

———————————————————————————————
Is it possible to hold an international media arts conference without a single participant getting on a plane?
The Rich Networking Series began as a thought experiment about ways of convening artists, curators, technologists, musicians, thinkers and researchers in geographically distant venues to share their knowledge, experience, perspectives and approaches to sustainable international collaboration and exchange. Participants and organisations continue to explore the range of existing networking activities and frameworks that are already used to stimulate exchange and collaboration between groups of people attending international conferences, fairs and networking events.

Rich Network Series has continue to grow and inspire the development and execution of several experimental projects:

—–******–telematic dream is the first attempt to connect remore geographical locations ——————————————————————————————————————————————-
Telematic Eating: Furtherfield is experimenting with intimacy and connection over remote networks. A series of dinner parties co-ordinated by Pollie Barden will bring together two remote groups to dine together working with projectors, cameras, sound and the Laptop Potluck. The first will be a in partnership with Alex Haw of Latitudinal Cuisine.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Critical Digital Humanities is an approach to the study and use of the digital which is attentive to questions of power, domination, myth and exploitation, what has been called the “The Dark Side of the Digital Humanities” (Chun 2013; Grusin 2013; Jagoda 2013; Raley 2013). It develops an interdisciplinary approach which includes:

• Critical Theory
• Theoretical work on Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexuality and Class (TransformDH 2013).
• The historical, social, political, and cultural contexts around digital transformations
• Work that is both research and practice-led
• Is reflexive to its own historical context and theoretical limitations
• Has a commitment to political praxis
• Theoretical work and “building things”
• Technologically engaged work, including critical approaches such as software studies/critical code studies. 
• Cultural/Critical Political Economy

“How do we think?” N. Katherine Hayles poses this question at the beginning of this bracing exploration of the idea that we think through, with, and alongside media. As the age of print passes and new technologies appear every day, this proposition has become far more complicated, particularly for the traditionally print-based disciplines in the humanities and qualitative social sciences. With a rift growing between digital scholarship and its print-based counterpart, Hayles argues for contemporary technogenesis—the belief that humans and technics are coevolving—and advocates for what she calls comparative media studies, a new approach to locating digital work within print traditions and vice versa. Hayles examines the evolution of the field from the traditional humanities and how the digital humanities are changing academic scholarship, research, teaching, and publication. She goes on to depict the neurological consequences of working in digital media, where skimming and scanning, or “hyper reading,” and analysis through machine algorithms are forms of reading as valid as close reading once was.

about the new asthetics
The new aesthetic, of course, is as much symptomatic of a computational world as itself subject to the forces that drive that world. This means that it has every potential to be sold, standardised, and served up to the willing mass of consumers as any other neatly packaged product. Perhaps even more so, with its ease of distribution and reconfiguration within computational systems, such as Twitter and Tumblr. But it doesn’t have to be that way, and so far I have more hope that it even in its impoverished consumerized form, it still serves to serve notice of computational thinking and processes, which stand out then against other logics. This is certainly one of the interesting dimensions to the new aesthetic both in terms of the materiality of computationality, but also in terms of the need to understand the logics of postmodern capitalism, even ones as abstract as obscure computational systems of control.  For me, the very possibility of a self-defined new ‘aesthetic’ enables this potentiality – of course, there are no simple concepts as such, but the new aesthetic, for me, acts as a “bridge” (following Deleuze and Guattari for a moment). By claiming that it is new ‘aesthetic’ makes possible the conceptual resources associated with and materialised in practices, which may need to be “dusted off” and to be used as if they were, in a sense, autonomous (that is, even, uncritical). This decoupling of the concept (no matter that in actuality one might claim that no such decoupling could really have happened) potentially changes the nature of the performances that are facilitated or granted by the space opened within the constellation of concepts around the ‘new aesthetic’ (again, whatever that is) – in a sense this might also render components within the new aesthetic inseparable as the optic of the new aesthetic, like any medium, may change the nature of what can be seen. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing………………………………………………………………………………….