I think that the LLM editing makes this quite a bit more difficult to read and grok/internalize. This is one case where I wish I was reading something less 'polished' if the polish is Claude 'helpfully' giving things names like 'The Perfectionist's Pause'. It's a shame because I really agree with the Adlerian view of these things and I think you're pointing at a lot of the right stuff here but it's honestly kind of insufferable to read it through this lens.
But, maybe that's just me using the 'Moral Fortress' and 'Perfectionist's Pause'. (That isn't just me being cute or passive aggressive, I think those are the two most likely mechanisms from your post that I might be applying here to discredit your work)
Thanks for the feedback, tbh I didn't especially like the examples and names either but since that's the part that's hardest to write it's where I went with the suggestions more often. I think what I should do is ask for brainstorms of many more examples and then pick and rewrite the ones I actually feel resonate best.
i'd prefer to read your own, rougher writing. or at least, to see the conversation, rather than just the output at the end
I liked the examples, though they felt slightly abstract and I felt they could have been further improved by adding specifics. I asked Claude to generate one-paragraph stories about them and thought that they were useful for getting the concepts better. (Edited a bit to remove redundant/overwrought sentences.)
The Symptom-Shield
Marcus had been talking about applying for the senior architect position for months—sketching portfolio pieces on weekends, researching the firm's recent projects, even rehearsing answers to interview questions. The application deadline was Friday. On Wednesday, a familiar tightness bloomed in his chest. By Thursday morning, the anxiety had metastasized into something he could name: a panic disorder, clearly, maybe the onset of something worse. He spent the afternoon researching symptoms instead of finalizing his portfolio. When Friday passed, he explained to his wife that he simply couldn't—not with his mental health in this state. It would be reckless to take on more stress. She softened immediately, brought him tea, suggested therapy. The position went to someone from outside the company. Marcus felt a strange, quiet relief he didn't examine too closely. His talent remained untested, which meant it remained intact. The anxiety—having served its purpose—began to lift by Sunday.
The Victim Narrative
When Janelle's business partner confronted her about the missed client meetings and unanswered emails, she felt the old story rise up like a reflex. "You don't understand what it's like," she said, her voice dropping into a register that signaled sacred ground. "My father left when I was seven. I raised my sisters. I never learned how to trust people to show up, so sometimes I—" She watched her partner's posture shift from frustration to guilt-tinged sympathy. The conversation about accountability quietly transformed into a conversation about Janelle's wounds. Her partner apologized for being "insensitive." The pattern would continue: whenever the gap between Janelle's promises and her performance threatened to become visible, the childhood would materialize like a restraining order served against expectation itself.
The Animal Reversion
The morning after, David scrolled through the texts he'd sent his ex at 2 AM—raw, embarrassing, needy—and felt his face burn. When his roommate asked what happened, the explanation came automatically: "I was blackout. I don't even remember typing that." This was not entirely true. He remembered the moment of decision, the small voice suggesting he stop, the deliberate override. But "I was drunk" performed an act of surgical separation, carving away the David-who-wants-her-back from the David-who-has-moved-on, and filing the former under "temporary possession by a foreign substance." His roommate nodded sympathetically—everyone understood that drunk actions didn't count as real choices. David got to keep his dignity as a man who didn't need her, while also having sent the message.
The Liability Handoff
For three years, Nina had been "about to" launch her jewelry line. The designs were finished, the supplier researched, the Etsy shop drafted. What she needed, she explained to her husband Ryan, was for him to handle the business side—pricing, shipping, customer service. "I'm an artist, not an entrepreneur. I can't do this without you." Ryan, already stretched between his own job and the kids, hesitated. Nina's eyes welled. Didn't he believe in her? So he agreed, half-heartedly, to "help when he could." The shop never launched. When her sister asked about it at Thanksgiving, Nina sighed and glanced at Ryan: "We just haven't had the bandwidth." The we performed its function perfectly—it distributed the weight of unlaunched dreams across two backs instead of one. Ryan felt vaguely guilty without knowing why. Nina's talent remained a theoretical quantity, never cashed in, never proven counterfeit. She was not someone who had failed to build a business; she was half of a couple who hadn't gotten around to it yet.
The Benevolent Jailer
Everyone agreed that Diane was a saint. At fifty-three, she had put her own life entirely in service to others: first her children (homeschooled, driven to every practice, their homework reviewed nightly), then her aging mother (moved into the guest room, requiring round-the-clock attention), and always her husband, whose meals appeared and whose shirts materialized, ironed, in the closet. When her youngest left for college, friends suggested she finally take that painting class, maybe finish her degree. But within a month, she'd found a new project: her daughter was "struggling with the transition," needed weekly care packages, long nightly phone calls. Diane spoke of her exhaustion with a pride that was almost luminous. What no one noticed—what Diane herself could not afford to notice—was that the nursing kept her safe. Somewhere beneath the sainthood was a woman who had wanted to be a painter, and who had learned, decades ago, that wanting things for yourself meant risking the discovery that you couldn't have them. Other people's needs were inexhaustible, which meant her own suspended ambitions never had to land.
The Chameleon
On their first date, Evan had asked Sophie what kind of food she liked. "Oh, anything—you pick!" He'd found it charming. By year three, he found it maddening. What movie? "Whatever you're in the mood for." Where should they live? "Wherever you think is best." When he pushed—"But what do you want?"—her face would go smooth and sincere: "I just want you to be happy." It sounded like love. It functioned as armor. Sophie had learned young that preferences were liabilities; her mother's criticism had honed in on any visible desire like a heat-seeking missile. So she had become a mirror, capable of reflecting back exactly what others wanted to see. If the restaurant was bad, it was Evan's choice. If they moved to a city she hated, she had never claimed to want otherwise. She could not be accused of poor judgment because she had outsourced all judgment.
The Moral Fortress
Thomas had been passed over for department chair for the third time. His publication record was strong, his teaching evaluations solid—but the position went, again, to someone who "played the game." At the faculty mixer, he stood near the wall, watching his new boss laugh with the dean, and felt the familiar contempt crystallize into something almost comforting. He didn't want to be the kind of person who remembered birthdays strategically, who softened criticisms with compliments, who knew which committees mattered. "I'm just not political," he told his wife that night, and the word political carried the full weight of his superiority. What he could not afford to see was that "playing the game" was simply the name he'd given to skills he didn't have—reading rooms, building coalitions, metabolizing disagreement without defensiveness.
The Perfectionist's Pause
Adrienne had been working on her novel for eleven years. This was not entirely accurate—she had been preparing to work on her novel for eleven years. The first three were spent researching: reading the great Russians, annotating craft books, building a file of "inspiration." Then came the outlining phase, which revealed that she needed to understand her protagonist's psychology more deeply, which required reading Jung, which opened up questions about the structure of myth. The document labeled "DRAFT 1" had fourteen pages, written in a single feverish weekend six years ago and never touched since. They weren't good enough. The vision in her head was so perfect—layered, luminous, the kind of book that would matter—and the sentences on the screen were just sentences. She couldn't bear to continue until she'd solved the gap. Meanwhile, her coworker published a memoir that Adrienne found a little shallow, and it did reasonably well. Adrienne noted its limitations with precision.
The God-Complex
Julian was late to everything, and he had stopped apologizing years ago. Meetings, dinners, his sister's wedding—he arrived when he arrived, usually with an energy that suggested he was bestowing his presence rather than fulfilling an obligation. "Time is a construct," he'd say, or "I don't let clocks run my life." His friends had learned to tell him events started an hour earlier than they did; his girlfriends cycled through a predictable arc from fascination to exhaustion. What Julian understood, on some level he kept carefully unexamined, was that punctuality was a form of submission—an acknowledgment that other people's needs had a claim on him. Rules were for people who lacked the creativity or courage to live authentically.
Strategic Hopelessness
Carmen's therapist had suggested, gently, that she might try dating again. It had been four years since the divorce. Carmen had laughed—not bitterly, but with the weary patience of someone explaining gravity to a child. "You don't understand what it's like out there. Apps have ruined everything. Men my age want women in their twenties. The good ones are taken." She had assembled these facts like a fortification, each statistic and anecdote adding another sandbag to the wall. Her therapist noted that her friend Laura had met someone recently. "Exception that proves the rule," Carmen said. She never had to feel the specific heat of rejection, the humiliation of effort that led nowhere.
Cynicism/Nihilism
By thirty-five, Derek had developed a theory about everything. Career ambition? "A hamster wheel designed to keep you too tired to notice you're in a cage." Marriage? "A legal contract that incentivizes people to stop trying." His friends who bought houses were "trapping themselves in debt for the privilege of mowing a lawn." The ones who got promoted were "trading their lives for a slightly nicer car." He delivered these observations at parties with a smile that suggested he'd seen through the matrix, and some people found it charming—at first. What no one could see, including Derek, was the precise economy of his cynicism: every value he dismantled was a value he had failed to achieve. He had not been promoted; he had not sustained a relationship past eighteen months; he rented a apartment with a roommate.
Spite
The acceptance letter from the graduate program arrived on a Tuesday, and for one afternoon, Rachel felt something she hadn't in years: hope, uncomplicated and bright. She'd been wait-listed, then admitted. Her mother called that evening, already planning: "This is wonderful, honey. I always knew you'd get back on track." The phrase landed like a small, precise knife. Back on track—as if Rachel's years of wandering, her false starts and abandoned plans, had been a derailment from her mother's itinerary. By Thursday, Rachel had drafted the deferral email. By Saturday, she'd sent a rejection. She told herself it was because the timing wasn't right, because she wasn't sure about the program, because she needed more time to think. But beneath these reasons, barely conscious, was something harder: the satisfaction of watching her mother's hope curdle into confusion. You wanted this for me. You needed me to succeed so you could feel like a good parent. So I will fail, and you will have to sit with that.
Nice. I also used your critique prompt and got something useful:
A smart, knowledgeable critic—likely coming from a background in neuroscience, trauma-informed care (The Body Keeps the Score), or structural/materialist analysis—would likely attack the voluntarism at the heart of Adlerian theory.
They would argue that while this framework is a powerful heuristic for high-functioning individuals, it dangerously over-rationalizes biological and systemic realities.
Here is what that comment would look like:
The Critique: "Not Everything is a Strategy; Some Things are Just Mechanics"
"This is a beautiful, compelling, and operationally useful framework for a specific subset of the population (neurotypical, materially secure, distinct sense of self). However, it commits the Teleological Fallacy: the assumption that because a behavior has a utility, it was designed for that utility.
By framing every symptom as a 'creative tool' of the ego, you risk collapsing three distinct categories of failure into one:
The Hardware Problem (Biological Determinism) Adler treats the human organism as software that can be rewritten with 'Courage.' But neuroscience shows us that 'Incapacity' (Strategy 1) is often not a choice but a mechanical reality. If an individual has a dysregulated nervous system (e.g., CPTSD, POTS, Autism burnout), their 'withdrawal' is not a maneuver to manipulate a judge; it is a metabolic necessity. To tell someone whose amygdala is hijacking their prefrontal cortex that they are 'using anxiety to avoid work' is not just scientifically inaccurate; it is iatrogenic. It adds shame to injury. Sometimes a broken wing is just a broken wing, not a 'Broken Wing Strategy.'
The Rigged Game (Material Reality) Your critique of the 'Scorched Earth' strategy (Strategy 4) assumes that the 'Game' (Society/Work) is fundamentally fair and worth playing. For marginalized groups or those in poverty, 'Cynicism' is not a neurotic defense against intimacy; it is Bayesian accuracy. If the market is actually rigged, then 'destroying the value of the outcome' is a rational adaptation, not a neurotic defect. Adlerian theory presupposes a functioning community (Gemeinschaft) that often does not exist for the subject. Asking someone to have 'Social Interest' in a predatory system is asking them to be exploited.
The Masking Trap (The Cost of 'Acting As If') The prescription to 'Act As If' and 'fake it' effectively encourages Dissociation. For neurodivergent people, the 'Courage to be Imperfect' often translates into 'The Courage to Mask Harder.' You describe 'Entanglement' (Strategy 2) as a defense, but for many, it is a survival mechanism for navigating a world they cannot process alone. Breaking these mechanisms without addressing the underlying sensory or cognitive load doesn't lead to 'contribution'; it leads to psychotic breaks or autistic burnout.
Conclusion Adler allows us to reclaim agency in the gray areas of life, which is valuable. But by viewing all suffering as a 'private logic' or a 'lie,' we drift into a kind of psychological neoliberalism: the idea that every structural or biological problem is actually a personal failure of courage.
Sometimes the court isn't rigged by the ego; sometimes the courthouse is actually on fire."
How the Critic would classify this post
The critic might even cheekily classify your Adlerian post using your own typology:
"Ironically, this entire Adlerian framework is a Strategy of Elevation (Strategy 3).
By framing all human suffering as a 'strategic game' that can be solved with 'courage,' the author places themselves in the Ivory Tower of the Stoic Observer. It feels good to believe that we are the masters of our symptoms, because the alternative—that we are biological machines subject to forces we cannot control—is too terrifying to face."
For the recognition part, I've always found the quote associated with the Buddha "anger with its honeyed tip and poison root" helpful. Identifying the honeyed tip and poison root of each neurosis.
Lots of spiritual bypassing in woo communities. Often by people who didn't finished the psychological development phase of differentiation due to lack of support and now self sort into communities that excuse that pattern.
[Author's note: LLMs were used to generate and sort examples into their requisite categories, as well as find and summarize relevant papers, and extensive assistance with editing]
Context: Alfred Adler (1870–1937) split from Freud by asserting that human psychology is teleological (goal-oriented) rather than causal (drive-based). He argued that neuroses and "excuses" are not passive symptoms of past trauma, but active, creative tools used by the psyche to safeguard self-esteem. This post attempts to formalize Adler’s concept of "Safeguarding Tendencies" into categories, not by the semantic content of excuses, but by their mechanical function in managing the distance between the Ego and Reality.
Abstract: When a life task threatens to reveal inadequacy, people initiate a strategic maneuver to invalidate the test. We propose four "Strategies of Immunity", Incapacity, Entanglement, Elevation, and Scorched Earth, to explain how agents rig the game so they cannot lose.
In the standard model of behavior, an excuse is a result. You are anxious; therefore, you cannot socialize. The cause (anxiety) produces the effect (avoidance).
Adler inverted this vector. He argued that the goal (avoiding the risk of rejection) recruits the means (anxiety). You generate the anxiety in order to avoid the task.
To Adler, an excuse is a Safeguarding Tendency. It is a structural load-bearing wall designed to protect the "Fictional Final Goal" (the self-ideal) from threats to the identity.
To debug these behaviors, we ignore the content of the excuse (the headache, the busy schedule) and analyze the maneuver. Which direction is the agent moving to secure immunity from judgment?
Within this categorization, the directions of Down and In correspond to Anxious/Merging in Attachment Theory terms, Up and Out corresponding to Avoidance.
The Direction: Moving Down.
The Logic: Pleading "No Contest" due to structural damage. This strategy operates on Debt Relief. The agent declares structural insolvency (illness, trauma, incompetence) to gain a permanent exemption from the "tax" of social contribution. They trade away their agency in exchange for safety, but inadvertently court pity.
You cannot judge a man with a broken leg for failing to run a race. Therefore, if the agent can demonstrate that they are broken (physically or psychologically), they are safe from the shame of losing. They transfer from the category of "Acting Agent" to "Suffering Patient."
The Result: The judge is forced to become a caretaker, or risk moral opprobrium for 'harming' the helpless.
The Direction: Moving In.
The Logic: Dissolving the Self into the Other. This strategy is a Risk-Pooling Scheme. The agent refuses to operate as a sole proprietor, forcing a merger of ledgers so that any potential loss is distributed across the group. By making liability shared, individual failure becomes statistically impossible.
A target is easy to hit; a mist is impossible to hit. By blurring the boundary between "Me" and "You," the agent ensures that any judgment directed at them hits the partner as well. This is the strategy of distributed liability.
The Result: The court is collapsed. There is no Defendant or Judge, only "Us."
The Direction: Moving Up.
The Logic: Denying the Jurisdiction of the Court. This is Protectionism and Price-Fixing. The agent inflates the value of their own currency (potential/virtue) while refusing to trade in the open market, claiming the external exchange rates are unfair.
The agent claims they are not failing the test; they are above the test. The task is too small, too corrupt, or too boring to be valid. This transforms avoidance into a status symbol.
The Result: The test is trivialized and dismissed. The failure belongs to the world for being unworthy of the agent's participation.
The Direction: Moving Out.
The Logic: Destroying the Value of the Outcome. This strategy is a Market Crash. By devaluing the prize (love, success, effort), the agent ensures that their own poverty is no longer a disadvantage. If the currency is worthless, the beggar is equal to the king.
If the agent cannot win the game, they burn the board. If the currency (success, love, intimacy) is proven to be counterfeit, then being poor is no longer a sign of failure.
The Result: The people administering the test, the prize itself, and the whole context are compromised. The agent hasn't lost; they are cannily avoiding hopeless games.
Adler assumes a 'milieu of judgment' based on community, a finite circle of neighbors, colleagues, and family. In that world, the goal was belonging.
In the digital era, the 'Court' has changed. We have moved from community (relational judgment) to audience (attentional judgment).
Social media gamifies Life Tasks. This shift reinforces the Strategies of Immunity because the "Judge" is no longer a human being, but an abstract, infinite, and metric-driven Crowd.
Adler would diagnose our collective anxiety as a category error: We are confusing visibility with belonging. Adler warned that neurosis comes from caring more about impression than contribution. Social media is designed to measure impression, reinforcing defensive strategies. The "Audience" is an insatiable fiction; you can never be liked enough to silence the fear of inferiority.
Crucially, Adler did not view these strategies as static traits. He saw them as dynamic tools deployed against the three specific "Life Tasks" of human existence: Work, Society, and Love.
A person is not monolithic. You might observe a man employing Immunity via Elevation at work ("I am too talented for this menial role") while also deploying Immunity via Entanglement in love ("I cannot function without my partner"). The specific strategy reveals where the agent feels acute senses of inferiority.
To identify the game being played, use Adler’s famous diagnostic tool: The Question. Ask the agent:
"What would you do if this symptom or obstacle were removed immediately?"
The cure is not to fix the "Broken Wing" or debate the logic of the "Ivory Tower." The cure is Social Interest, the willingness to engage with these Life Tasks despite the risk of failure. It requires what Adler called "The Courage to be Imperfect": the realization that one does not need to be immune to judgment to be worthy of one's place.
So courage is the counter-habit Adler encourages us to build. Courage is not a feeling one waits for; it is activity combined with social interest. To dismantle the fortress of the ego, Adler suggests we attack the structure of the excuse from three angles: recognition, action, and valuation.
The first step is investigating the specific utility of the defense. We rely on our excuses because they provide a hidden payoff: the comfort of safety or the thrill of superiority. To break the loop, we explicitly name the maneuver in real-time. When we catch ourselves feigning incapacity or standing in judgment above a task, we acknowledge that we are currently running a strategy to avoid risk. This act of observation reduces the excuse of its power to comfort us. We may still choose to withdraw, but we can no longer do so while deceiving ourselves that we are noble victims. By exposing the machinery, we drain the excuse of the emotional fuel it needs to operate.
Once the defense is exposed, we bypass the demand for emotional readiness. We often wait until we feel confident to act, but the psychology of courage works in reverse; the feeling follows the movement. We inhabit the posture of the person we wish to be, treating the terrifying moment as a low-stakes simulation rather than a final referendum on our worth. By playing the role of a courageous person before we actually feel like one, we prove to our nervous system that the catastrophe we fear does not occur when we act. This lowers the stakes of the environment, turning a life task into a simple experiment.
Finally, we fundamentally alter the currency of our self-worth. The strategies of immunity are designed to protect our vertical status, the need to be special, superior, or distinct. To heal, we shift our focus to horizontal contribution. We stop judging the actor and start valuing the act itself. When we measure ourselves by our effort and our usefulness to others rather than our reputation or prestige, failure ceases to be a death sentence and becomes merely data. The goal is not to perfect our defense, but to accept that we do not need one. This is the courage to be imperfect: the realization that we can be flawed, average, and vulnerable, and still find value and meaning in contribution.
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1956). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler: A Systematic Presentation in Selections from His Writings.
Dreikurs, R. (1970). The Courage to be Imperfect.
Mosak, H.H. (1999). A Primer of Adlerian Psychology
Kishimi, I. & Koga, F. (2018). The Courage to Be Disliked