User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 171

  1. #31
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slowriot View Post
    So there is no healthy/unhealthy only people that are mentally unstable and those that are stable.
    Isn't that really just an issue of semantics? I think unhealthy & unstable are pretty much the same thing, as far as how they are used around here (and on MBTI forums in general)....

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Myers herself opened her book with the caveat that it was intended to describe healthy individuals.
    Yes, and this is why it is important to distinguish when a trait is NOT characteristic of a type, but of being unstable/unhealthy. People will say a person is unhealthy as a way to distance their behavior from the typical type. We don't have profiles on what unhealthy types look like, just relatively healthy ones (but not without "normal" flaws either). To take the distortions of an unhealthy person & apply them to their type is neither fair nor accurate, and it's without any basis besides your anecdotal experience. So the reason healthy/unhealthy is thrown around is to distinguish between traits of a type & traits of being unhealthy, so that negative traits are not unfairly assigned to a type because of a few unhealthy individuals who happen to be that type (which happens enough as it is).

    I think we all acknowledge that types may "go bad" in certain ways (even Jung briefly touched on it), but exactly how is not something there is a lot of info on because when a person becomes unstable their personality can get so distorted it's difficult to type them accurately. For example, it's been discussed on a few INFP forums how depressed people tend to test INFP even if they are not, simply because of how the test questions can be interpreted. This distorts the image of what an INFP looks like; how do you tell the unhealthy INFPs from the unhealthy mistyped INFPs? There's no road map for that. As mentioned, enneagram has levels of health, which is useful in determining a person's type, no matter how stable they are. Unfortunately, MBTI does not have that, yet.

    I get the sense the OP is more annoyed at what is being labeled "unhealthy". Well, I don't really see "unhealthy" being used to degrade a type's normal traits just because they are not a social ideal.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  2. #32
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    I don't see where typology has to do with the issue, other than to the extent that types or functions are the subject of the labels "healthy" and "unhealthy."

    In some form or another, we mentally label people as "healthy" and "unhealthy" all the time, outside of the scope of typology. One could make an argument that that is equally subjective and therefore inappropriate to objectify.

    Any 'failing' in objectively distinguishing between healthy and unhealthy versions of type has more to do with the 'failing' present the concept of "health" in general.

    --
    OP, can you pull up a particular type or function description that actually labels a tendency to not participate in mirroring as an "unhealthy" use of some function (or that otherwise demonstrates the trend that you described with respect to the descriptions)?

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viridian View Post
    While I agree very much with this, I was under the impression that InvisibleJim's original point was not just that all functions have their advantages, but that it's not up to anyone to say what is or isn't an unhealthy use of that function. I could have misunderstood him, though...
    That was exactly my point. Elegantly translated.

  4. #34
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Elegantly translated.
    why does you post need a translation? topic states that its a failure in typology itself..
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #35
    Striving for balance Little Linguist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Posts
    6,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viridian View Post
    While I agree very much with this, I was under the impression that InvisibleJim's original point was not just that all functions have their advantages, but that it's not up to anyone to say what is or isn't an unhealthy use of that function. I could have misunderstood him, though...
    Ah, okay. Well, I would agree with that purely upon the assumption that a healthy or unhealthy use of any function is highly dependent on the situation and the environment.

  6. #36
    He who laughs
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    Isn't that really just an issue of semantics? I think unhealthy & unstable are pretty much the same thing, as far as how they are used around here (and on MBTI forums in general).....
    Unstable was meant as a frame of mind that hinders the correct use of the processes. Not a stable personality that has faulty cognition, from a subjective point of view.

  7. #37
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,439

    Default

    One way functions could be "unhealthy" is via the shadow. Otherwise, no, there's no such association with healthy or unhealthy.

    Also, the fifth factor of "Neuroticism" (which originally stems from Eysenck, as a temperament factor) was aimed to be represented in MBTI by a "Comfort/Discomfort" factor in a special Form of the MBTI. But I hear this is only used in mental institutions.

    Eysenck's use of the factor in temperament suggests certain temperaments have more of a tendency to "stability" than others, but it seems C/D was something tacked on to type, and not fixed to any individual ones. (The factor analysis for it was said to have been done by the Myers', but the factor omitted from Steps I and II for being so "negative").
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  8. #38
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    I think I'll just quote myself on the topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar
    With all due respect, there is no set "standard" for what is, and what is not, healthy.
    In this forum, it's getting pretty old reading "Oh that's an unhealthy XXXX!"

  9. #39
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,780

    Default

    quadrupled stregnth alcohol is probably more unhealthy than triple strength
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  10. #40
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    One way functions could be "unhealthy" is via the shadow. Otherwise, no, there's no such association with healthy or unhealthy.

    Also, the fifth factor of "Neuroticism" (which originally stems from Eysenck, as a temperament factor) was aimed to be represented in MBTI by a "Comfort/Discomfort" factor in a special Form of the MBTI. But I hear this is only used in mental institutions.

    Eysenck's use of the factor in temperament suggests certain temperaments have more of a tendency to "stability" than others, but it seems C/D was something tacked on to type, and not fixed to any individual ones. (The factor analysis for it was said to have been done by the Myers', but the factor omitted from Steps I and II for being so "negative").
    eynsencks neurotism = emotional stability, more neurotic less emotional stability & apprehensiveness. its not suggest for certain temperament, its a pole like in big 5 poles. eynsenck didnt have types like MBTI his concept is like big 5, but only 3 scales, extroversion, neuroticism and psychotism(tendency towards psycho pathology, impulsivity & cruelty, tough mindedness & shrewdness). he did make correlation between hippocrates types with neurotism and extroversion, but third scale psychotism was added later and doesent really fit these types
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution of typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 05:33 AM
  2. Principles of Typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-20-2012, 08:20 PM
  3. Depression as a failure of creativity?
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-27-2009, 03:52 PM
  4. Overview of Typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 03:10 PM
  5. Problems of Typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-26-2008, 11:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO