Unhealthy versus Healthy - A Failure of Typology

[Quinlan]

The healthy/unhealthy distinction is important in online communities to prevent misunderstanding. It helps to remind us (especially newer members) that just because one person of a certain type is particularly unpleasant or disturbed doesn't mean the type as a whole is inherently unpleasant or disturbed.

I think the closest Jung got to talking about unhealthy types was perhaps this:

Naturally in saying this I only refer to those cases which occur under normal conditions. Under abnormal conditions, i.e. when there is an extreme and, therefore, abnormal attitude in the mother, the children can also be coerced into a relatively similar attitude; but this entails a violation of their individual disposition, which quite possibly would have assumed another type if no abnormal and disturbing external influence had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of external [p. 416] influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and a cur can successfully be sought only in a development of that attitude which corresponds with the individual's natural way.

 

[InvisibleJim]

If you believe there's no such thing as unhealthy, that living in someone's shadow under long-term stress is okay, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because from personal experience, that is no fucking way to live, unless it's a very specific situation that needs handling.

I understand full what you are saying, but what is 'situationally unhealthy' is quite different from a mind coping with stress in 'healthy' way because the mind works that way. i.e just because you may turn STJ under stress, that's a healthy reaction to a stressful situation for an NFP.

My point really is bad typology and people applying poor typology + labels to one another. I'm sure you can agree it's more than an academic point from how some people choose to use typology as a weapon to attack others with rather than for information.

 

[Totenkindly]

Thomas Szasz.

An interesting guy....

In 1969, Szasz and the Church of Scientology co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) with the aim of helping to "clean up"[citation needed] the field of human rights abuses. Szasz remains on CCHR's Board of Advisors as Founding Commissioner,[14] and continues to provide content for the CCHR.[15]

 

[sculpting]

I accept everybodies opinion, but have a very clear set of opinion for my own and it would take you some time to convince of something new. I have never called someone being unhealthy or such in the way he represents the mbti functions, but I know of the problem and I am not completly guilt-free. To me it has occured that especially Fe user have a certain way of etiquette, while especially Fi user try to vote for their individuality. I sometimes have a hard time accepting the wanted uniqueness of Fi user cause it appears to me like they need to stand out of the crowd or have "an extra sausage roasted" like they say in german. On the other hand I am not dumb and want people to live their individuality aswell. It's just complicated when my infp girl comes home and tells me how the others treated her bad and I know in an instant what she did wrong and with what better strategy she could have get rid of the others, by just following some sort of felt Fe etiquette.

I am learning to cope with that at the moment and I want to build more respect for other opinions. I am tho convinced that tho I may develop tolerance, my opinion will stay the same and if someone calls me dumb or not-open minded because I hate it to stand out of the crowd with my opinion, so be it.

entropie, you are pretty awesome you know that?

 

[Xander]

I think they've already described it. It's a highly stressed state for the individual, where they're in their Jungian shadow. An ENFP acting like an STJ outside of particular situations is not an especially happy ENFP.

I was referring to an actual case I know of where you have what would bluntly be called a spoilt ISFJ. She does not care what you feel, only what she feels and hence is not really like the usual stereotype of worrying what everyone else is thinking etc. It's not a state of stress, just an different state of normal. Not everyone's environment is equal.

I think unhealthy implies a person who is full of negative emotions, or who is in a highly stressed state, or who is forcing themselves to be something they're not. Unhealthy also implies other psychological issues like depression, anxiety, anger, et al.

Precisely why the term needs defining because I don't associate any of that with unhealthy.

Btw an ENFP who was told all his youth to "shut up" and basically made to be organised and neat and tidy etc. Now he does strange things like draws patterns painstakingly on a large sheet of paper in pencil, then goes over in pen, then colours or shades it all in also painstakingly (he did one with crosshatching on A1!!!). He also rolls cigarettes and feels compelled to lay them out on a table neatly with the tops and bottoms aligned perfectly. Is this unhealthy?

Personally I'd label that unhealthy but I wouldn't necessarily call him depressed or unhappy. He can get like that and my suspicion is he'd be happier if he managed to remove the programming he was subjected to but I wouldn't go as far as to lump them all under one title. If the behaviour can make you stressed then surely it is not the same as being stressed and hence displaying the behaviour is it?

 

[Xander]

The healthy/unhealthy distinction is important in online communities to prevent misunderstanding. It helps to remind us (especially newer members) that just because one person of a certain type is particularly unpleasant or disturbed doesn't mean the type as a whole is inherently unpleasant or disturbed.

Would there not be a definition in there referring to unhealthy and one referring to under-developed?

For example the "robotic" INTP is usually under-developed but I would certainly say that an INTP who has lost touch with reality and cannot grasp common logic as having an unhealthy element to their personality. I mean I guess both are linked but a disturbed person isn't necessarily capable of developing in the usual fashion and hence the term under-developed would be presumptuous and probably wrong but to say they were unhealthy would probably be accurate if a little mean spirited.

 

[INTJMom]

you should see an entp acting like an isfj. The house has never been so tidy in all your life !

LOL! Love it!

 

[INTJMom]

I would take exception that description; this is actually a 'healthy' way to cognitively deal with the stressed state! What would be unhealthy would be to continue the same action and expect a different result!

Do you have any proof that Jung said so?
I would like to read it for myself.
In my experience, my Dom and Aux seemed like they "cut off". They were unavailable for me to use.
I was unable to take in information in my usual way and I was unable to make decisions in my usual way.
In my opinion, it didn't seem like a "healthy" way to function.
But as I said, I am open to being proven wrong by an expert in the subject.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Do you have any proof that Jung said so?
I would like to read it for myself.
In my experience, my Dom and Aux seemed like they "cut off". They were unavailable for me to use.
I was unable to take in information in my usual way and I was unable to make decisions in my usual way.
In my opinion, it didn't seem like a "healthy" way to function.
But as I said, I am open to being proven wrong by an expert in the subject.

It's the only logical interpretation of the theory and more importantly everyone seems to do it, then it's simply not unhealthy - it just is.

 

[INTJMom]

It's the only logical interpretation of the theory and more importantly everyone seems to do it, then it's simply not unhealthy - it just is.

I disagree, then.
(Sorry old friend)
I am in support of Naomi Quenk's explanation of how it works:
that when a person is stressed out and in their opposite form,
she describes it as being "beside yourself".
And the goal is to get back to being yourself... regaining "equilibrium".

This equilibrium is something Jung theorized on.

 

[INTJMom]

I was referring to an actual case I know of where you have what would bluntly be called a spoilt ISFJ. She does not care what you feel, only what she feels and hence is not really like the usual stereotype of worrying what everyone else is thinking etc. It's not a state of stress, just an different state of normal. Not everyone's environment is equal....

It's quite possible that ISFJ is an emotionally unhealthy human being and therefore cannot be considered a "normal ISFJ".

Of course, that's assuming you're absolutely positive she IS an ISFJ... which I know, you are.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I disagree, then.

This is entirely acceptable. Could you refer me to how jung referred to equilibrium? Because he mostly discussed integrating the Anima/Animus, not rejecting it.

 

[INTJMom]

This is entirely acceptable. Could you refer me to how jung referred to equilibrium? Because he mostly discussed integrating the Anima/Animus, not rejecting it.

Sure. If you own Psychological Types you can read it for yourself in the 3rd paragraph of the Introduction.
"In respect of one’s own personality one’s judgement is as a rule extraordinarily clouded. This subjective clouding of judgement is particularly common because in every pronounced type there is a special tendency to compensate the one-sidedness of that type, a tendency which is biologically purposive since it strives constantly to maintain the psychic equilibrium. The compensation gives rise to secondary characteristics, or secondary types, which present a picture that is extremely difficult to interpret, so difficult that one is inclined to deny the existence of types altogether and believe only in individual differences."
Bolds mine

Additionally, Naomi Quenk describes the return to normalcy as the "Return to Equilibrium". In this paragraph, she describes something you may agree with:
"Exactly how this happens is difficult to observe precisely, but the process or mechanism whereby equilibrium is achieved seems to occur through constellation, or activation, of the tertiary function and, even more noticeably, the auxiliary function. This process enables the gradual reestablishment of trust and confidence in oneself. The grip of the inferior function diminishes first through activation of the tertiary function, then through increased energy and attention to the auxiliary function, and finally through reexperiencing the confidence, competence, and centeredness of one’s dominant function." Beside Ourselves, Chapter 4, p. 59.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Sure. If you own Psychological Types

Indeed, it's a complex topic; thus the insufficient of an argument such as; It's an ENFP, they are using Te, that is unhealthy for them...

I mean.. come on, of course ENFPs have Te, it's their preferred attitude of the T function and it is where they go when they are both stressed and/or excited!

Theres nothing like seeing an ENFP get excited when you show them something interesting in a Te way and they want to play around in the discussion.

 

[Thalassa]

I was referring to an actual case I know of where you have what would bluntly be called a spoilt ISFJ. She does not care what you feel, only what she feels and hence is not really like the usual stereotype of worrying what everyone else is thinking etc. It's not a state of stress, just an different state of normal. Not everyone's environment is equal.

Precisely why the term needs defining because I don't associate any of that with unhealthy.

It depends on what you mean by she doesn't fit the stereotype of worrying how everyone else thinks/feels. Do you mean she's vindictive? Nasty? Unstable?

Just because an ISFJ isn't a doormat doesn't mean they're unhealthy - and the lovely thing about Fe is that it develops in different ways. The stereotype of Fe is to meld with the group, but someone's Fe can develop in a very self-congratulatory way.

My ex is an ESFJ* and his mother is probably ISFJ, and they're two of the most selfish, manipulative people I've encountered in my entire life. But they wouldn't dream of dropping "the game face" in certain situations or showing guests an untidy home. They give gifts, and do all of the things people "should."

However, they aren't especially nice or selfless. To think that healthy Fe means you're an others-focused saint is a logical fallacy. Sure some people's Fe is molded that way, but it depends on who their role model was, who their primary group is and what that group believes, etc.

If Fe couldn't be nasty we wouldn't have heinous social conventions that torment people for being "different." Fe can be insanely judgmental and more concerned with protocol than with others' actual feelings.

Whoever said an ISFJ can't be spoiled or selfish is totally off their rocker.

*Note that I am not holding my ex up as an example of healthy ESFJ, because he surely is not, but I don't think his functions are unhealthy, I think he needs medication.

 

[Xander]

Indeed, it's a complex topic; thus the insufficient of an argument such as; It's an ENFP, they are using Te, that is unhealthy for them...

I mean.. come on, of course ENFPs have Te, it's their preferred attitude of the T function and it is where they go when they are both stressed and/or excited!

Theres nothing like seeing an ENFP get excited when you show them something interesting in a Te way and they want to play around in the discussion.

I think it's the difference between being able to use Thinking and having to use Thinking because the Feeling function is overloaded somehow.

If you've ever witnesses an ENFP who's stressed, trying to make a choice you'll see the problem. They tend to reject all arguments for one side or the other, spiralling upwards in both apparent stress level and usually pitch. Though they can see the logical arguments for each choice their heart isn't behind any of them really and so they refuse to decide. You could say that as this is par for the course that it is not unhealthy but as it does not lead to alleviating the stress or making the decision it prevents them from functioning well as a person (usually forming about 90% of their waking thought and speech).

The other question of course is that if it is not healthy (I'd believe you wouldn't support a statement that would say that stressed behaviour is healthy) but you'd stop short of labelling it un-healthy, then what is this third area to be called and how is it defined?

It depends on what you mean by she doesn't fit the stereotype of worrying how everyone else thinks/feels. Do you mean she's vindictive? Nasty? Unstable?

Just because an ISFJ isn't a doormat doesn't mean they're unhealthy - and the lovely thing about Fe is that it develops in different ways. The stereotype of Fe is to meld with the group, but someone's Fe can develop in a very self-congratulatory way.

My ex is an ESFJ* and his mother is probably ISFJ, and they're two of the most selfish, manipulative people I've encountered in my entire life. But they wouldn't dream of dropping "the game face" in certain situations or showing guests an untidy home. They give gifts, and do all of the things people "should."

However, they aren't especially nice or selfless. To think that healthy Fe means you're an others-focused saint is a logical fallacy. Sure some people's Fe is molded that way, but it depends on who their role model was, who their primary group is and what that group believes, etc.

If Fe couldn't be nasty we wouldn't have heinous social conventions that torment people for being "different." Fe can be insanely judgmental and more concerned with protocol than with others' actual feelings.

Whoever said an ISFJ can't be spoiled or selfish is totally off their rocker.

*Note that I am not holding my ex up as an example of healthy ESFJ, because he surely is not, but I don't think his functions are unhealthy, I think he needs medication.

Ok... about two thoughts into that strain...Whoa!!!

ISFJ's can be swines just as much as the rest of us and Fs are very good at knowing how to twist the knife, this much is true. However if the displayed characteristics of a person, laid next to their type, both defies all the strengths they should have and also does not offer up replacements for said strength then it would be reasonable to state that they are less than they could be. You might say that this is something other than being unhealthy but without definitions this is only going to continue as a source of confusion and contention.

Anyway, the theory is that yes you can have elements which don't fit with your type without being "un-healthy", that would be the bit "all ENFPs are like all other ENFPs, some ENFPs are like some other ENFPs and no ENFP is like any other ENFP" or words to that effect. However if someone consistently has an element to their personality which acts counter to their main drive then it is a hindrance in itself. We would not hesitate to say that someone with a limp is unhealthy (or words to that effect) no matter how they got the limp or whether they like it or not. Why would we be any less judgemental with someone's psyche?

So an ENTJ who openly weeps when people he cares about are upset is not unhealthy but an ISFJ who still wants a peaceful environment but who doesn't actually have the capacity to read people's emotional state and bases all of her judgements off how she's feeling... I'd say she possibly qualifies.... depending on how anyone would like to define these notions which are being knocked around.

 

[Thalassa]

Ok... about two thoughts into that strain...Whoa!!!

ISFJ's can be swines just as much as the rest of us and Fs are very good at knowing how to twist the knife, this much is true. However if the displayed characteristics of a person, laid next to their type, both defies all the strengths they should have and also does not offer up replacements for said strength then it would be reasonable to state that they are less than they could be. You might say that this is something other than being unhealthy but without definitions this is only going to continue as a source of confusion and contention.

Anyway, the theory is that yes you can have elements which don't fit with your type without being "un-healthy", that would be the bit "all ENFPs are like all other ENFPs, some ENFPs are like some other ENFPs and no ENFP is like any other ENFP" or words to that effect. However if someone consistently has an element to their personality which acts counter to their main drive then it is a hindrance in itself. We would not hesitate to say that someone with a limp is unhealthy (or words to that effect) no matter how they got the limp or whether they like it or not. Why would we be any less judgemental with someone's psyche?


So an ENTJ who openly weeps when people he cares about are upset is not unhealthy but an ISFJ who still wants a peaceful environment but who doesn't actually have the capacity to read people's emotional state and bases all of her judgements off how she's feeling... I'd say she possibly qualifies.... depending on how anyone would like to define these notions which are being knocked around.

Well people can be immature or have emotional/mental problems or simply have ethics that are different. In the first case, hopefully the person will grow out of it. In the second case, definitely counseling and possibly pharmaceuticals may be in order, this is undoubtedly unhealthy, but still should be left up to a professional to decide. In the third case we can not call this "unhealthy" but simply that the person has different morals.

If a person has none of the strengths of a type - I mean really, none? - that's a bit strange. My ex, who undoubtedly needs years of therapy, still has some of the strengths associated with ESFJ: he's well-organized, emotionally expressive and affectionate, has incredible attention to detail in his chosen area of study, and can lay on the charm in certain situations if he's feeling up to it. However, despite all of these strengths, he's also a very unbalanced individual who probably has either a personality disorder or a mental illness.

I don't know the situation with your ISFJ, but I'm questioning if she even is an ISFJ. Have you looked at other types? She only gauges how people feel by how she's feeling? Does she have any of the strengths of ISFP?

 

[Xander]

Well people can be immature or have emotional/mental problems or simply have ethics that are different. In the first case, hopefully the person will grow out of it. In the second case, definitely counseling and possibly pharmaceuticals may be in order, this is undoubtedly unhealthy, but still should be left up to a professional to decide. In the third case we can not call this "unhealthy" but simply that the person has different morals.

I can see where you're getting that but don't you think it's a little flimsy? I mean at what stage does someone qualify to judge someone else as unhealthy? Especially in terms of mental health. There's whole debates in the profession about various cases and whether they're actually unhealthy or just different. As for morals, I've not met two people with the same morals yet! And if having different morals is part of what makes someone an individual then it would be part of their personality and therefore fair game to be marked as unhealthy would it not? If according to my morals anyone seen beating a dog without extreme provocation should be shot... I'd bet that this would not be considered a healthy set of morals for my future.

Seriously the only consistent measure I've read of towards whether something is a healthy behaviour/ personality trait (and therefore should be supported) against it being unhealthy (and therefore should be treated) is in terms of survival. Some behaviours and traits don't absolutely hinder a persons ability to survive, the one's that do would be clinical conditions I'd expect, however in terms of efficiency (which nature seems to be almost as concerned about as we are) then it depends upon where you draw the line.

Waits for INTJ to state that all non INTJs are unhealthy...

If a person has none of the strengths of a type - I mean really, none? - that's a bit strange. My ex, who undoubtedly needs years of therapy, still has some of the strengths associated with ESFJ: he's well-organized, emotionally expressive and affectionate, has incredible attention to detail in his chosen area of study, and can lay on the charm in certain situations if he's feeling up to it. However, despite all of these strengths, he's also a very unbalanced individual who probably has either a personality disorder or a mental illness.

I once had a prospective brother in law who I would guess was some kind of EP, he too was a joy to be around when he wasn't under stress or whatever chemical it was that he had unbalanced but would be called unbalanced clinically and still is as far as I know.

I would posit that someone lacking ALL of the strengths common to their type and having nothing in it's place would be a severely damaged person but would you not support that an ENFP who's been crushed in his youth to the extent that he shows some levels of compulsive behaviour could be defined as unhealthy? Sure to be accurate you'd label the specific behaviour as unhealthy but then again to do that you're ruling out in your definition that anything else could be wrong and possibly a symptom or even a trigger.

As the saying goes "six of one, half a dozen of the other".

I don't know the situation with your ISFJ, but I'm questioning if she even is an ISFJ. Have you looked at other types? She only gauges how people feel by how she's feeling? Does she have any of the strengths of ISFP?

Well she was typed by my father who's qualified in such things. Personally I thought she was a T and had ruled out ISFJ as she showed almost no desire to care for anyone and no care at all for the wake she causes with her demands. Since he corrected my analysis I've seen how it could work. Basically she'll get peeved because people aren't aligning with her wants and then try to use the social "supposed to"s to reinforce her statements. Now that is a common tactic used by ISFJs who are trying to get their own way as much as INTPs use "logic" to reinforce their demands but if you consistently saw an INTP incorrectly using logic and the obvious conclusion was that they were doing it to support their warped view of reality then would you not consider them unhealthy? [Again with the caveats mentioned towards labelling the person or the specific behaviour as unhealthy.]

For an example, this ISFJ complained that the group was arranging to do something on a bank holiday monday. Her partner was a member of said group but she'd opted earlier not to be. She stated that she might want to do something on that day and so despite it being the best day for everyone else we changed our arrangements to suit her. We later found out that she had not done anything that day nor suggested that they do so. They spent the entire day on World of Warcraft and did nothing. Now this alone would not be enough to make me label anyone as something other than "miserable swine" but it's a common behaviour for her and before she'd explained any of this to anyone (including her parter) she became irritable and moody with everyone. I know it's a common phenomena that women expect people to be psychic but usually there's a little more substance than this. Oh and it was straight after she'd decided to quit out of the birthday party type stuff we were doing and go home to play WoW. Her ENFJ partner lost his rag at that point as he'd stated to her that he was going out for this do and she could come along or stay at home but he was out for the night.

It just seems that she does not see why she should have to validate herself. As far as I understand it most ISFJs use external measures to establish if they are valid in their behaviour or not (not totally obviously... the comment is to be read with the usual caveats of human behaviour) and even when appearing confident in their stance they are undermined by their internal concern that they've made a mistake somewhere. If this girl showed the slightest hint of that then I'd be less likely to think of her as unhealthy but as she shows none and hasn't improved in the eleven or some odd years I've known her then I label her as I see her. It doesn't help that I know of her background and how she ran her mother ragged with demands and such to the point where her mother has never been able to get another partner because it wouldn't meet with her daughters approval.

 

[Thalassa]

I can see where you're getting that but don't you think it's a little flimsy? I mean at what stage does someone qualify to judge someone else as unhealthy? Especially in terms of mental health. There's whole debates in the profession about various cases and whether they're actually unhealthy or just different. As for morals, I've not met two people with the same morals yet! And if having different morals is part of what makes someone an individual then it would be part of their personality and therefore fair game to be marked as unhealthy would it not? If according to my morals anyone seen beating a dog without extreme provocation should be shot... I'd bet that this would not be considered a healthy set of morals for my future.

Seriously the only consistent measure I've read of towards whether something is a healthy behaviour/ personality trait (and therefore should be supported) against it being unhealthy (and therefore should be treated) is in terms of survival. Some behaviours and traits don't absolutely hinder a persons ability to survive, the one's that do would be clinical conditions I'd expect, however in terms of efficiency (which nature seems to be almost as concerned about as we are) then it depends upon where you draw the line.

Waits for INTJ to state that all non INTJs are unhealthy...

I once had a prospective brother in law who I would guess was some kind of EP, he too was a joy to be around when he wasn't under stress or whatever chemical it was that he had unbalanced but would be called unbalanced clinically and still is as far as I know.

I would posit that someone lacking ALL of the strengths common to their type and having nothing in it's place would be a severely damaged person but would you not support that an ENFP who's been crushed in his youth to the extent that he shows some levels of compulsive behaviour could be defined as unhealthy? Sure to be accurate you'd label the specific behaviour as unhealthy but then again to do that you're ruling out in your definition that anything else could be wrong and possibly a symptom or even a trigger.

As the saying goes "six of one, half a dozen of the other".

My ex is violent and fucking nuts. He has poor impulse control, it's like he's two different people, like almost two distinct personalities. His parents even know something is wrong with him. Some people are mentally disturbed in a way that is destructive to both other people and themselves, and that's that.

However, those cases aren't about function order, but about personality disorder or mental illness. I've suffered from depression and anxiety (which I am now thinking is PTSD, especially because of which medications and methods have worked for me) and I can tell you that there is an "unhealthy" version of me when I'm having panic attacks and am so depressed I can't stop crying. However, I don't have the problems that my ex has, because I'm not destructive to other people in the same way - his problems are more severe, and much like most people with his particular level of sickness, he won't get help. It's ironic to me that it's often the people who need help the most that won't get it, and that the people who do manage to get help are usually people who suffer from things like panic attacks, depression, or PTSD, etc.

Well she was typed by my father who's qualified in such things. Personally I thought she was a T and had ruled out ISFJ as she showed almost no desire to care for anyone and no care at all for the wake she causes with her demands. Since he corrected my analysis I've seen how it could work. Basically she'll get peeved because people aren't aligning with her wants and then try to use the social "supposed to"s to reinforce her statements. Now that is a common tactic used by ISFJs who are trying to get their own way as much as INTPs use "logic" to reinforce their demands but if you consistently saw an INTP incorrectly using logic and the obvious conclusion was that they were doing it to support their warped view of reality then would you not consider them unhealthy? [Again with the caveats mentioned towards labelling the person or the specific behaviour as unhealthy.]

For an example, this ISFJ complained that the group was arranging to do something on a bank holiday monday. Her partner was a member of said group but she'd opted earlier not to be. She stated that she might want to do something on that day and so despite it being the best day for everyone else we changed our arrangements to suit her. We later found out that she had not done anything that day nor suggested that they do so. They spent the entire day on World of Warcraft and did nothing. Now this alone would not be enough to make me label anyone as something other than "miserable swine" but it's a common behaviour for her and before she'd explained any of this to anyone (including her parter) she became irritable and moody with everyone. I know it's a common phenomena that women expect people to be psychic but usually there's a little more substance than this. Oh and it was straight after she'd decided to quit out of the birthday party type stuff we were doing and go home to play WoW. Her ENFJ partner lost his rag at that point as he'd stated to her that he was going out for this do and she could come along or stay at home but he was out for the night.

It just seems that she does not see why she should have to validate herself. As far as I understand it most ISFJs use external measures to establish if they are valid in their behaviour or not (not totally obviously... the comment is to be read with the usual caveats of human behaviour) and even when appearing confident in their stance they are undermined by their internal concern that they've made a mistake somewhere. If this girl showed the slightest hint of that then I'd be less likely to think of her as unhealthy but as she shows none and hasn't improved in the eleven or some odd years I've known her then I label her as I see her. It doesn't help that I know of her background and how she ran her mother ragged with demands and such to the point where her mother has never been able to get another partner because it wouldn't meet with her daughters approval.

Probably an unhealthy FJ, for sure. ISFJ is probably correct if she's capable of controlling and manipulating people to the extent of obeying her (that's crazy, I'd probably smack her, but I don't have Fe...I wonder sometimes if people with Fi are more capable of resisting Fe bullshit than others who also have Fe).

Because using social "supposed tos" does sound SFJ, it does.

I just doubt very seriously that she has *none* of the strengths, though, that's surely an exaggeration on your part, unless she's entirely psychotic.

 

[entropie]

I think people writing long text are unhealthy xD