Unhealthy versus Healthy - A Failure of Typology

[InvisibleJim]

I note people like to use the unhealthy and healthy labels for functions.

Personally I loath it; its a case of 'your ideas are different from mine and this makes them unhealthy'.

They are usually coupled with a few oxymorons, such as 'lack of compassion/understanding/reasonableness/consensus is unhealthy'.

Of course these factors all have a healthy part to play in any individual. For without them there is no way to deal with the abusive natures of other individuals and to set up the barriers required to live a normal and indeed happy life.

I would suggest that those who use the unhealthy label are potentially very closed minded as they don't seem to accept that others are allowed to have and express their own opinions and are in effect attempting to use certain fuzzy labels to make things how they view it to be 'right'.

More importantly I've never seen any sort of typological discourse which discusses unhealthy or healthy states in more rigorous typology discussion and literature. I might say it's a uniquely invented paradox of online typology communities and has little to do with cognitive functioning but everything to do with those who use the labels.

 

[KDude]

There's probably a middle ground here. I partly understand what you're criticizing, but Myers herself opened her book with the caveat that it was intended to describe healthy individuals.

And while Jung didn't explicitly state it, he wasn't exactly abandoning other fields and just ascribing cognitive functions to certain behaviors. From what I can tell, typology was directed more towards his peers. His patients were another thing.

 

[Little Linguist]

Not every behavior that is different is necessarily healthy and unrecognized by "closed-minded" individuals. On the other hand, not every behavior that is different is necessarily unhealthy. So I think the problem here is an unclear definition of a label that's being thrown around at will.

 

[InvisibleJim]

And while Jung didn't explicitly state it, he wasn't exactly abandoning other fields and just ascribing cognitive functions to certain behaviors. From what I can tell, typology was directed more towards his peers. His patients were another thing.

Yes, I don't believe that Jung ever intended to describe the archetypes to be behavioural archetypes, only cognitive ones. I guess Myers and Briggs took the first step out with identifying the 4th dichotomy as representative of external behaviour and Keirsey just ditched cognitive archetypes all together for behavioural archetypes.

 

[INTP]

I've never seen any sort of typological discourse which discusses unhealthy or healthy states in more rigorous typology discussion and literature. I might say it's a uniquely invented paradox of online typology communities and has little to do with cognitive functioning but everything to do with those who use the labels.

still you assume that its part of typology and claim that typology is flawed

also, you dont even seem to understand what people mean when they talk about unhealthy usage of functions..

 

[guesswho]

and claim that typology is flawed

are you somehow implying that typology isn't flawed?

 

[Totenkindly]

To switch systems a moment, Riso's version of the Enneagram makes explicit the implict "health/unhealth" aspect of that system. The whole direction of integration/disintegration assumes what is healthy for each type and what is not.

Obviously, to suggest something is healthy, one must have some idea of what the "ideal" would be for a particular type. While this has a subjective element to it, it's not necessarily entirely subjective. (Note that, while morality itself can be ascribed as subjective, typically various human cultures throughout time have similar broad concepts of what is moral and what is not -- some key behaviors are typically regulated within all of those cultures... i.e., do not steal, do not kill, do not commit adultery, etc.)

So I think we can probably look at some behaviors and see which ones typically result in someone being entirely inefficient, miserable, unproductive for the type of individual they are.

To veer off that a moment... I don't think functions can be categorically labeled as healthy or unhealthy in themselves... only their use/implementation can be.

 

[slowriot]

Jung used a very generalized/metaphoric language when describing the cognitive processes. So there is no healthy/unhealthy only people that are mentally unstable and those that are stable. Something that Jung spend very little time considering and therefore only looked at cognitive processes from the "healthy" viewpoint, ie people that had no considerable mental issues to distort their preferences.

So the idea of healthy/unhealthy seems to stem more from Riso/Hudson, which is an entirely different system, than from the works of Jung. (as Jennifer so brilliantly pointed out above) And then tried to be incooperated afterwards. Which makes very little sense.

I have used unhealthy/healthy before but I have seen the light, so please burn me on the stake of pure typology if you wish.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I have used unhealthy/healthy before but I have seen the light, so please burn me on the stake of pure typology if you wish.

Never - Slowriot, your contributions as every are welcome in any discussion.

I am also guilty of using it to 'talk other peoples language'. Recently I used it in INFJs because I knew based upon what I had viewed there over several months that they would respond to the label; but it's a false label.

To veer off that a moment... I don't think functions can be categorically labeled as healthy or unhealthy in themselves... only their use/implementation can be.

Herein belies the cunning nub of the issue.

According to what would seem much more accurate and reasonable:

(Un)healthy Te = Using critical analysis to set boundaries and to interpret the responses from the external work and then to roll that into logical thought.

The difference is only in interpretation by the viewer; there is no true unhealthy or healthy cognitive state.

Unhealthy Te = Using critical analysis to indicate dislike or to create distance towards the viewer
Healthy Te = Using critical analysis to indicate like and or friendliness towards the viewer

The label is merely indicating that the other does not like the response of the delivery; unfortunately this is not their decision to make - you cannot control the minds of others, but you can provide alternative information to those decision making processes.

 

[Totenkindly]

Herein belies the cunning nub of the issue.

According to what would seem much more accurate and reasonable:

(Un)healthy Te = Using critical analysis to set boundaries and to interpret the responses from the external work and then to roll that into logical thought.

The difference is only in interpretation by the viewer; there is no true unhealthy or healthy cognitive state.

Unhealthy Te = Using critical analysis to indicate dislike or to create distance towards the viewer
Healthy Te = Using critical analysis to indicate like and or friendliness towards the viewer

Are you saying that is what OTHERS (not you) would deem healthy vs unhealthy use of Te?

(Personally, I would define it differently, and more within the Te framework rather than another framework imposing itself on Te.)

 

[InvisibleJim]

(Personally, I would define it differently, and more within the Te framework rather than another framework imposing itself on Te.)

I wouldn't define anything as unhealthy or healthy Te. It is a process, it is what it does. Is a spanner evil? How about the doorhandle, is it an unhealthy doorhandle?

Could you explain this in depth and how it would relate to cognition rather than behaviour and choice?

 

[INTP]

Something that Jung spend very little time considering and therefore only looked at cognitive processes from the "healthy" viewpoint, ie people that had no considerable mental issues to distort their preferences.

oh this couldnt be further from the truth. jung pretty much compared people with problems to healthy people as one part on creating this typology. the book 'psychological types'(where this whole MBTI thing originated) even lists possible neuroses and other really negative traits for each type. for Ni type he says "The form of neurosis is a compulsion neurosis with hypochondriacal symptoms, hypersensitivity to sense organs, and compulsive ties to certain persons or objects". also he says stuff like ENXP types are too P and cant hold their shit together, are unreliable, doesent care much about others etc etc.

he didnt say those negative traits of ENXP type is unhealthy, he just stated that these are just basic ENXP traits, but ofc not all exhibit all of these traits, but are prone to that sort of stuff more or less. i call this sort of negative traits that are taken into extreme unhealthy traits and i think its fair to do that, because well, they are unhealthy..

 

[Totenkindly]

I wouldn't define anything as unhealthy or healthy Te. It is a process, it is what it does. Is a spanner evil? How about the doorhandle, is it an unhealthy doorhandle?

My bad, let me clarify/correct.

I'm only attaching it to Te because Te is defining the behavior being used by the healthy or unhealthy motivation. It is not Te in itself that is healthy or unhealthy. IOW, I would be discussing healthy/unhealthy consciousness as expressed through Te (or any other function, for that matter).

PS. Watch out for those unhealthy door handles. You could get sick if you grab the wrong one.

 

[InvisibleJim]

My bad, let me clarify/correct.

I'm only attaching it to Te because Te is defining the behavior being used by the healthy or unhealthy motivation. It is not Te in itself that is healthy or unhealthy. IOW, I would be discussing healthy/unhealthy consciousness as expressed through Te (or any other function, for that matter).

PS. Watch out for those unhealthy door handles. You could get sick if you grab the wrong one.

Yes, those unhealthy door handles are hideously dangerous; I've been keeping my eyes open for exactly such devilry!

Te is as good a place to start as any; but what exactly is a healthy/unhealthy consciousness?

Because the definition would appear to be, by most users, those who simply do not seek to acquiesce to them or to give way and their consciousness. That's not really unhealthy, that's individuality. In juxtapose: 'I dislike what you are saying, or I might disagree with it; thus unhealthy'. If we are defining unhealthy as that then surely they would be close minded and thus unhealthy by definition?

 

[Totenkindly]

Te is as good a place to start as any; but what exactly is a healthy/unhealthy consciousness?

It might take me time to work out a nuanced description, but at this point we are leaving typology and entering the field of mental health and what is typically seen as productive, efficient, positive, and actualizing, vs unproductive, ineffecient, negative, and degrading.

obviously there is still disagreement within that line of inquiry about health vs unhealth, but it's like when I brought up morality -- there are some general standards that groups across the board seem to agree upon as general criteria for health.

Because the definition would appear to be, by most users, those who simply do not seek to acquiesce to them or to give way and their consciousness. That's not really unhealthy, that's individuality.

Agreed.

In juxtapose: 'I dislike what you are saying, or I might disagree with it; thus unhealthy'. If we are defining unhealthy as that then surely they would be close minded and thus unhealthy by definition?

Agreed, again.

(IOW, the criteria of whether you are healthy or not cannot be directly based on whether or not you agree with me and/or resemble me.)

Personally, I find that "healthy" people (i.e., open, yet resilient people) are capable of accepting disagreement and even the possibility of being wrong themselves, without it impacting their self-esteem levels. I think any definition of health/unhealth will involve the concept of self-esteem and how people behave in order to preserve and/or defend it. A strong self-esteem can run the boat through a storm without feeling necessarily threatened by it.

Another part of the definition will involve how the individual approaches "reality," and to what degree they need to hide from, dismiss, or change facts in order to bolster self-esteem. I think that, categorically, healthy people face reality face-first without making excuses, and not reading too much into it in either direction.

 

[slowriot]

oh this couldnt be further from the truth. jung pretty much compared people with problems to healthy people as one part on creating this typology. the book 'psychological types'(where this whole MBTI thing originated) even lists possible neuroses and other really negative traits for each type. for Ni type he says "The form of neurosis is a compulsion neurosis with hypochondriacal symptoms, hypersensitivity to sense organs, and compulsive ties to certain persons or objects". also he says stuff like ENXP types are too P and cant hold their shit together, are unreliable, doesent care much about others etc etc.

he didnt say those negative traits of ENXP type is unhealthy, he just stated that these are just basic ENXP traits, but ofc not all exhibit all of these traits, but are prone to that sort of stuff more or less. i call this sort of negative traits that are taken into extreme unhealthy traits and i think its fair to do that, because well, they are unhealthy..

:rolli: He uses one line on neurosis in each of the definitions of processes. Within a paragraph considering how - in the example of introverted intuition - unconscious extraverted sensation can manifest itself within a person prefering introverted intuition. That has very little to do with unhealthy or healthy introverted intuition. And it proves that he looked into and considered the dark sides of how the processes affected the people using them, not that he focused his attention on it.

But if you want to nitpick go ahead, I have no interest in doing so.

 

[Totenkindly]

:rolli: He uses one line on neurosis in each of the definitions of processes. Within a paragraph considering how - in the example of introverted intuition - unconscious extraverted sensation can manifest itself within a person prefering introverted intuition. That has very little to do with unhealthy or healthy introverted intuition. And it proves that he looked into and considered the dark sides of how the processes affected the people using them, not that he focused his attention on it.

I just see all that as taking creating a particular instance of health/unhealth for each type: "If subject is <TYPE>, what would health and unhealth look like, based on the definition of that type?" So a TJ's strength of dealing with making closure-oriented judgments in impersonal ways, or establishing "efficient procedures," would be dumped into the hopper to see what health vs unhealth might do to it.

It says nothing about whether the type itself is unhealthy.

 

[INTP]

:rolli: He uses one line on neurosis in each of the definitions of processes. Within a paragraph considering how - in the example of introverted intuition - unconscious extraverted sensation can manifest itself within a person prefering introverted intuition. That has very little to do with unhealthy or healthy introverted intuition. And it proves that he looked into and considered the dark sides of how the processes affected the people using them, not that he focused his attention on it.

But if you want to nitpick go ahead, I have no interest in doing so.

i never said that functions are unhealthy, no one in my knowledge said that(except jim assumed it for some weird reason). i said that types can have unhealthy traits, those traits can originate from faulty usage(or lack of using) of some function -> its not the function thats unhealthy, its the person using functions in unhealthy way.

unhealthy person is basically someone using his functions in really unbalanced way. unhealthy traits manifest when those functions are used in unbalanced way on some particular thing.

this whole unhealthy function thing is something invented by jim or someone else who didnt understand what he is talking about.

it should be mentioned that weak functions can cause imbalance(that leads to negative traits) quite easily, especially if they are used regularly even tho they are weak

 

[InvisibleJim]

(except jim assumed it for some weird reason).

This man has a curious version of reality; this is the first time I have quoted or responded to his posts in this thread.

It's not unhealthy; it's just Ti.

I've told you before; I'm not your mother - go away. Do I need to repeat the same speech?

 

[INTP]

This man has a curious version of reality; this is the first time I have quoted or responded to his posts in this thread.

It's not unhealthy; it's just Ti.

I've told you before; I'm not your mother - go away. Do I need to repeat the same speech?