Interesting that both FPs and TJs have Fi in common...
and TP's and FJ's have Ti/Fe in common. NJ's and SP's have Ni/Se in common. SJ's and NP's have Si/Ne in common.
I based this mostly on my previous experiences and on random descriptions I found on the Internet.
However, I don't trust most of the MBTI-related information I read. So much speculation. I'm guilty of it too.
If Fe-users are more likely to care about other people's opinions then it should follow that TJs do care the least; followed by FPs (their Fe is higher in the stack), then TPs and FJs.
I have very little confidence when it comes to the functions. I haven't read Jung yet.
I also believe this is a bit more complex:
Wikipedia's article on Self-esteem said:Contingent vs. non-contingent
A distinction is made between contingent (or conditional) and non-contingent (or unconditional) self-esteem.
Contingent self-esteem is derived from external sources, such as (a) what others say, (b) one's success or failure, (c) one's competence, or (d) relationship-contingent self-esteem.
Therefore, contingent self-esteem is marked by instability, unreliability, and vulnerability. Persons lacking a non-contingent self-esteem are "predisposed to an incessant pursuit of self-value." However, because the pursuit of contingent self-esteem is based on receiving approval, it is doomed to fail. No one receives constant approval and disapproval often evokes depression. Furthermore, fear of disapproval inhibits activities in which failure is possible.
"The courage to be is the courage to accept oneself, in spite of being unacceptable. . . . This is the Pauline-Lutheran doctrine of 'justification by faith.'"
Paul Tillich.
Non-contingent self-esteem is described as true, stable, and solid. It springs from a belief that one is "acceptable period, acceptable before life itself, ontologically acceptable". Belief that one is "ontologically acceptable" is to believe that one's acceptability is "the way things be without contingency". In this belief, as expounded by theologian Paul Tillich, acceptability is not based on a person's virtue. It is an acceptance given "in spite of our guilt, not because we have no guilt".
Psychiatrist Thomas A Harris drew on theologian Paul Tillich for his classic I'm OK – You're OK that addresses non-contingent self-esteem. Harris translated Tillich's "acceptable" by the vernacular "OK", a term that means "acceptable". The Christian message, said Harris, is not "YOU CAN BE OK, IF", It is "YOU ARE ACCEPTED, unconditionally".
A secure non-contingent self-esteem springs from the belief that one is ontologically acceptable and accepted.
Last edited: