balanced vs unbalanced

[Amargith]

I was wondering if it might be useful to describe the healthy version of a type vs the unhealthy version, and for that matter, maybe link 'em to a fictional character in a movie or something like that, a clear cliche as such to serve as a concrete example.

 

[Fluffywolf]

The difference between being optimistic and pessimistic is probably one of the biggest factors here. At least as far as INTP's go.

Pessimistic INTP's are just so out there. Brr!

 

[Azseroffs]

I think most might consider me pessimistic, but in respect to myself I'd say my outlook is fairly optimistic.

Optimism and pessimism are as relative as 'good' and 'bad' imo
"Glass half full" and "glass half empty" are nothing but a difference in vocabulary in my eyes.
I think it's a little more complex than optimism versus pessimism.

maybe I'm just one of those far out there INTPs :rolli:



I think the difference is unhealthy types are self destructive while healthy types are constructive.
Unhealthy types are probably dominated by they're dom function and indulge in the negative parts of their tertiary. Healthy types have developed their auxiliary and inferior.

INTPs(TiSi) become isolated, detached, stubborn, and constantly replay past mistakes. ESFP(SeTe) would become too involved with themselves, neglect responsibilities, and become strongly argumentative/defensive. Just a couple examples of how that might work.

 

[run]

Unbalanced INTP: Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes.

 

[run]

INTPs(TiSi) become isolated, detached, stubborn, and constantly replay past mistakes.

That explains a lot...

 

[nanook]

there are too many ways for people to go wrong during their development.
i don't see how we could give examples without creating bad stereotypes.

its often the relatively saner/less stuck people, who admit a psychological diagnosis or allow their "lack of balance" to become apparent, as they try to learn from it. they would ask for therapy all the time, while the biggest nutcases refuse any questioning of their sanity as insulting lie.

if i would describe the most nutty version of a type, it would offend the above group. if i would describe the above group of a type, it would be harder to see a simple correlation with the function model (since they have more depth and thus are more complicated ...).

in anyway, psychological imbalance should not be interpreted as the result of a technical imbalance of functions, like some kind or hormonal disorder. it might be related in how it unfolds in terms of symptoms, but again, that is a too broad topic.

or do you want to define the word balance in a strictly typological way?

in my eyes, that would be two different topics.

you may have heard before that infj are supposed to struggle with the different worlds of sensing and intuition, while infp are supposed to struggle with the difference of thinking and feeling. or was it the other way round?

i believe i have observed that dominant Ne types can have trouble with the "rhythm" of everyday live.

stuff like that is about technical balance, but not related to psychological balance.

psychological balance is for example something like self-destruction ... such things are rather related to the content or style or character of functions, not their "strength", but ultimately they are motivated and thus very individual and should be explained by psychology, not type)

so lets try to separate the two sorts of imbalance by careful abstraction.

 

[Rangler]

The balanced ENTJs are aggressive, hard-core, driven, dominating, aggressive, demanding, and aggressive.

The unbalanced ENTJs competitive, thoughtful, leading, empowering, assertive, and bow tied with occasional moments of humility.

 

[nanook]

there are too many ways for people to go wrong during their development.
i don't see how we could give examples without creating bad stereotypes.

its often the relatively saner/less stuck people, who admit a psychological diagnosis or allow their "lack of balance" to become apparent, as they try to learn from it. they would ask for therapy all the time, while the biggest nutcases refuse any questioning of their sanity as insulting lie.

if i would describe the most nutty version of a type, it would offend the above group. if i would describe the above group of a type, it would be harder to see a simple correlation with the function model (since they have more depth and thus are more complicated ...).

in anyway, psychological imbalance should not be interpreted as the result of a technical imbalance of functions, like some kind or hormonal disorder. it might be related in how it unfolds in terms of symptoms, but again, that is a too broad topic.

or do you want to define the word balance in a strictly typological way?

in my eyes, that would be two different topics.

you may have heard before that infj are supposed to struggle with the different worlds of sensing and intuition, while infp are supposed to struggle with the difference of thinking and feeling. or was it the other way round?

i believe i have observed that dominant Ne types can have trouble with the "rhythm" of everyday live.

stuff like that is about technical balance, but not related to psychological balance.

psychological balance is for example something like self-destruction ... such things are rather related to the content or style or character of functions, not their "strength", but ultimately they are motivated and thus very individual and should be explained by psychology, not type)

so lets try to separate the two sorts of imbalance by careful abstraction.

you are right, nanook.

but you are pushing the standard for this thread too high.

let's just insult types with mad stereotypez during the brainstorming phase.