Unhealthy versus Healthy - A Failure of Typology

[Eric B]

Psychoticism supposedly was split into agreaableness and conscientiousness by later FFM theorists.
Most other theories using the temperaments use a factor more analogous to agreebleness instead of neuroticism.

 

[INTP]

Psychoticism supposedly was split into agreaableness and conscientiousness by later FFM theorists.
Most other theories using the temperaments use a factor more analogous to agreebleness instead of neuroticism.

it wasnt split into those, big 5 is whole different thing, we went through of how big 5 was developed(and meanings for(+where they got from) agreeableness and conscientiousness) on out personality psychology class. we also went through eysencks type theory and this psychotism thing. agreeableness and conscientiousness were formed while trying to figure out what were the basic traits of personality. big 5 isnt some old theories modified like MBTI is from jungs psychological types

 

[INTJMom]

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!"

Of the instances in which I have seen a similar statement used,
I believe it was referring to someone who was so emotionally troubled,
they were no longer behaving as their Type, but rather as their opposite.
When I myself am not in my right mind, I become an ESFP.
Not not a "healthy" ESFP but rather a defective ESFP.
Is there some other way you would prefer people to communicate that?

 

[Orangey]

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.

Yes, I agree. I also think it's a rationalization tactic for those that wish to call themselves or others XXXX type in spite of contradictory evidence. "Oh, I'm still an INTP; I was just in an SFJ shadow because I was unhealthy."

 

[highlander]

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.

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

I agree with these points. This is what I was thinking "unhealthy" means. An example would be very poor development of the auxiliary or the inferior function manifesting itself excessively and negatively. Over the years, I have known people with this lack of balance and it does seem they are less "healthy".

The healthy-unhealthy spectrum has no origin with forums. The first time I saw this terminology in use came before these forums existed. But it's good to ponder the terminology we use sometimes to describe this.

I am curious. Where?

 

[A window to the soul]

This isn't rocket science. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

healthy - Indicative of sound, rational thinking or frame of mind: a healthy attitude; (source)
healthy - functioning well or being sound; (source)
healthy - exercising or showing good judgment; (source)

Synonyms: healthy, sound, wholesome, hale, well, hardy, vigorous (source)

Sounds like the unhealthy folks don't like the word healthy then? Based on the bolded definition above, I can see where an unhealthy person would be uncomfortable with that (the idea of rational thinking and a healthy attitude, which is not difficult to spot)... /light-hearted

Edit: If you're not sure what a "healthy attitude" is (as stated in the dictionary example), then I recommend you look it up. There are widely accepted "healthy" behaviors/attitudes that many of us subscribe to. Yes, you can absolutely apply this term to the person and at the function level, why not? (i.e., healthy vs unhealthy "functional attitudes"... also look it up.)

An irrational person making poor decisions = unhealthy!...
Examples: drunk drivers, abusive/cheating partners, addicts

My conclusion: We can whitewash what we're looking at with some other adjectives. It doesn't matter to me, as long as we all understand that there are good behaviors/attitudes/people that are rewarded in life and there are bad behaviors/attitudes/people that are punished. That's where "learned behavior" comes into play (Psychology 101).

 

[InvisibleJim]

An irrational person making poor decisions = unhealthy!....

Said the irrational dominant making a subjective point

I understand your point, but I can't agree with how it is deployed.

 

[INTJMom]

Yes, I agree. I also think it's a rationalization tactic for those that wish to call themselves or others XXXX type in spite of contradictory evidence. "Oh, I'm still an INTP; I was just in an SFJ shadow because I was unhealthy."

I guess I must be one of those offensive people who uses the healthy/unhealthy descriptors in this way.
The basis of my understanding of this comes from the book by Naomi Quenk called Beside Ourselves, which has since been revised and is now called, Was That Really Me?.

Besides the book, I have my own personal experiences with which the book has been of immense help.
For example, when my husband suddenly passed away two years ago, the shock overcame me. I felt like a deer caught in headlights for a solid 4 weeks with continuing effects for 2 more weeks. All in all, I know that I was not physically "normal" for 6 months.
The most frustrating part of that experience was that my normal cognitive functions were completely unavailable to me in any way that I was used relying on them. I was an "ESFP" for months and months. I had to make judgements based on my feelings instead of my usual methods which usually include cold hard calculation and research. It was very uncomfortable for me. I KNEW I was not in my "right mind" and there was nothing I could do about it.
As it turned out, when my doctor put me on an anti-anxiety anti-depression medication for an entirely different reason, within 2 weeks, my old familiar thought processes returned to me and I was back to being my old comfortable INTJ self again - as far as my cognitive functions are concerned. I hadn't realized how far away from my real self I still was until the medication made me better. These "Beside Ourselves" episodes can last for less than a day, or as I have seen, can even last over a year.

"Unhealthy" is just short-cut language. Call it what you will. It DOES happen.
I don't think there is a failure of Typology.
Naomi Quenk describes the symptoms perfectly, all within the realm of Typology.

 

[highlander]

I guess I must be one of those offensive people who uses the healthy/unhealthy descriptors in this way.
The basis of my understanding of this comes from the book by Naomi Quenk called Beside Ourselves, which has since been revised and is now called, Was That Really Me?.

Besides the book, I have my own personal experiences with which the book has been of immense help.
For example, when my husband suddenly passed away two years ago, the shock overcame me. I felt like a deer caught in headlights for a solid 4 weeks with continuing effects for 2 more weeks. All in all, I know that I was not physically "normal" for 6 months.
The most frustrating part of that experience was that my normal cognitive functions were completely unavailable to me in any way that I was used relying on them. I was an "ESFP" for months and months. I had to make judgements based on my feelings instead of my usual methods which usually include cold hard calculation and research. It was very uncomfortable for me. I KNEW I was not in my "right mind" and there was nothing I could do about it.
As it turned out, when my doctor put me on an anti-anxiety anti-depression medication for an entirely different reason, within 2 weeks, my old familiar thought processes returned to me and I was back to being my old comfortable INTJ self again - as far as my cognitive functions are concerned. I hadn't realized how far away from my real self I still was until the medication made me better. These "Beside Ourselves" episodes can last for less than a day, or as I have seen, can even last over a year.

"Unhealthy" is just short-cut language. Call it what you will. It DOES happen.
I don't think there is a failure of Typology.
Naomi Quenk describes the symptoms perfectly, all within the realm of Typology.

This is an excellent example and description.

 

[prplchknz]

This isn't rocket science. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

.[/I]

unless it's a dog raised by ducks than it might be a dog who thinks it's a duck.

 

[Mal12345]

I am curious. Where?

Jung, although I don't think he had a real way to categorize "healthy," it was more like an impossible ideal.

 

[Eric B]

it wasnt split into those, big 5 is whole different thing, we went through of how big 5 was developed(and meanings for(+where they got from) agreeableness and conscientiousness) on out personality psychology class. we also went through eysencks type theory and this psychotism thing. agreeableness and conscientiousness were formed while trying to figure out what were the basic traits of personality. big 5 isnt some old theories modified like MBTI is from jungs psychological types

This article suggests they were, and that eysenck acknowledged them as such, though still felt his factor was better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck

Extraversion and Neuroticism in the Big Five are similar to Eysenck's traits of the same name. However, what Eysenck calls the trait of Psychoticism corresponds to two traits in the Big Five model: Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. Eysenck's personality system did not address Openness to experience. He argued that his approach was a better description of personality (Eysenck, 1992a; 1992b).

 

[sculpting]

*grumbles* er, um, well...

unhealthy/healthy
normal/shadow
conscious/unconscious
differentiated/undifferentiated

These all seem sort of black and white to me... also what did Jesus say? the guy with no sins gets to cast the first stone? So I do agree in some sense that it isnt a good idea to start telling other people they are not using their functions "healthily". Also since we all have different scales of judgment, healthy and normal will vary pretty dramatically in definition until you hit an extreme edge of VERY unhealthy behavior.

But it does seem pretty obvious that the more you use a function, the better you are at using it. Thus likely when you do chose to deploy your dom function you are less likely to maim and kill others around you in blaze of splendid glory. I suspect you may also be better at understanding the breakpoints and flaws of the function-you have spent a lifetime working with it, thus are very, very good at using it with precision and refinement and avoiding making mistakes. You are also very good at recognizing the more negative aspects of that function and have likely learned to tune down or compensate for those negative aspects in order to fit in with others better.

However does that mean we should all avoid using our less developed functions because we may look "unhealthy" since we dont have as much skill with them? Seems silly, as we will use those functions in one way or another. Jung said the answer was to actively recognizing when we are using them-because use them we most certainly will, unconsciously, regardless of intent.

By recognizing our own shadow, our lesser functions, we become more aware of it and learn to use it more productively and hopefully learn to use it in a less negative way. By denying our own shadow we repress it and it explodes outwards and hurts us and those around us.

Part of the diversity of humanity lies in how very different our developmental paths can be and how the environment can drastically alter the native footprint of any particular type, to to better fit the world around them, so to start defining what is normal/healthy behavior for a type or function is very presumptous. Additionally, we all fluctuate as we evolve, thus we will have these functions growing in of their own accord in peaks and valleys as we age-with the associated tough times as we learn to understand those aspects of our own minds, pretty or not, "healthy" or not, we are only human.

Also, my favorite...why should remain trapped in a predefined footprint? If part of breaking free from that mold means learning to use those other innate aspects of our personality, even if in a rough manner at first, why would one NOT attempt to do so? (This isnt rhetorical, Id actually love explanations )

 

[highlander]

Very well said.

 

[A window to the soul]

These all seem sort of black and white to me... also what did Jesus say? the guy with no sins gets to cast the first stone? So I do agree in some sense that it isnt a good idea to start telling other people they are not using their functions "healthily". Also since we all have different scales of judgment, healthy and normal will vary pretty dramatically in definition until you hit an extreme edge of VERY unhealthy behavior.

Judgment? For heaven's sake, what does this topic, "Unhealthy vs. Healthy - a Failure of Typology", have to do with Jesus Christ and casting stones? This isn't judgment day! "Unhealthy" is just a simple adjective with simple meaning. It's *not* judgment in the same sense as your example. You're taking things out of context. Is constructive criticism judgment?

I think people should be free to tell others they're in an unhealthy loop or that their implementation of a function is unhealthy. This isn't limited to shadow functioning. As I've said before, "unhealthy" is not a difficult thing to spot. There are *widely accepted* ideas of what's healthy and what's not. I have no problem if someone wants to tell me I'm unhealthy and break it down on a function level by implementation. I appreciate the constructive critisism.

However does that mean we should all avoid using our less developed functions because we may look "unhealthy" since we dont have as much skill with them?

No and I don't think anyone ever said that in this thread. I know the OP didn't say that. As a matter of fact, you are the first person I've seen make that assumption. Where are you getting that from? Who are you debating? Specifically, how does a weak function look unhealthy if, as you said, you "recognize it"? an example?

I don't recall anyone ever telling you not to use your less developed functions because it makes you look unhealthy.

 

[Jaguar]

I think people should be free to tell others they're in an unhealthy loop or that their implementation of a function is unhealthy.

If a member is that intent on telling another member they're in an "unhealthy loop," they may just be looking at themselves in the mirror and don't like what they see.

Projections change the world into the replica of one's own unknown face.
- Carl Jung

 

[INTJMom]

If a member is that intent on telling another member they're in an "unhealthy loop," they may just be looking at themselves in the mirror and don't like what they see.

Projections change the world into the replica of one's own unknown face.
- Carl Jung

When you put it that way, it doesn't sound very nice.
It's the shadow. It's the self that shows when we're stressed out. It happens to everyone. It's a temporary phase.

 

[A window to the soul]

Constructive Critisism

If a member is that intent on telling another member they're in an "unhealthy loop," they may just be looking at themselves in the mirror and don't like what they see.

Projections change the world into the replica of one's own unknown face.
- Carl Jung

Come on, projection is not what I'm talking about. That's trolling isn't it? The goal of constructive critisism is for positive change; there's a time and place for it.

 

[Jaguar]

When you put it that way, it doesn't sound very nice.

Tell Carl.

 

[INTJMom]

Tell Carl.

Does the kitty need a hug?