Unhealthy versus Healthy - A Failure of Typology

[Ginkgo]

Amen!

I think there should be a thread debating the use of the word "Amen". All against, say "I".

I.

 

[A window to the soul]

Now it's very important to Pi-Je types. We don't draw all conclusion back to our perspectives and label others as unhealthy as a consequence of our perspective gazing upon them. You can label a behavioural consequence as unhealthy 'this malice is unhealthy', but it's not sensible to label a normal form of cognition as unhealthy simply because you dislike it. 'This Fi is unhealthy because it isn't in your top two functions' - The most common experience I have of discussing INTJ-ENTP relations. Of course this merely comes down to their PoLR. Therefore it's not unhealthy, it is what it is.

Hey listen, I understand and by hearing folks give their skewed opinions about what's healthy or not, it makes for a good argument. Which is why it's cool it does get said, so you get the opportunity to educate the novices. I think instead of feeling annoyed by it, you should take it as an opportunity to educate them. There will always be newbies that don't understand the concepts you understand. The reality is, this thread is eventually going to get lost in the shuffle. You've got to deal with it as it comes, when it's appropriate. There are cases when usage of the word healthy/unhealthy is absolutely appropriate, as I've already discussed; as you've already discussed!

 

[Xander]

From what I've read recently, typology should be related through psychology to the purpose of the psyche and the natural order. Hence a healthy psychology and therefore type would be one which leads to an improved chance of survival (and no we're not talking jungle here but socially as well) and an unhealthy one would put obstacles in the way or somehow inhibit the survival chances. Hence one INFP I know who is pretty much lost in his own imagination is unhealthy because his evaluation of things is hampered by his inability to accept and therefore think about reality as it is rather than as he would prefer it to be. That's not to say he's suffering from some extreme condition (I lack the training necessary to make such an evaluation) but when he's arguing points and requiring others to validate themselves whist simultaneously defending and avoiding any suggestion that he should validate his position I can see that it is hampering his ability to reason.

As to the incorrect usage of definitions, it is the current trend in culture to overuse and not understand labels. Think the next time you go into a music store what the separate "genres" of music actually mean. Did you just have to check three sections for the new CD you wanted because you're not sure what that particular store would classify them as?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Hey listen, I understand and by hearing folks give their skewed opinions about what's healthy or not, it makes for a good argument. Which is why it's cool it does get said, so you get the opportunity to educate the novices. I think instead of feeling annoyed by it, you should take it as an opportunity to educate them. There will always be newbies that don't understand the concepts you understand. The reality is, this thread is eventually going to get lost in the shuffle. You've got to deal with it as it comes, when it's appropriate. There are cases when usage of the word healthy/unhealthy is absolutely appropriate, as I've already discussed; as you've already discussed!

1) I'm not - I just don't shower my posts with glitter, it is not my way.
2) I am - See thread title, eventually when people search for unhealthy or healthy they will see this thread.

 

[A window to the soul]

From what I've read recently, typology should be related through psychology to the purpose of the psyche and the natural order. Hence a healthy psychology and therefore type would be one which leads to an improved chance of survival (and no we're not talking jungle here but socially as well)

Are you serious?

lost in his own imagination is unhealthy because his evaluation of things is hampered by his inability to accept and therefore think about reality as it is rather than as he would prefer it to be.

Did he tell you that or is that the positive perception you have of your dear friend? Is it possible it's the other way around and you're not accepting reality? Think about it. Serious question.

That's not to say he's suffering from some extreme condition (I lack the training necessary to make such an evaluation) but when he's arguing points and requiring others to validate themselves whist simultaneously defending and avoiding any suggestion that he should validate his position I can see that it is hampering his ability to reason.

How humble of you, "but".

As to the incorrect usage of definitions, it is the current trend in culture to overuse and not understand labels. Think the next time you go into a music store what the separate "genres" of music actually mean. Did you just have to check three sections for the new CD you wanted because you're not sure what that particular store would classify them as?

It's pretty straight forward 'George Strait'-->'Country'. Don't recall having any problems locating the CD I wanted at the music store. Regardless, I agree with what you said about the overuse of labels.

1) I'm not - I just don't shower my posts with glitter, it is not my way.
2) I am - See thread title, eventually when people search for unhealthy or healthy they will see this thread.

Understood!

 

[INTP]

MBTI is not an appropriate measurement tool for determining healthiness or unhealthiness.

but jungian typology can be used to describe unhealthy behavior, even tho you shouldnt measure unhealthy/healthy with it.

anyways, saying that a function is unhealthy is bullshit. saying that someone is acting unhealthy in general is ok and explaining the unhealthy behavior with his weird function usage is a good thing, because it gives a perspective to the person so that he can work out the unhealthy behavior. and like i said, you shouldnt say that someone is unhealthy because he doesent use enough Fi, because thats just an opinion whether you should use Fi on that situation. but because its ok to explain unhealthy behavior by lack of some function usage in situations where you need those, its ok to wonder if the functions are used together in unhealthy ways, because thats just pondering while trying to find the solution and make things better for who ever is acting in unhealthy ways.

anyways nerd girl > intj/estp

 

[A window to the soul]

but jungian typology can be used to describe unhealthy behavior, even tho you shouldnt measure unhealthy/healthy with it.

anyways, saying that a function is unhealthy is bullshit. saying that someone is acting unhealthy in general is ok and explaining the unhealthy behavior with his weird function usage is a good thing, because it gives a perspective to the person so that he can work out the unhealthy behavior. and like i said, you shouldnt say that someone is unhealthy because he doesent use enough Fi, because thats just an opinion whether you should use Fi on that situation. but because its ok to explain unhealthy behavior by lack of some function usage in situations where you need those, its ok to wonder if the functions are used together in unhealthy ways, because thats just pondering while trying to find the solution and make things better for who ever is acting in unhealthy ways.

I agree with all of that.

anyways nerd girl > intj/estp

You lost me there. What does "anyways nerd girl > intj/estp" mean?

 

[Xander]

Are you serious?

Quite. There are many reasons we can give to how we act but to believe that we are in some way disconnected from our environment and instincts would be to assume that we are somehow transcending our original existence and the evidence just doesn't hold that up.

Just out of interest, what would you attribute it to?

Did he tell you that or is that the positive perception you have of your dear friend? Is it possible it's the other way around and you're not accepting reality? Think about it. Serious question.

To assert that I am in some manner projecting my own inadequacies onto the other person in question would be to assert that I am in some way a certain person possessed of a mind which sees black and white. This would be untrue. I only formulated my concept after observing the subject for extended periods of time and considering other's points of view. It's not a hasty label which I would apply to someone.

How humble of you, "but".

Poor sentence formulation. I missed out several lines of thinking while going from thought to word.

Basically I realised that the description could lead a reader to think the subject a black and white case and obviously a "nut job", I wanted to underline that this was not my opinion but I also wanted to include that I often do not see how serious a condition someone has until it's proven beyond competent argument. Hence I have a friend who I generally regarded as just a bit fickle and a pessimist... then he got put on anti depressants and told me it was a reoccurring affliction. I tend to accept people as they are unless doing so upsets the balance of my life, hence I don't tend to label people as "wrong" or in some way defective unless I have what I think is a large quantity of evidence. Also hence I'm a pushover.

It's pretty straight forward 'George Strait'-->'Country'. Don't recall having any problems locating the CD I wanted at the music store. Regardless, I agree with what you said about the overuse of labels.

It would still make more sense to just use an alphabetical order (minus any "the" words at the start of the name for obvious reasons). Lex Parsimoniae.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think there should be a thread debating the use of the word "Amen". All against, say "I".
I.

So be it!

(= "amen" ... oh dear, what a conundrum)

 

[sculpting]

I said a lot more than that. I spent quality time reading and giving lengthy responses. I prodded for a logical argument that takes into consideration the facts: the denotation of the word "unhealthy", the context of the word, the source of the "judgment", etc. I still struggle to understand some of the responses where the assumptions are emotionally-based and not fact-based. Orobas's response today is a good example of that. Many of her assumptions about functions are not correct; they are not facts. So my conclusion today is summed up nicely by your quote.

Edit: That doesn't mean I didn't want to hear what others had to say. On the contrary, I needed to hear others' opinions in order to draw that conclusion. It also doesn't mean I'm not open to hear what you have to say now. I stated in a previous post earlier today that "I am open". I meant that.

My post wasnt emotional (although I admit being confused by your very emotional reply to the original post ). My post did use value based reasoning-Fi. Even an Fe value based argument at one point. Values are not emotions-they are rational, reasoned analytical tools to apply to a topic under discussion, especially one that involves people. (That would be Jungian theory as in Jung. Fact.)

This topic involves how applying the term "unhealthy" to another's type/function may be invalid. MBTI is prohibited from being used in a manner that determines if one is healthy/unhealthy via the mandates of the organization that distributes it. This is a Fact.

Any further discussion past the mbti mandates is all opinion, no matter what you quote.

My descriptions of the judging standards of functions did not include assumptions-rather just a different way of describing projection, a repeated suggestion in the thread, to try and clarify my original point and then extensions of standard MBTI/jungian theory (Facts, not assumptions)

My citation of my friend isnt an assumption-but her direct statement. I can conceed it may be ancedotal, as are the statements of the several other entps who have noted that INTJ-ENFP relationships appear codependent to them. FiSi will always be a Ti fail, alas.

One one hand you are seeking Ti terms to frame to the argument, but you refuse to supply your own, instead only insisting that your view is correct. If you really have such a great value stake in being able to call others unhealthy, then it might help to frame the argument yourself with your own definitions and such. If it is just a game of debate and playing devils advocate, then it might again be best to frame the argument yourself and define the limitations and boundaries of the argument. My opinion would be that the more restrictive argument would be irrelevant to reality at that point.

 

[Xander]

Basic analysis...

MBTI is a tool for describing someone's basic cognitive preferences and to outline a set of characteristics which should in general be accurate. It is as accurate as saying that a subject is dependable when that subjects own actions have shown them to be so.

If it is used to prescribe someone as having to act in a certain manner or used to limit a person in any way then it is not being used correctly. Ergo it does not follow the theory to ascribe any value of healthy or unhealthy to any function or orientation there of. You may say that someone is stressed when they are showing negative signs of a type as described by INTJMom but it is not valid to say that Ti, for example, is unhealthy for any type. The only means with which you can use the MBTI to define healthy or unhealthy is by using it as it is designed to be used which is a framework for communication.

For example, my father is an ENTJ. He is trained and somewhat want to listen to people attentively and compassionately, this is not a quality which is attributed to an ENTJ. It is, however, neither healthy nor unhealthy. But to put him in the position where it is necessary to continue to do those things as a means of survival then it would be an unhealthy position for him and one form of helping him with that problem would be to try and get him to use his more dominant preferences for a while as a break.

This kind of healthy/unhealthy situation is also exampled by my former employment situation where I worked in a hostile environment with a bunch of competitive ESTJs and ESTPs. My adaptation to that environment and the coping mechanisms I used were not unhealthy but when I got home I'd spend 10-15 minutes with a book relaxing in order to release the tension being in that situation caused. Were I to arrive home and continue to bring that hostile environment with me (as I did on occasion) I'd display characteristics which would be unhealthy for me as they were no longer in context and were a result of me not being able to cope on that occasion. Some of these signs could be assigned MBTI attributes by those with a want to do so but I would still be an INTP no matter what I was doing. Assigning MBTI attributes to things which should not have such things is not a fault of the system but a fault of the person employing the system.

How am I defining unhealthy, that would be a state where I or someone is showing characteristics which do not serve to further themselves in terms of survivability (instincts), popularity (social) or goals. I'd guess if you wanted a good idea of where those kinds of measurements came from then I'd suggest looking into Maslow's hierarchy of needs, though I have my reservations about the whole "stage 1 needs to be done before stage 2 can happen", personally I think they under use the idea of undermining.

 

[sculpting]

My friend sent me the below link today which is much like this discussion in the thread. Granted, it discusses true mental illness, not simply labels of "healthy" and "unhealthy", but the findings are quite interesting and highlight the damage labels can do as well as the very subjective nature of even medical diagnosis by experts. Just some food for thought.

Link with some quotes below: http://psychrights.org/Articles/Rosenham.htm

“If sanity and insanity exist, how shall we know them?”

“To raise questions regarding normality and abnormality is in no way to question the fact that some behaviors are deviant or odd. Murder is deviant. So, too, are hallucinations. Nor does raising such questions deny the existence of the personal anguish that is often associated with “mental illness.” Anxiety and depression exist. Psychological suffering exists. But normality and abnormality, sanity and insanity, and the diagnoses that flow from them may be less substantive than many believe them to be.”

“At its heart, the question of whether the sane can be distinguished from the insane (and whether degrees of insanity can be distinguished from each other) is a simple matter: Do the salient characteristics that lead to diagnoses reside in the patients themselves or in the environments and contexts in which observers find them? “

“A psychiatric label has a life and an influence of its own. Once the impression has been formed that the patient is schizophrenic, the expectation is that he will continue to be schizophrenic. When a sufficient amount of time has passed, during which the patient has done nothing bizarre, he is considered to be in remission and available for discharge. But the label endures beyond discharge, with the unconfirmed expectation that he will behave as a schizophrenic again. Such labels, conferred by mental health professionals, are as influential on the patient as they are on his relatives and friends, and it should not surprise anyone that the diagnosis acts on all of them as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Eventually, the patient himself accepts the diagnosis, with all of its surplus meanings and expectations, and behaves accordingly.”

 

[INTJMom]

I didn't say unhealthiness didn't exist (though I'm skeptical when people say that they "turned into XXXX type" because they're unhealthy...I mean, yeah, you may exhibit SOME behaviors that individuals of your shadow type would if they were unhealthy, but you don't really become that type, nor would you ever really be confused for that type), just that it's kind of a meaningless term when it's applied to others. You can feel free to call yourself unhealthy all you want, but when it comes to calling OTHER PEOPLE unhealthy (especially those known only through limited interaction on the internet) it's kind of, well, bullshit.
...

I'm sure if we spent 3 hours discussing the details of it, we would discover that we agree with each other.
Perhaps we should call it "shadow behavior" instead.

 

[InvisibleJim]

My friend sent me the below link today which is much like this discussion in the thread. Granted, it discusses true mental illness, not simply labels of "healthy" and "unhealthy", but the findings are quite interesting and highlight the damage labels can do as well as the very subjective nature of even medical diagnosis by experts. Just some food for thought.

Link with some quotes below: http://psychrights.org/Articles/Rosenham.htm

“If sanity and insanity exist, how shall we know them?”

This is the study which showed that only the insane could spot if others were sane?

 

[INTP]

I'm sure if we spent 3 hours discussing the details of it, we would discover that we agree with each other.
Perhaps we should call it "shadow behavior" instead.

In Jungian psychology, the shadow or "shadow aspect" is a part of the unconscious mind consisting of repressed weaknesses, shortcomings, and instincts. It is one of the three most recognizable archetypes, the others being the anima and animus and the persona. "Everyone carries a shadow," Jung wrote, "and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is."[1] It may be (in part) one's link to more primitive animal instincts,[2] which are superseded during early childhood by the conscious mind.

According to Jung, the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to projection: turning a personal inferiority into a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. Jung writes that if these projections are unrecognized "The projection-making factor (the Shadow archetype) then has a free hand and can realize its object--if it has one--or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power." [3] These projections insulate and cripple individuals by forming an ever thicker fog of illusion between the ego and the real world.

From one perspective, 'the shadow...is roughly equivalent to the whole of the Freudian unconscious';[4] and Jung himself considered that 'the result of the Freudian method of elucidation is a minute elaboration of man's shadow-side unexampled in any previous age'.[5]

Jung also believed that "in spite of its function as a reservoir for human darkness—or perhaps because of this—the shadow is the seat of creativity.";[6] so that for some, it may be, 'the dark side of his being, his sinister shadow...represents the true spirit of life as against the arid scholar'.[7]

yep, doesent seem very healthy.

 

[rav3n]

Isn't this entire thread all about "don't judge or label me"? Wouldn't it be less disingenuous to just state this?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Isn't this entire thread all about "don't judge or label me"? Wouldn't it be less disingenuous to just state this?

The thread is about the inappropriate use of labels; labels and judgements are entirely appropriate in situ when it is appropriate to use them.

 

[rav3n]

Psychology is a form of pseudo-science and typologycentral, less about psychological theory and more about what happens around the water cooler or coffee maker at work. Most on TypeC aren't professionals in the psychiatric field, more casual inhalers of knowledge in general or students. To then suggest that the label "unhealthy" is inappropriate for usage around the water cooler, would be inappropriate indeed. Very much a defensive reaction against criticism of any form that is personally deemed as inappropriate.

But I understand the human need not to be labeled or judged so I'll back out of your thread. Just wish you would be honest, if not with everyone else, with yourself.

 

[Totenkindly]

My friend sent me the below link today which is much like this discussion in the thread. Granted, it discusses true mental illness, not simply labels of "healthy" and "unhealthy", but the findings are quite interesting and highlight the damage labels can do as well as the very subjective nature of even medical diagnosis by experts.

This particular experiment (which occured in 1973) is more complicated than that.

Mislabeling by a medical expert is not the main fault here; the patients clearly falsified their symptoms, which was a violation of patient/doctor relationship (since the doctor cannot draw proper conclusions if the patient is falsely reporting information and actually doesn't need the help they are pretending to need).

Nurses and attendents then used this falsely acquired label in the process of daily caring for the patients, providing their meds, etc. Did they have authority in that system, at that time, to rediagnose a patient, if they were not an accredited doctor? Considering the authority ascribed to doctors in our culture until maybe the last 25 years (where the patient has become far more a self-advocate and doctors are routinely questioned as part of treatment), it's not surprising that diagnosis was left to the "expert" and the asylum employees just did their jobs of caring for patients and administering the prescribed medications.

The complaint about patients being considered "in remission" rather than cured also seems simplistic, since mental illness probably has more in line with cancer rather than the removal of one's appendix. The patient "looks cured" enough to function in society as if healthy... but one doesn't know for sure if the cure will stick or if the cancer will one day return. Realistically, one is only ever "in remission" (or, in terms of psychiatric care, "functional") rather than permanently cured.

Finally, there was enough accordance that the patients were released from the wards, rather than held indefinitely. Enough evidence accumulated to overpower the initial false diagnoses that were manufactured by the patients themselves.

In any case, since a diagnosis (AKA label) is necessary for treatment, and treatment cannot occur without one, we're not going to remove labels. Doctors exist to provide a diagnosis/label, so then patients who believe they are sick can be treated appropriately.

Which leads back to Jim's point:

The thread is about the inappropriate use of labels; labels and judgements are entirely appropriate in situ when it is appropriate to use them.

 

[Orangey]

Psychology is a form of pseudo-science and typologycentral, less about psychological theory and more about what happens around the water cooler or coffee maker at work. Most on TypeC aren't professionals in the psychiatric field, more casual inhalers of knowledge in general or students. To then suggest that the label "unhealthy" is inappropriate for usage around the water cooler, would be inappropriate indeed. Very much a defensive reaction against criticism of any form that is personally deemed as inappropriate.

But I understand the human need not to be labeled or judged so I'll back out of your thread. Just wish you would be honest, if not with everyone else, with yourself.

Well then, why don't you set a good example and start by telling us why you are getting defensive over this word? What stake do you have in the ability to call others' behavior healthy or unhealthy without criticism?