Personality Cafe banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

The unhealthy sensual indulgence of an ISTJ

[ISTJ]
Jump to Latest
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
#21 ·
lollicat said:
I think this is what I was kinda getting at...wondering if this is the case with Si doms generally.
Click to expand...
We do place more emphasis on what is discovered with the five senses and don't trust that sixth sense nearly so much. But this is a far cry from what was postulated in the OP.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Well I was going to keep quiet and be a "thanker" instead of a poster, but lo and behold here I am posting. :rolleyes:

Ok, so I'll agree that moments of despair/distress/sadness/depression (I really don't care what you call it, but you get the point) can get to all of us, and some people try to deal with these instances in the ways that are being described, but I do not think that it has much, if anything, to do with strictly personality type. Yes, I am an ISTJ, and yes I do have moments of despair/distress as we all do, but I have a lot of self-control (which is something I pride myself on) and I find alternative ways to deal with these moments instead of indulging in something as a sort of "fix". I could go on about this more, and I did originally, but I deleted this additional content before posting.

In essence, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think you can link these "indulgent" behaviors to someone or some group strictly on the basis of their personality type, or one of the preferences that make up their type. There are a ton (let me stress a ton) of other factors that I believe come into play here.


tl;dr

Ignore this post and go back and read some other posts, such as #7 by @bluefizzure, as well as #10 and #15 by @niss. They are very good posts IMO.
 
#23 ·
niss said:
So, based on this anecdotal evidence, it would not appear that unhealthy sensual indulgences are dependent upon cognitive functions? (rh)
Click to expand...
Well anecdotal evidence is all I have to confirm what I read from a book. I haven't studied 1000 inferior sensors and reached that conclusion. I simply only know one person I'm relatively sure has inferior sensing and decided to share a counter example that also happens to support the theory lmao. I'm also not really trying to prove a point either, I'm just saying you can "explain" both sides of the coin using the functions. I think we venture into a problem area when we try to indicate concrete causal relationships between cognitive functions and displayed behaviour. We could just as easily say something as simple as... "Oh, the reason we see more sensor alcoholics is because they make up a larger portion of the population... like duhh". So then some dude would have to go find 1000 sensors, 1000 intuitives, then go find the percentages within each group of how many overindulged...but even then the relationship might not be causal lol

As I understand it the functions only really tell us "how" we perceive and reach conclusions, they don't predict behaviour. I think lollicat was just trying to understand if any of what she read about specific sensors indulging (ISTJs in particular) related to the functions. As others have mentioned there are no black and white answers to these things however I believe its fair to ponder if any of it is inter-related.

Lets take this first question for example "Why do alcoholics drink to excess?". I don't think there is one blanket answer for this even outside the function theory. Its impossible to peg why "all" alcoholics drink to excess. You could maybe say something like "Oh they are all unhealthy mentally". But even that would depend on your definition of what constituted a healthy individual (which is a highly subjective thing usually based on what current cultural norms dictate). You could try to explain it with the functions but obviously it isn't causal. You could say for an introverted sensor "Oh drinking reminds them of what it was like being in college and those were good times they like to relive since their current life sucks now". Just as you could explain why they don't drink "It reminds them of the time they blacked out and had a hangover for almost half a week, just thinking of booze makes them feel as sick as they were those days". Obviously there might not be concrete truth to this but it opens the understanding just a little, especially if there is a little truth to it. I think the only time we reach a problem area is when we start saying things like "All sensors overindulge because they enjoy sensual experiences more".

Maybe the need is an Introverted Thinking thing :p
 
#24 ·
niss said:
Our tendency to develop addictions is tied to our need to escape the pain that we feel; pain that has been inflicted upon us through a lifetime of real world experiences of broken trust and relationships. When the pain gets to be too much, we self medicate to escape it. How and with what we medicate varies from person to person.
Click to expand...
Right – people don’t drink alcohol because they enjoy the flavor. They are seeking the effects – escaping pain.

Now, I’ve often wondered what percentage of social workers are alcoholics. Because they have to see unbelievable levels of human depravity and interpersonal meanness every day. How do you deal with it and keep coming back to work? One – escape or coping mechanisms. Two – a fervent belief in what you are doing.

So how’s this for an invalid counter-syllogism: INFJs are the social worker type. Social workers need a way to cope with the crap they see every day. Therefore, INFJs are more likely to be alcoholics, or super-religious.:wink:

The ISTJ who understands that he can’t control other people’s choices, and who accepts that and makes his own cocooned little world, will manage without alcoholism or the Tim Tebow mentality. :dry:
 
Discussion starter · #25 ·
marsec said:
You could say for an introverted sensor "Oh drinking reminds them of what it was like being in college and those were good times they like to relive since their current life sucks now". Just as you could explain why they don't drink "It reminds them of the time they blacked out and had a hangover for almost half a week, just thinking of booze makes them feel as sick as they were those days". Obviously there might not be concrete truth to this but it opens the understanding just a little, especially if there is a little truth to it. I think the only time we reach a problem area is when we start saying things like "All sensors overindulge because they enjoy sensual experiences more".
Maybe the need is an Introverted Thinking thing :p
Click to expand...

astute response :) This, if anything, is probably closer to why my particular ISTJ overindulged in food and drink during times of stress. I think it took him back to the "good times" and he is in a sense trying to relive the past in order to put a balm on the sucky present. But even in that example he is still using his sensory experiences and perceptions to direct his behavior. But just as PPs pointed out, this could be said for all different types, not just sensors or ISTJs. Obviously theorizing based on one example is a bad idea, but i thought it was an interesting idea to explore, anyway :) Seems like you know what i was trying to get at.

Either way, from everyone's responses it's encouraging to know it's probably more a lack of self-control thing that can hopefully be addressed, rather than a functions thing that would probably persist with time, be it with food, alcohol, or other things.
 
#26 ·
marsec said:
Well anecdotal evidence is all I have to confirm what I read from a book. I haven't studied 1000 inferior sensors and reached that conclusion. I simply only know one person I'm relatively sure has inferior sensing and decided to share a counter example that also happens to support the theory lmao. I'm also not really trying to prove a point either, I'm just saying you can "explain" both sides of the coin using the functions. I think we venture into a problem area when we try to indicate concrete causal relationships between cognitive functions and displayed behaviour. We could just as easily say something as simple as... "Oh, the reason we see more sensor alcoholics is because they make up a larger portion of the population... like duhh". So then some dude would have to go find 1000 sensors, 1000 intuitives, then go find the percentages within each group of how many overindulged...but even then the relationship might not be causal lol

As I understand it the functions only really tell us "how" we perceive and reach conclusions, they don't predict behaviour. I think lollicat was just trying to understand if any of what she read about specific sensors indulging (ISTJs in particular) related to the functions. As others have mentioned there are no black and white answers to these things however I believe its fair to ponder if any of it is inter-related.

Lets take this first question for example "Why do alcoholics drink to excess?". I don't think there is one blanket answer for this even outside the function theory. Its impossible to peg why "all" alcoholics drink to excess. You could maybe say something like "Oh they are all unhealthy mentally". But even that would depend on your definition of what constituted a healthy individual (which is a highly subjective thing usually based on what current cultural norms dictate). You could try to explain it with the functions but obviously it isn't causal. You could say for an introverted sensor* "Oh drinking reminds them of what it was like being in college and those were good times they like to relive since their current life sucks now*". Just as you could explain why they don't drink "It reminds them of the time they blacked out and had a hangover for almost half a week, just thinking of booze makes them feel as sick as they were those days". Obviously there might not be concrete truth to this but it opens the understanding just a little, especially if there is a little truth to it. I think the only time we reach a problem area is when we start saying things like "All sensors overindulge because they enjoy sensual experiences more".

Maybe the need is an Introverted Thinking thing :p
Click to expand...
lollicat said:

astute response :) This, if anything, is probably closer to why my particular ISTJ overindulged in food and drink during times of stress. I think it took him back to the "good times" and he is in a sense trying to relive the past in order to put a balm on the sucky present. But even in that example he is still using his sensory experiences and perceptions to direct his behavior.* But just as PPs pointed out, this could be said for all different types, not just sensors or ISTJs. Obviously theorizing based on one example is a bad idea, but i thought it was an interesting idea to explore, anyway :) Seems like you know what i was trying to get at.

Either way, from everyone's responses it's encouraging to know it's probably more a lack of self-control thing that can hopefully be addressed, rather than a functions thing that would probably persist with time, be it with food, alcohol, or other things.
Click to expand...
*Instead of introverted sensor, change this to anyone

*This is the escape mechanism/escapist behavior I'm referencing.

*Not to direct his behavior - to medicate the pain.
 
Discussion starter · #27 ·
niss said:
*Instead of introverted sensor, change this to anyone

*This is the escape mechanism/escapist behavior I'm referencing.

*Not to direct his behavior - to medicate the pain.
Click to expand...
But isn't it an attribute of Si to "relive" past experiences based on familiar/preferred sensations? You perceive the present based on what you've sensed or experienced in the past?

Medicating the pain is a behavior.
 
#28 ·
As niss has suggested, addiction isn't really linked to type. On the other hand, I can see the theoretical case for cognitive functions leading to indulgence in different ways. A basic example from MBTI literature is that since Se-inferiors use their weak Se when under great stress, they would be inclined to indulge in sensory pleasures like overeating. An Si-inferior, on the other hand, would lose their sense of options and tunnel vision on some unimportant detail.
 
#29 ·
lollicat said:
Hmmm...but it makes sense to me theoretically that unhealthy Sensers would be more inclined to indulge in sensual pleasures, because by virtue of their cognitive preferences it seems that they would just be more attuned to the physical world in general. Hence - the term "sensual"

By this I am not suggesting that ISTJs are more prone to be alcoholics or addicted to crack. Just wondering if the overindulgence comes from engaging in "excess" of sensory pleasures in order to drown out stress - doesn't seem illogical to me.
And hence my asking the question in the first place - trying to get actual first-person perspectives so I can better grasp you elusive creatures!! Telling me to "think harder" doesn't help me much :kitteh:
Click to expand...
I'd actually expect it to be we INXJs who are most likely to fall to physical vices. Se, more than Si, disengages from the personal impact of physical indulgence ("I want to eat that" vs "eating that will affect me like so"), which limits how much thought we put into the consequences. Given that we have Se as an inferior function we're likely to handle it quite poorly, especially under stressful circumstances, which can lead to acting impulsively and thoughtlessly when it comes to food, drink or any number of other physical pleasures.

Jump down to "Overindulging in Sensual Pleasures" for a more in depth look at it.

Si-Doms, on the other hand, pay more attention to the effects of their indulgences than anyone else does. In a sense I'd actually expect them to be amongst the most in control of that side of themselves.

But, of course, anyone can lose themselves to a bad habit, whether they're a stressed out INFJ, an ISTJ stuck in a rut, a bored ENTP or whatever.
 
#30 · (Edited)
lollicat said:
But isn't it an attribute of Si to "relive" past experiences based on familiar/preferred sensations? You perceive the present based on what you've sensed or experienced in the past?

Medicating the pain is a behavior.
Click to expand...
No, don't confuse Si with memory.

Not sure what you meant by the last sentence.
 
#31 ·
trewdys said:
As niss has suggested, addiction isn't really linked to type. On the other hand, I can see the theoretical case for cognitive functions leading to indulgence in different ways. A basic example from MBTI literature is that since Se-inferiors use their weak Se when under great stress, they would be inclined to indulge in sensory pleasures like overeating. An Si-inferior, on the other hand, would lose their sense of options and tunnel vision on some unimportant detail.
Click to expand...
This is basically what I'm driving at. Our inferior functions will be negative versions of what that function portrays in the dominant position of a function stack. Using ISTJs as an example, our inferior Ne can allow us to see possibilities in spades - but all negative. This is not the same as an addictive behavior, but can lead to a catastrophic reactionary thought process filled with psychosomatic reactions, left unchecked. I view other types as reacting much the same way, when dealing with their inferior function. Therefore, an ENFP in the grip becomes extremely negative, controlling, unyielding and given to trying to relate what is before them to negative experiences in their past.
 
#32 · (Edited)
Khiro said:
I'd actually expect it to be we INXJs who are most likely to fall to physical vices. Se, more than Si, disengages from the personal impact of physical indulgence ("I want to eat that" vs "eating that will affect me like so"), which limits how much thought we put into the consequences. Given that we have Se as an inferior function we're likely to handle it quite poorly, especially under stressful circumstances, which can lead to acting impulsively and thoughtlessly when it comes to food, drink or any number of other physical pleasures.

Jump down to "Overindulging in Sensual Pleasures" for a more in depth look at it.

Si-Doms, on the other hand, pay more attention to the effects of their indulgences than anyone else does. In a sense I'd actually expect them to be amongst the most in control of that side of themselves.

But, of course, anyone can lose themselves to a bad habit, whether they're a stressed out INFJ, an ISTJ stuck in a rut, a bored ENTP or whatever.
Click to expand...
Were addictive behaviors based on cognitive functions instead of a desire to escape reality and it's associated pain, I would agree with you.
 
#33 ·
niss said:
Were addictive behaviors bases on cognitive functions instead of a desire to escape reality and it's associated pain, I would agree with you.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that our experiences in life are what lead to things like this, but I'd suggest that our cognitive functions may come into the way in which we deal with dependency once it occurs. Someone whose attention was more frequently directed toward the state of their body or toward upholding their social image might be more capable of finding the motivation to overcome potential problems with binge eating, for example.
 
#34 ·
Khiro said:
I completely agree that our experiences in life are what lead to things like this, but I'd suggest that our cognitive functions may come into the way in which we deal with dependency once it occurs. Someone whose attention was more frequently directed toward the state of their body or toward upholding their social image might be more capable of finding the motivation to overcome potential problems with binge eating, for example.
Click to expand...
But those things aren't an operation of cognitive functions. Those behaviors are values, genome expression, and experience based.
 
#36 ·
Khiro said:
Would you not agree that our cognitive functions affect the way in which we interpret our experiences and are thus likely to influence our values and behaviours?
Click to expand...
Only in the "how" as to the way we interpret the stimuli before us - not the "why." That is driven by our values, genome expression, and experiences.

This is why an ISTJ can be fact driven, yet be either an atheist, a deeply religious person, or anything in between. To an outside observer only viewing behaviors, the dissonance of the extreme polarity in beliefs and values would lead them to believe that the ISTJs had differing cognitive stacks, because of the different values. Someone looking for motivations would see past the difference in values and focus on the methodology of the processing of information. They would see that both ISTJs exhibit similar thought processes, even though they arrive at very different conclusions.

Another example of this is the confusing of preferences with behavior. ISTJs prefer neat and orderly and prefer to arrange their surroundings to that ideal. The reason for this is that we must make order out of the outside world because our internal distrust of intuition doesn't allow us to draw connections and understand order from the chaos. However, the reality is that while ISTJs may prefer said external order, the ISTJs space can appear quite disorderly, with piles of papers and stuff sitting around. The ISTJ has a good idea of where everything is and where to look for various items. Mess with one of their piles of stuff and behold the wrath! So a preference does not dictate a behavior.

HTH
 
#37 ·
CSM said:
Well I was going to keep quiet and be a "thanker" instead of a poster, but lo and behold here I am posting. :rolleyes:

Ok, so I'll agree that moments of despair/distress/sadness/depression (I really don't care what you call it, but you get the point) can get to all of us, and some people try to deal with these instances in the ways that are being described, but I do not think that it has much, if anything, to do with strictly personality type. Yes, I am an ISTJ, and yes I do have moments of despair/distress as we all do, but I have a lot of self-control (which is something I pride myself on) and I find alternative ways to deal with these moments instead of indulging in something as a sort of "fix". I could go on about this more, and I did originally, but I deleted this additional content before posting.

In essence, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think you can link these "indulgent" behaviors to someone or some group strictly on the basis of their personality type, or one of the preferences that make up their type. There are a ton (let me stress a ton) of other factors that I believe come into play here.


tl;dr

Ignore this post and go back and read some other posts, such as #7 by @bluefizzure, as well as #10 and #15 by @niss. They are very good posts IMO.
Click to expand...
Well said. I couldn't agree more. ^^^
 
  • Like
Reactions: niss and CSM
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
About this Discussion
37 Replies
13 Participants
Last post:
Vic
Personality Cafe
posts
11M
members
172K
Since
2008
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
INFP Forum - The Idealists INFJ Forum - The Protectors INTP Forum - The Thinkers INTJ Forum - The Scientists Myers Briggs Forum