Joined
·
17,819 Posts
I've noticed the following terms being thrown about very loosely by a ton of people on this forum. And these are my observations of the intent behind the useage of those words:
Unhealthy XXXX
Most commonly used when someone wants to stereotype, but doesn't want to come across as stereotyping, or being typist, therefore the word is used as a prefix to generalize negative behaviour specific to an individual but to a group within the group called "Unhealthy XXXX's".
Healthy XXXX
Again used to describe a specific individual who seemed to fit the idealized archetype better instead of the negative one. Is the motive here to once again create a group within a group?
I don't think I've seen this word being used in authentic literature. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Why not try to get at the root of the potential causes for negative behaviours like Enneagram types, Shadow Processes? I understand that the material is hard to interpret at times, but if someone can make the effort to join a community to partake in conversations, the next obvious step to understanding people is to understanding the underlying causes for their behaviours instead of simply explaining them away as healthy or unhealthy
Emotional Logic
I've seen this used regularly - especially by feelers themselves. I fell in to the trap of doing so myself without fully understanding the concept as well. When I tried to research, I couldn't actually come across this term. So I'm beginning to wonder if this might as well be another term that's come into being specifically on type forums.
I think it comes from an inherent inferiority complex embedded by type descriptions as well as society which glorifies logic, and devalues feeling. I can also relate it to patriarchy where logic is masculine, and feeling is feminine, and therefore the undertones of superiority around thinking vs feeling have created this desire to add labels to feeling to make it sound more appealing.
Unhealthy XXXX
Most commonly used when someone wants to stereotype, but doesn't want to come across as stereotyping, or being typist, therefore the word is used as a prefix to generalize negative behaviour specific to an individual but to a group within the group called "Unhealthy XXXX's".
Healthy XXXX
Again used to describe a specific individual who seemed to fit the idealized archetype better instead of the negative one. Is the motive here to once again create a group within a group?
I don't think I've seen this word being used in authentic literature. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Why not try to get at the root of the potential causes for negative behaviours like Enneagram types, Shadow Processes? I understand that the material is hard to interpret at times, but if someone can make the effort to join a community to partake in conversations, the next obvious step to understanding people is to understanding the underlying causes for their behaviours instead of simply explaining them away as healthy or unhealthy
Emotional Logic
I've seen this used regularly - especially by feelers themselves. I fell in to the trap of doing so myself without fully understanding the concept as well. When I tried to research, I couldn't actually come across this term. So I'm beginning to wonder if this might as well be another term that's come into being specifically on type forums.
I think it comes from an inherent inferiority complex embedded by type descriptions as well as society which glorifies logic, and devalues feeling. I can also relate it to patriarchy where logic is masculine, and feeling is feminine, and therefore the undertones of superiority around thinking vs feeling have created this desire to add labels to feeling to make it sound more appealing.