[SilentScream]

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.

 

[Jewl]

@Jawz - YES. Golden shiny medal of awesomeness to you. ^^ I definitely don't like the uses of "healthy" or "unhealthy", because people use those terms as excuses. "Yes, this person was type XXXX, but my experience was bad with them because they were unhealthy... now I can't seem to get along with type XXXX though..." etc. You can see this used all the time in the ESFJ forum, unfortunately. There's a ton of misinformation, misunderstandings, and stereotypes that float around on this site. It'd be cool if we had some article or some stickied thread that addressed some of the common ones that 85% of this site seems to go along with. I believe some of that happens because it really is hard to find good information. If it were laid out clearly - "Here's the good side of MBTI, here's where it differs from Jung, here's why some people dislike MBTI, here's common misconceptions people may have" etc it might help things a bit.

Emotional logic? I've not run across that one yet. I think a lot of the misconceptions with "Feelers" versus "Thinkers" and "logic" and this "emotional logic" would be people misunderstanding actual logic, thinking, feeling, emotion, and how that comes to play in decision making. They all work together and I think that important to note.

 

[owlet]

I've seen the terms 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' around the Enneagram a lot. Maybe it kind of drifted over? As for using them for typism, it could just be that people are searching for ways to refer to groups without stereotyping and trying out many different terms to see what is acceptable and sticks. I don't know. Interesting point to raise

 

[LiquidLight]

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.

Thank you.

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

Soo glad you brought this to attention the way you did, @Jawz.

 

[SilentScream]

Soo glad you brought this to attention the way you did, @Jawz.

Thanks

I think some forums are more prone to this than others. So many "unhealthy ExFJ" comments that it's hilarious at times. And no one, and I mean no one has any idea what "unhealthy XXXX" means in technical terms. I've probed a few very gently, but to no avail.

@laurie17 made a good point about it being used in Enneagrams --- I wonder if we're getting a transfer effect from there - without having any source to back it up?

 

[Eleventeenth]

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.

You'll also see the very strong trend of people referring to their exes and their family members (or people who they don't get along with very well) as "unhealthy". The person writing/speaking/posting is almost always speaking as if they are coming from "the perfectly healthy point of view". If you read enough of those posts in one week, you almost start to think that everyone on the forums is a "healthy xxxx" and all the people who don't visit PerC are "unhealthy xxxx's".

 

[Worriedfunction]

I use the terms unhealthy and healthy all the time, but not in the contexts you described.

 

[SilentScream]

I use the terms unhealthy and healthy all the time, but not in the contexts you described.

Please elaborate. I would really appreciate it.

 

[Worriedfunction]

Please elaborate. I would really appreciate it.

Well basically I try to use them when I talk about traits attributed to people who either in the grip of a shadow function or inferior function.

Essentially it is about functions rather than types to me. But of course this is not for the purpose of accusation or excusing of personal responsibility towards their own actions, merely as an explanation such as this: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/96208-why-te-douche-bag-function-6.html#post2417263

However I do agree with what you've said in this thread. The use of the terms unhealthy or healthy as you quite rightly pointed out is often used as a simplistic cover for what might otherwise be considered a stereotypical or generalised pronouncement.

 

[TrailMix]

Haha, I thought this thread was about grammar nazis and I was going to apologize for being one.

 

[Ace Face]

I have a couple of points I'd like to contribute.

I use the terms healthy and unhealthy to describe certain people, but not necessarily their types. When I include their types, I feel as if I'm being more specific. I don't use my friends' names on here so I refer to them by their type when I speak of them on here. I'm sure you've all heard me talk about my best friend who I refer to as my INTP lady friend before. I've said many great things about her. I also posted a thread about her once in the INTP forum, and I'm pretty sure I described her as being in an unhealthy state of mind. She I did not get into a fight or have a disagreement. Her behaviours at that period of time did not reflect who she truly is like they do when she is in a healthier state of mind. She was acting differently, and not in a "good" or "healthy" way at that point. It is not difficult to know when your loved ones are going through a rough time, and it's certainly not difficult to point out when their thinking is not as healthy as it once was. It reflects in their actions. In my most unhealthy states, I describe myself as unhealthy. I am much healthier now than I was just six months ago, and it shows in my attitude and in the way I now look at life. Healthy and unhealthy are, in my opinion, words that can accurately describe one's state of mental health. No, I did not consider my INTP friend a healthy person during that period of time, but I'm not saying that she's always unhealthy or that all INTPs are unhealthy or that all INTPs will act like she did when she was unhealthy. That's absurd. While the point in the OP is valid, the one I'm about to make is as well. Simply using type as a description i.e my ENFJ friend blah blah blah, can rub some people the wrong way simply because the reader misinterpreted the intentions of the poster who used the friend's type to describe the friend. I hope that makes sense. I'd also like to re-emphasize that it is not difficult to to notice healthy or unhealthy changes in a person's behavior.

*steps off soapbox*

 

[Enfpleasantly]

I agree with you, but at the same time, some people genuinely know the difference and use it on a person to person basis. For instance, I am totally surrounded by ENTJ's IRL and I love every one of them dearly; however, some are more healthy than others. The one I commonly describe as an "unhealthy ENTJ" is my Father, because he IS an unhealthy ENTJ. I don't prefix any of the other ENTJ's in my life with unhealthy, because they're not. At the same time, I don't prefix them as healthy because I feel that's understood; this is why I specify when someone is unhealthy.

Bottom line: healthy is understood, unhealthy is specified on a person to person basis for me...not by type.

Edit: Haha @Ace Face looks like we were on the same page

 

[MuChApArAdOx]

Emotional Logic. I can't say i've ever read this term anywhere here. I have read and used the term emotional intelligence

(Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups )
Emotional intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes this word needs to be used in order help those who believe that you have to have thinking preferences in order to be emotionally intelligent. Yeah too bad we have to resort to those things.

I must keep my eye opened for Emotional logic

Healthy and unhealthy..O>K....i wonder if the healthy ones at this forum aren't being effected by the unhealthy ones , tisk tisk....i think there are people here who are a bit of both. All i can do is cross my fingers and hope some of the unhealthy doesn't rub off on moi...Pufff !!......with that said, i don't think i ever use either word

 

[Agent Blackout]

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.

Thank you.

 

[Dark NiTe]

I try to use it when I'm talking about somebody that presents as having a personality disorder, but I probably do use it a bit loosely from time to time.

To address the OP's mention of "ExFJ" types, I would think it is due to the more obvious and pervasive types of behavior all of the extroverted Fe users trend towards in abnormal psychological states. Chances are, if your type is known for having such things as ASPD and NPD, more people are both affected by it, and notice it, in contrast to an introverted type with ties to avoidant, schizoid, etc. And there goes the reputations.

 

[Enfpleasantly]

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".

I agree with this, but it can also be used by a person to truly show they are not being a typist...here's an example:

1) My _____ is an ENTJ and he's often arrogant, controlling, aggressive, and obnoxious.

2) My _____ is an unhealthy ENTJ and he's often arrogant, controlling, aggressive, and obnoxious.

Which one seems more typist? The sad part is, neither comment is typist at all coming from me, but I would personally use sentence 2 because I think sentence 1 would be more likely to be perceived as typism. Anyone who knows me here would know that I'm not being typist towards ENTJ's. So, the person using the terms should also be taken into consideration.

Also, I personally appreciate it when someone specifies if a person they're talking about is unhealthy...for instance if they said:

"My friend is an unhealthy ENFP and she is very irresponsible, all over the place, and unable to commit".

I would appreciate the specification of "unhealthy", because I am an ENFP and I'm not like the ENFP described in the sentence.

 

[SilentScream]

I appreciate everyone's insight into this - I really do. I'm not the sort to challenge *everyone* because I understand where most people are coming from and why. I don't consider people who use "unhealthy xxxx" as typists generally speaking - but some are ...

At the same time, my core question still remains unanswered. I really don't think that there's any theoretical reason for calling someone "unhealthy". To me that is a descriptive adjective linked to someone's emotional health --- and without a proper diagnosis in tow, it leaves it too open to interpretation. Let's face it, all of us are judging people based on how we've interpreted what we've read - and not everyone amongst us is a doctor to diagnose anyone else's psychological disorder either.

I'm glad people explained their reasons further. Of course, knowing something at the back of one's mind - and seeing it verbally expressed is two different things. I needed more information about this. For the sake of diplomacy, I really appreciate the gentleness with which everyone has responded - even though I don't think a consensus on this contentious issue can be reached