Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What function do you reckon would be worst in display with unhealthy type ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Unhealthy Fe in ESFJ is horrifying for anyone who values their sanity

Unhealthy Fi looks like self inflicted torture and its painful to watch

Unhealthy Se... imagine being SO in the moment that you cannot comprehend ANYTHING beyond the moment. The amount of damage this person could do to themselves and others is insane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
They're all probably equally terrible, but we can only really speak for our own expriences. With Ni the worst thing is how difficult for you it is to find meaning in life and risk the option of completley disconnecting from the world. I think all people regardless of type can exprience those two things but I think it's pretty easy for Ni doms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Santa Gloss

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
In my head, Se would lead to some pretty serious problems in the long term.

I imagine Se to be impulsive, doing what it wants at the moment, without much thought about the consequences.
I can easily picture Se giving in to things like drugs, driving too fast and crashing, spending money they don't have on things they want - causing long-term financial problems, this kind of behaviour could easily lead to an addiction and cause real issues.

I picture Se perhaps not getting to work on time as often as it should and getting fired, etc, that kind of thing - impulsive behaviour.

I'm also of the opinion that a load of people who claim to be Ni doms, who speak of issues with their inferior Se, are actually either Se dominant or auxiliary users, who have terrible Ni - they've got it all backwards, and fail to recognise they are not in an inferior Se "grip", they are infact impulsive by nature and prone to making poor decisions in the moment due to a lack of foresight - not a one-off thing, not out of the ordinary, it's who they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PiT

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Being in the grip of an unhealthy bout of inferior Se could do lots of physical damage.

I for example, when my Ni is dying a death at a particular moment in time (in other words, utterly failing at it's role), would be likely to suddenly rely on inferior Se and likely think something along the lines of:

"Fuck it - this issue right here would be best solved by drinking all the drink, eating all the eats, and smoking myself into sensory oblivion."

It rarely happens, but when it does I at least have the rationale to go do it away from other people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
The notion of unhealthy type is absurd.

Either all people whose cognition is evident enough for them to assigned with a "type" are unhealthy (as were many of Jung's examples) or they just have natural preferences and functions that may seem dysfunctional to an outside observer due to "type problem" or "type conflict".

Either way it means that the observer must be aware of their own inborn level of "unhealthiness" - or a natural bias that turns them against other people - but not many have the self-awareness or guts to admit to this.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
How do you approach poor behavior/unhealthy behavior then?
When discussing 'unhealthy function(s)' like unhealthy (Fe)-users / (Ti)-users / (Ni)-users, et al - they almost always are utilizing a subjective or personalized biased 'criteria' that appears external/separate via typology itself, similar to those who utilize high-functioning cognitive biases & hueristics & other unreliable 'diagnosistic' methods to label those of their same type as "mistypes," because they ignore the distinctions between two separate individual INTPs for example; and how said behaviors may differ:

In other words;

"That's either an UNHEALTHY INFJ - or NO INFJ" at all because I do not agree/like how that specimen is behaving, which simply fallacious.



Such as "(Fe)" users are shallow / manipulative - and (Te) users are controlling / bossy - et al, labelling such behaviors "unhealthy", which incoherent.

It would depend on the behaviors in question, but I approach 'unhealthy (sub-optimal) behaviors' - or "bad behavior" with other areas of Psychology unrelated to the typology-dichtonomies or 'cognitive-functions', but psychology nonetheless. In the same way heavy "introverts" aren't autistics, and such 'bad behaviors' can be explained via more reliable areas of psychology, such as disorders, cognitive-defects, environmental-factors, & other.

If we follow the common logic of "unhealthy" (X)-cognitive users, I could label a (Te)-dom unhealthy simply because of a 'bossy attitude' which is demonstrably absurd - nor can it be demonstrated that is has any (sound) correlation to a 'malfunctioning unhealthy function for the user' because:

(A) - "What is a malfunctioning 'function'" regarding typology & the user?

(B) - "What is a 'unhealthy' function regading typology & the user?


Not simply pointing to 'bad behaviors'. As this does not examine - nor expound on the how [which is sufficiently important].
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
When discussing 'unhealthy function(s)' like unhealthy (Fe)-users / (Ti)-users / (Ni)-users, et al - they almost always are utilizing a subjective or personalized biased 'criteria' that appears external/separate via typology itself, similar to those who utilize high-functioning cognitive biases & hueristics & other unreliable 'diagnosistic' methods to label those of their same type as "mistypes," because they ignore the distinctions between two separate XNTXs for example; and how said behaviors may differ:

In other words;

"That's either an UNHEALTHY INFJ - or NO INFJ" at all because I do not agree/like how that specimen is behaving, which simply fallacious.



Such as "(Fe)" users are shallow / manipulative - and (Te) users are controlling / bossy - et al, labelling such behaviors "unhealthy", which incoherent.

It would depend on the behaviors in question, but I approach 'unhealthy (sub-optimal) behaviors' - or "bad behavior" with other areas of Psychology unrelated to the typology-dichtonomies or 'cognitive-functions', but psychology nonetheless. In the same way heavy "introverts" aren't autistics, and such 'bad behaviors' can be explained via more reliable areas of psychology, such as disorders, cognitive-defects, environmental-factors, & other.

If we follow the common logic of "unhealthy" (X)-cognitive users, I could label a (Te)-dom unhealthy simply because of a 'bossy attitude' which is demonstrably absurd - nor can it be demonstrated that is has any (sound) correlation to a 'malfunctioning unhealthy function for the user' because:

(A) - "What is a malfunctioning 'function'" regarding typology & the user?

(B) - "What is a 'unhealthy' function regading typology & the user?


Not simply pointing to 'bad behaviors'. As this does not examine - nor expound on the how [which is sufficiently important].
When I read this it more seems like a rejection of the label of unhealthy behavior fundamentally. If we are to assume that all behaviors result from the 8 cognitive functions, that is all cognition and thus all actions are resulting from a combinaton of the 8 cognitive functions(the mbti model, therefore not particularly up for personal interpretation unless you are also rejecting the mbti model), then we are going to have to label some behaviors as unhealthy. Rejecting unhealthy behaviors in general just kills all talk of good or bad so it's essentially arbitrary, but we can define "creating human happiness" as a pretty good standard for what good/healthy behavior is. Then behaviors that don't produce this are going to be labeled unhealthy and thus some behaviors resulting from the cognitive functions would, by extension, be unhealthy as well. Then it's simply a matter of finding which behaviors typically result from which cognitive functions and concluding that usage of that cognitive function in that way is unhealthy i.e. unhealthy function.

You could very well reject the mbti/jung model, but I sense the OP is looking for interpretation within this model. This isn't to say bringing up an alternative viewpoint for the OP is bad, and he may agree with that interpretation more, but it should also be made clear that it your intention to produce this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,428 Posts
Functions aren't unhealthy; people are. And what people are like when unhealthy depends on more than type.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jewl

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
Unhealthy Se is the scariest thing ever, no competition there.

Unhealthy Fe and Fi is just unbearable to be around.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
When I read this it more seems like a rejection of the label of unhealthy behavior fundamentally.
What is 'seems to be', is not what is actually said in my post. Although, I can admit my claim it does not exist, is rather extrodinary - it would've been better to simply say the 'unhealthy/healthy' perscriptions are simply incoherent / inexplicit. (I am not sure why dubiously submitting or passing on an incoherent / inexplicit) system is good for the OP, regardless. I encourage the OP to participate on the grounds of warranted scrutiny equally with his acceptance.

If we are to assume that all behaviors result from the 8 cognitive functions, that is all cognition and thus all actions are resulting from a combinaton of the 8 cognitive functions(the mbti model, therefore not particularly up for personal interpretation unless you are also rejecting the mbti model), then we are going to have to label some behaviors as unhealthy. Rejecting unhealthy behaviors in general just kills all talk of good or bad so it's essentially arbitrary, but we can define "creating human happiness" as a pretty good standard for what good/healthy behavior is. Then behaviors that don't produce this are going to be labeled unhealthy and thus some behaviors resulting from the cognitive functions would, by extension, be unhealthy as well. Then it's simply a matter of finding which behaviors typically result from which cognitive functions and concluding that usage of that cognitive function in that way is unhealthy i.e. unhealthy function.

You could very well reject the mbti/jung model, but I sense the OP is looking for interpretation within this model. This isn't to say bringing up an alternative viewpoint for the OP is bad, and he may agree with that interpretation more, but it should also be made clear that it your intention to produce this.
I am not sure I would say, "creating happiness," is necessarily a good demonstration of 'healthy' in so far as one can create happiness without such creations be optimizing to agent itself, thus sub-optimal & unhealthy regardless of how 'happy' the drug user feels when using. In other words, what is sub-optimal for the agent may or may not preduce hedonic 'feel goods' (due to its objective-basis). I consider 'unhealthy' an overall depletion/deterioation of homeostasis (objective / biological) - which typologists have yet to mesh the theory into, and explain how/why that is, [as I am aware].



I haven't rejected "unhealthy behavior fundamentally," nor "rejected unhealthy behaviors in general," nor have I rejected "the MBTI/Jungian model,", I do, however, reject the 'unhealthy/healthy' perscriptions asisgned to so-called 'unhealthy behaviors uniqely attributed to types' or cognitive "function", as they are simply incoherent - and the way they are attained is fallacious, in so far as there is no posed objective non-personal/non-subjective criterion in which it is presented & explained on how it is being applied.


On top of, neither Jung nor Myers has successfully meshed typology with linked 'psychological/mental disorders,' that eliminates intellectual scuitiny (re: "NT-s suffer from narcissism").

If you can explain (or present a good sources explaining) the how of the below questions (that merely isn't a personal or subjective) 'I dislike the way that (Fe) person is behaving' therefore, it can be reasonably said this person is an 'unhealthy type':



(A) - "What is a malfunctioning 'function'" regarding typology & the user?

(B) - "What is a 'unhealthy' function regading typology & the user?





Even if there is a 'predisposition' for (Te)-users to bossy, this does not demonstrate how this is (A, unhealthy in the sense, it is uniquely attributed to the (T)' in general) and (B, it is a uniquely so because the person is 'unhealthy') rather than simply a bossy T.

If you are saying that the MBTI/Jungian model warrants no intellectual scruinity, this is simply untrue, which in so far as (both) systems warrant intellectual scruitiny, for the reasons, not mere 'personal interpretations', I presented.


(C) - There is no objective criterion based on the 'persceptive' means of 'unhealthy/healthy' type function actually is: (no knowledge presented) that goes beyond mere 'correlative data'.


(D) - There is no explanation of the 'how' (how this works, how this looks, how this operates), that simply isn't riddled in cognitive-biases & huerstics.


_________________


What is perhaps, skipped over is a majority of the specimens answering to OP - have supplied no answers, or actual knowledge of what an 'unhealthy' type looks like beyond:

"Oh, an unhealthy (X)-user is so bad!", or simply ancedotally pointing figures at 'weird people', which is void of anything knowledgeably useful as none was presented within the model itself.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
I mean from what I see... They can all be pretty bad

Unhealthy Ne goes on delusional idealistic rampages where they generate 100s of unrealistic ideas and end up accomplishing nothing or defies anything and everything that is "the same" or "traditional"
Unhealthy Si goes into itself and drowns in memories. Everything becomes a threat, the idea of changing their situation seems impossible even if they know the situation is bad. Hyper comfort seeking.
Unhealthy Ni completely detaches itself from reality and makes up a bunch of theories of how it thinks the world works and plans that are unrealistic because they have no reliance on outside input
Unhealthy Se is overly hedonistic, brash, or completely ignores everything that isn't in the present. Ignores consequences for the sake of excessive opportunity seeking.
Unhealthy Fi becomes hyper moralistic and oversensitive to criticism, retracting into their mind and believing that the world is out to get them
Unhealthy Te becomes demanding in controlling, trying to make everything around them work "the right way" or linearly and throwing tantrums when it doesn't
Unhealthy Ti refuses to empathize, becomes robotic, and gets stuck in their heads with theories and is so distrustful of proven facts they deny reality because that doesn't make sense
Unhealthy Fe becomes outwardly emotive and manipulative or completely self effaces until they feel that they are hallow and nothing of themselves is left

Idk this is just what I observed, could be wrong
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
I mean from what I see... They can all be pretty bad

Unhealthy Si goes into itself and drowns in memories. Everything becomes a threat, the idea of changing their situation seems impossible even if they know the situation is bad. Hyper comfort seeking.

OUCH!

I consider myself a healthy type, but yeah, when things don't go my way that's exactly how it feels (especially the bold part).
 
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
What function do you reckon would be worst in display with unhealthy type ?
I'd say dominant Te because it includes high ability to exercise power with no concern for ethics and humaneness.

Like for example Stalin, lots of politicians, mobsters and serial killers.

I think nothing comes close when it comes to sheer amount of harm inflicted on others.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top