# The difference between a healthy and an unhealthy personality type, explained.



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

As by Warren Buffet, the man who doesn't know a single thing about typology.

*A healhty type has:*

- An upbeat (positive) outlook on life.
- Generousity.
- Has a sense of humour.
- Does more than what is expected, in their own way.
- Thinks about the nice things that can be done for you.

You've got friends and why do you like them? Generally because they have positive traits. And none of those are inate at birth, everybody can acquire those.

*An unhealhty type:*

- Takes credit for things they didn't do.
- Is a bit dishonest about things for their own gain without taking other people in consideration.
- Fill in the blank.

These are the traits that generally turn you off. 

At a young age (0~30) you can develop positive traits of the people you want to be, it's so simple. Take your 5 best friends and write down why do you like them? There won't be a quality there you can't have yourself. And simirlarly, write down the negative traits and look at yourself. See if you have those traits yourself and get rid of those. It's not complicated because a change of habit is too light to be felt untill it is too heavy to be broken.


----------



## Lurianar (Apr 17, 2013)

Healthy:

*- An upbeat (positive) outlook on life.* --> Disagree. Someone could have a negative outlook on life and still be healthy - it really depend on what society he lived in and how he was educated/lived through. It's more an ideological question here.
*- Generousity.* --> Disagree completely. First of, it's too vague and it doesn't take into account how everyone react to generousity. Some people are way too extremist on their "generosity" scale and that's rather unhealthy.
*- Has a sense of humour.* --> I agree on this one, as long that you accept that this is relative to the person itself.
*- Does more than what is expected, in their own way.* --> Nope. That doesn't make someone healthy, it makes society healthy. Not the same thing.
*- Thinks about the nice things that can be done for you.* --> Not at all. Same as Generousity.

Unhealthy:

*- Takes credit for things they didn't do.* --> Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both did this and yet I see them as highly successful and healthy (maybe more for Bill Gates but still). There's a huge bug in this statement.
*- Is a bit dishonest about things for their own gain without taking other people in consideration.* --> Well I don't consider this healthy/unhealthy at all. I'm starting to wonder if you're basing the healthy/unhealthy comparison on society's vision of what should and what should not be instead of the person's vision.
*- Fill in the blank.

*I understand what you're trying to say. But I disagree with that vision as it is way too general and put words on "healthy/unhealthy" as if everyone should have the same definition. Everybody has a definition of good and bad so why not have one of healthy/unhealthy?


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Lurianar said:


> I understand what you're trying to say. But I disagree with that vision as it is way too general and put words on "healthy/unhealthy" as if everyone should have the same definition. Everybody has a definition of good and bad so why not have one of healthy/unhealthy?


I'm not saying anything, everything comes from Warren Buffet, he talks about it in this video: 




The real reason why not everybody should have their own definition of healthy/unhealthy is because it makes communication impossible. Because we have defined what an INTJ is and what an ESFP is, we should also define what a healhty INTJ looks like and what an unhealthy INTJ looks like. 

Or we could be saying something like 'everybody has their own definition of good and bad, so why not have your own definition of INTJ/ESFP?'. As you can understand, if everybody has their own definition of each word then it would make communication impossible. If you want to keep your own definition, fine, but at least share what your words mean to the rest of the world if you want to be understood at all.


----------



## Lurianar (Apr 17, 2013)

Dedication said:


> I'm not saying anything, everything comes from Warren Buffet, he talks about it in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You just described what I thought about definitions. They are subjective and shall remain so. Communication isn't impossible in such case, it just expect the two individuals to communicate clearly. I probably don't have the same definition on healthy/unhealthy INTJ as you do (as an example), too, and that's fine. Beside, the world would be boring if everybody had one single point of view and followed it. However, I'd be dumb to forget some key elements of INTJ, as the word itself has been created with the very role of identifying some behaviors and attribute them to someone. So whichever the culture, the country, the continent or the person, an INTJ would pretty much be an INTJ (with a few variations, as we both know that not every INTJs are the same). 

Another way to explain this would be to explain me as an INTP. I am indeed INTP, though I believe I am more outgoing and more emotional than most INTPs, based on the "stereotypes" or the one definition of the stereotyped INTP. How would I fit in the system, then? That's why rules themselves must allow personal definitions and actually bend in a few directions. I am not an INFP, I am not an ENTP. I am an INTP who doesn't follow the stereotypical archetype "definition" (Ti-Ne-Si-Fe and persuaded I am not anything else). So even though I started from the global known definition of it, I still have my own twist to it. As far as I know I haven't mistyped.

So some things must be strongly defined. An apple's an apple. The sun's the sun. We define them to facilitate communication, as you say. Some things have a wider definition, which can be bent in a unique direction based on each person. The fight between good and bad, for instance. Or the fight between healthy and unhealthy. Trying to define those terms is basically stripping people of their freedom of choice - not that much remain of it anyway now. But we still have that, which isn't nothing and I certainly believe that we, as individual, should still have the freedom to have our definitions of healthiness, good and bad. It doesn't mean that some people shouldn't share their definition of such subject. It just mean that you're bound to find someone who disagree with you at one point and that's inevitable.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Maybe correlate one-sided dom functions (and by extension eruptions of inferior) to classical personality character structures and or disorders.

Schizoid: Ti
Paranoid: Ti
Hysteric: Fe
Dependent: Fe
Obsessive-Compulsive: Si
Narcissistic: Ne
Sadistic: Te
Masochistic: Fi
Depressive: Fi
Antisocial: Se
Schizotypal: Ni


----------

