# Mental Disorders



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

What mental disorders do what types are prone to have?

Did I phrase that right? Haha. Thanks for answering just got a little curious about this topic.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

This looks to be relevant. (Click for larger image)








I don't know how accurate it is, as I don't know where the information is sourced from, but the conclusions you could draw (treating anything over .15 in any direction as that preference, otherwise an 'x'):
*Antisocial* correlates with xNTP
*Avoidant* correlates with introversion
*Borderline* correlates with intuition
*Dependent* correlates with introversion
*Depressive* correlates with IxTx
*Histrionic* correlates with ExFx
*Narcissistic* - no strong correlations
*Obsessive-Compulsive* correlates with IxTJ
*Paranoid* correlates with IxTx
*Passive-Aggressive* correlates with perceiving
*Sadistic* correlates with xNTP
*Self-Defeating* correlates with INxx
*Schizoid* correlates with IxTx
*Schizotypal* correlates with INTP

Although it's worth remembering that, as I read it, the correlation is a relative one - that is, it's not that those preferences are particularly likely to lead to a given disorder, but that they are a good deal more likely than the opposing preferences to do so. Interesting that Schizotypal correlates so strongly on each of the four dimensions...


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> This looks to be relevant. (Click for larger image)
> View attachment 254154
> 
> 
> ...


There's a problem with any list where almost everything correlates to one specific type. In this case it appears to be NTs.

The biggest narcissist I've ever known was a ESTJ and the most sadistic was an ENFP. Your type doesn't affect which mental illness you're likely to get, although it could affect how you express the symptoms. [ie an ESTP with schizophrenia is going to look different to an INTP with schizophrenia]


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

owlboy said:


> There's a problem with any list where almost everything correlates to one specific type. In this case it appears to be NTs.
> 
> The biggest narcissist I've ever known was a ESTJ and the most sadistic was an ENFP. Your type doesn't affect which mental illness you're likely to get, although it could affect how you express the symptoms. [ie an ESTP with schizophrenia is going to look different to an INTP with schizophrenia]


Firstly, I think IT seems the greater correlation, at least based on my arbitrary .15 or greater limitation - eight of them correlate to introversion, seven to thinking, only five to intuition (strip away my .15 limitation and it's 11 I vs. 3 E; 11 N vs. 3 S; 11 T vs. 3 F; and 10 P vs. 4 J).

Secondly, the obvious point is that correlation means that the average member of type X/person with preference Y is statistically more likely than the average person who is not a member of type X/does not have preference Y to exhibit trait Z. It doesn't say anything about type affecting which mental illness you'll get, nor that individuals with those types/preferences will all (or even mostly) be "closer" to the disorders than people who don't have those types. Nothing about the data I've presented precludes the possibility that the greatest narcissist you know is an ESTJ, or (say) that the most schizotypal person in existence (however you quantify that) might be an ESFJ. 

Just to try and further clarify: what this list is doing (and remember, I can't vouch for its veracity, I just found it lying about on the internet) is determining the comparative likelihood of a person with a particular preference having a given mental disorder vs. a person with the opposing preference having that disorder. That says nothing about any given individual (there's no claim that personality type is the only thing that correlates with the disorders), or whether a particular personality type is "more like" a given mental disorder or not.


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

No it wasn't phrased correctly, but the point did come across so it doesn't matter. I doubt that there is any significant correlation in the first place, but I can contribute to the study by listing my type and non-neurotypical _diagnoses_: xNTx(leaning towards INTJ atm as indicated via siggy) - Autism Spectrum, possible Bipolar(though I rejected it initially, I still need to explore it's merit from a more objective standpoint). Issued 150 mg zoloft, then switched to Prozac & visit Centerstone clinic weekly. And yes, I'm perfectly high-functioning . I'm not abhorrently crazy or stupid whatsoever(the stereotypers are), though it may seem like it w/the list lol :crazy: - Jack


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

It correlates to NTs (especially introverted ones) because we're rare. Are these really disorders at all? Or just perceived as such because the types that display them are in the minority?


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Lestany said:


> It correlates to NTs (especially introverted ones) because we're rare. Are these really disorders at all? Or just perceived as such because the types that display them are in the minority?


That's what I was thinking. It doesn't show any true correlation, all it proves is that NT behaviours are more pathologized.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> Firstly, I think IT seems the greater correlation, at least based on my arbitrary .15 or greater limitation - eight of them correlate to introversion, seven to thinking, only five to intuition (strip away my .15 limitation and it's 11 I vs. 3 E; 11 N vs. 3 S; 11 T vs. 3 F; and 10 P vs. 4 J).
> 
> Secondly, the obvious point is that correlation means that the average member of type X/person with preference Y is statistically more likely than the average person who is not a member of type X/does not have preference Y to exhibit trait Z. It doesn't say anything about type affecting which mental illness you'll get, nor that individuals with those types/preferences will all (or even mostly) be "closer" to the disorders than people who don't have those types. Nothing about the data I've presented precludes the possibility that the greatest narcissist you know is an ESTJ, or (say) that the most schizotypal person in existence (however you quantify that) might be an ESFJ.
> 
> Just to try and further clarify: what this list is doing (and remember, I can't vouch for its veracity, I just found it lying about on the internet) is determining the comparative likelihood of a person with a particular preference having a given mental disorder vs. a person with the opposing preference having that disorder. That says nothing about any given individual (there's no claim that personality type is the only thing that correlates with the disorders), or whether a particular personality type is "more like" a given mental disorder or not.


I'm not saying it's wrong because I don't understand how it works and need it explained to me.

I'm saying it's wrong because I understand _exactly_ how it works and can see the massive flaws in logic it takes to produce a list that primarily implicates NTs in having mental disorders.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

owlboy said:


> I'm not saying it's wrong because I don't understand how it works and need it explained to me.
> 
> I'm saying it's wrong because I understand _exactly_ how it works and can see the massive flaws in logic it takes to produce a list that primarily implicates NTs in having mental disorders.


And the fact you're continuing to push the "primarily implicates NTs" line shows you're not reading the data correctly (given each of the dimensions has a roughly similar lean to one side, to I, N, T and P respectively), or else placing what I'd consider too great a weight on temperament theory and thus focusing on the NT part to the exclusion of the other equally important aspects of the data. 

You seem to be working on the assumption that mental disorders can't in any way be linked to personality, yet why presume that? There's no reason why a mental disorder couldn't occur more frequently in people of one type than another, that it might attach to people with one particular set of preferences more than another. That doesn't prevent anyone of any type having or not having that disorder. You could easily make the claim that the way we diagnose disorders predisposes us to put more people with a preference into the category unduly than people with another preference - i.e., you could argue that our method of diagnosis is wrongly taking healthy personality traits as evidence of disorder, and that such a happening would explain why the data leans the way it does - but I don't see why the general proposition that people with Personality Preference X are more likely to have Disorder Z than people with Personality Preference Y is flawed in and of itself; nothing about it is inherently logically problematic.

In the end, what constitutes a disorder vs. what doesn't is a matter of our own construction - certain psychological or behavioural states are disorderly because the psychological community says they are. Is it really unreasonable to claim that they might, in labelling what constitutes a disorder and what doesn't, have done so in such a way that particular personality preferences might be "implicated" (to use your term) more than others?


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

I'm concerned about the effect medications for these disorders may have on the cognitive functios. Around the age of 13, I was taking a combination of drugs for a disorder I didn't have (misdiagnosed, misunderstood more likely). That year of my life I refer to as the dark year, I was a husk of my former self. Everyone who knew me, relatives, old friends at school, asked me why I was different, but I didn't know.

I remember having terrible grades in school, struggling in Algebra. My sister and mother tried to show me the right way to factor a binomial, and it didn't click. Sis said she would have had an easier time explaining it to our dog. Mom asked if I felt that I needed to be in the slow classes. What? I used to be in the gifted class! 

Tried to go without the meds, and I returned to my former self. Got As again, never had problems in school, etc.

There were other signs that my mental ability had been dulled, but I'll spare all the details.

What if medications restricted brain activity associated with one of your main functions? For many medications, it isn't known exactly how they work, just outward sings that the desired behavior has been dulled. It could be that many people who take the drug don't experience the same side effects as I experienced because they use different functions.

Or, maybe I was just living in the shadow and the timing with medication was a coincidence?

Either way, I hope that one day Cognitive functions are taught mainstream. So maybe Dario Nardi’s research will yield enough empirical evidence for it to be accepted by the Te driven science community.


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> In the end, what constitutes a disorder vs. what doesn't is a matter of our own construction - certain psychological or behavioural states are disorderly because the psychological community says they are. Is it really unreasonable to claim that they might, in labelling what constitutes a disorder and what doesn't, have done so in such a way that particular personality preferences might be "implicated" (to use your term) more than others?


It is. Because that person isn't abnormal at all, but then will be 'fixed' for problems that aren't even problems.

If the behavior is such that it truly interferes with the persons ability to live a healthy life, then perhaps it would be better to approach treatment from a function perspective. Addressing what the actual cause is, and not working from the top down, outside in.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Lestany said:


> It is. Because that person isn't abnormal at all, but then will be 'fixed' for problems that aren't even problems.
> 
> If the behavior is such that it truly interferes with the persons ability to live a healthy life, then perhaps it would be better to approach treatment from a function perspective. Addressing what the actual cause is, and not working from the top down, outside in.


But see, that's an issue with both the diagnostic process - for capturing ordinary/healthy personality traits and treating them (wrongly) as evidence that the person has an underlying mental issue - and with the subsequent desire we seem to have in society to "fix" people, as though there's something inherently wrong with difference: the fact we treat abnormality as something in need of "correction" is the problem, not the fact that what we currently consider to define disorder happens to line up more with some personality preferences than with others. The unreasonableness is their labels, their methods - not the contingent claim, based on those definitions, that personality types happen to correlate with what they've deemed to be disorders.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> You seem to be working on the assumption that mental disorders can't in any way be linked to personality, yet why presume that?


I am _literally_ writing an essay on why intuition is linked to schizophrenia / schizotypal traits, so...er... no. [intuition at ANY level in someone's function stack, not just dominant intuition].

I don't feel like explaining what my problem with the list is for a third time, sorry.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

owlboy said:


> I am _literally_ writing an essay on why intuition is linked to schizophrenia / schizotypal traits, so...er... no. [intuition at ANY level in someone's function stack, not just dominant intuition].
> 
> I don't feel like explaining what my problem with the list is for a third time, sorry.


Your "explanations" the last two times amounted to "it overwhelmingly leads to particular preferences, and that's inherently a problem"; I really don't think that makes anything clear.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> Your "explanations" the last two times amounted to "it overwhelmingly leads to particular preferences, and that's inherently a problem"; I really don't think that makes anything clear.


If you can't see how that's inherently a problem then I can't help you.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

owlboy said:


> If you can't see how that's inherently a problem then I can't help you.


I can only assume you're mistaking problems with what we do and don't classify as disorderly, or alternatively problems with the way we diagnose disorders, for supposed "problems" with the fact that X and Y happen to correlate. You'll note that the majority of correlations are fairly minor anyway, and as I think I said before, much of it comes down to overlap between definitions of the preference and definitions of the disorder (easy to understand the strong introversion-avoidant correlation, for instance). Maybe we treat normal behaviours for some types as disorderly, and that's a problem, but I cannot see that particular things happening to share a statistical relationship is somehow inherently problematic; what problems do exist aren't inherent to the correlation, they pertain to external issues with diagnosis and classification. If you disagree, I'd at least appreciate a proper explanation of why.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Depression correlates to INs (INxx).

But in general, mental disorder is not type dependent. It's all about how one manage to adapt at his or her real world.


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

Regina said:


> Depression correlates to INs (INxx).
> 
> But in general, mental disorder is not type dependent. It's all about how one manage to adapt at his or her real world.


When adaptation means using Se, and you have Ne, there's a problem. 

I want to bring the idea of "type preference" into question. I don't think preference is really as much of a choice as the word implies. If it is a preference, it's our brain choosing the preference for us. 

So if we are unable to use the functions associated with "normal" thinking, or unable to use them well, one would have difficulty adapting to task that require that mode of thought/perception.

But, as always, nothing is absolute. There are mental disorders that to me, seem like clear disorders of an unhealthy mind. Schizophrenia for example, MRI scans show a deterioration of brain matter. The problem is differentiating which outward signs are related to healthy cognitive functions, and which ones are due to the actual disorder. 

Owlboy, when you say intuition is linked to Schizophrenia, are you saying that Schizophrenia is the result of intuition, or that those with intuition may show schizophrenic like signs that could lead to a misdiagnosis?


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Lestany said:


> There are mental disorders that to me, seem like clear disorders of an unhealthy mind. Schizophrenia for example, MRI scans show a deterioration of brain matter. The problem is differentiating which outward signs are related to healthy cognitive functions, and which ones are due to the actual disorder.


Schizophrenia is the most severe of all mental disorders because there is a deterioration in functioning (occupational, social, and cognitive). Cognitive impairment is the most obvious as schizophrenics cannot distinguish reality from fantasy, and the reasoning, proper judgment, and the processing of new information becomes chaotic. You have healthy cognitive functions if you think clearly, can concentrate, can focus on things, have the ability to learn new ideas or skills.

You have the disorder if your interpretation or perception of things is different from what is happening in the reality. For example, delusions, paranoia, and persecutions. A person with a mental disorder doesn't feel good about himself/herself and others. And a simple laughing of some people when you're looking at them from afar could be interpreted negatively from a person with paranoia. And when someone refuse to believe a fact that has evidence, one is said to be delusional. 



Lestany said:


> Owlboy, when you say intuition is linked to Schizophrenia, are you saying that Schizophrenia is the result of intuition, or that those with intuition may show schizophrenic like signs that could lead to a misdiagnosis?


You can use "@" before a person's username, so that he'll have a notification that you mentioned him.

Schizophrenia is partly biological, and partly environmental (like how one is being raised). There's no study that Schizophrenia is linked to high intuition.


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

Regina said:


> You have the disorder if your interpretation or perception of things is different from what is happening in the reality. For example, delusions, paranoia, and persecutions. A person with a mental disorder doesn't feel good about himself/herself and others. And a simple laughing of some people when you're looking at them from afar could be interpreted negatively from a person with paranoia. And when someone refuse to believe a fact that has evidence, one is said to be delusional.


I understand the difference between healthy functions and 'the reality split' that Schizophrenics experience, but I also see how someone can misinterpret healthy cognitive function perceptions for the symptoms of the disorder.

I remember one of my INFJ friends telling me about her 'visions', and my direct response was "have you ever heard of Schizophrenia?". Only years later, after engrossing myself in the study of functions, did I finally understand what was going on.

I see no reason why Schizophrenia would occur in those with high Ni/Ne anymore than it would in those with high Si/Se. I'm curious about how many Ni/Ne types are misdiagnosed due to the abstract nature of their function (especially for INJs).



> There's no study that Schizophrenia is linked to high intuition.


I see two possible reasons for this:

1) no studies have been done

2) there have been studies, and no correlation has been found.

I remain open to either possibility. I'm more of a bystander in this thread anyway, seeking to gain understanding, but arguing no one specific side.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Lestany said:


> Owlboy, when you say intuition is linked to Schizophrenia, are you saying that Schizophrenia is the result of intuition, or that those with intuition may show schizophrenic like signs that could lead to a misdiagnosis?


I think psychosis can be attributed to run-away intuition that isn't being held in check by a judging function for whatever reason. And since everyone has an intuition function on some level anyone could potentially develop it in the right circumstances- it's not just a dominant intuitive thing.

It's mostly based on my own personal experience since I'm prone to psychotic episodes and have been in and out of mental hospitals for a decade or so. I see aspects of both Ne and Si in the type of delusions that I have. [type theory actually really helped me understand what was going on and that what I was experiencing was in fact mental illness. Before learning about typology and being able to attribute what I was experiencing to particular functions, I was in total denial that I was ill].

I've also seen people who were definitely delusional but exhibited their delusions in such a profoundly different way to mine that I had to wonder if it was linked to type. Like this ESTP I know who becomes a classic ''the government is after me'' type conspiracy theory nut whenever he's losing touch with reality. My paranoias are nothing like that so I wonder if it's a Ne-Si / Se-Ni difference.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Regina said:


> Schizophrenia is partly biological, and partly environmental (like how one is being raised). There's no study that Schizophrenia is linked to high intuition.


I didn't say it was linked to high intuition. I said, quite clearly, that intuition could be responsible in a general sort of way. Since everyone is capable of intuition to some degree.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Lestany said:


> I understand the difference between healthy functions and 'the reality split' that Schizophrenics experience, but I also see how someone can misinterpret healthy cognitive function perceptions for the symptoms of the disorder.
> 
> I remember one of my INFJ friends telling me about her 'visions', and my direct response was "have you ever heard of Schizophrenia?". Only years later, after engrossing myself in the study of functions, did I finally understand what was going on.
> 
> ...


I can see how Intuition can have similar features not just in Schizophrenia but in most mental disorders as well.

Intuition is abstract, is future-oriented, sees beyond what is obvious, finds hidden meaning, whereas,
Sensing is present moment-oriented, focused on what the five senses perceived, more in-touch with reality.

If you happen to talk to a psychologist, psychiatrist, and spiritual guru, they would tell you that the secret to be neurosis-free is to be in-touch with _present moment_, and on what is _there.

_And the very nature of Intuition is not based on reality, but focuses more on what is beyond, what cannot be perceived by five senses alone, and doesn't focuses much to present moment.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

owlboy said:


> I didn't say it was linked to high intuition. I said, quite clearly, that intuition could be responsible in a general sort of way. Since everyone is capable of intuition to some degree.


Could be. But other functions could be responsible too. When a person has a disorder, the mental processing of information is not working well. It's not just Intuition. It could be extraverted thinking too (Te) - the way it organizes data and implements them, for example.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Regina said:


> Could be. But other functions could be responsible too. When a person has a disorder, the mental processing of information is not working well. It's not just Intuition. It could be extraverted thinking too (Te) - the way it organizes data and implements them, for example.


.... I know. That's why I was talking about Ne-Si and Se-Ni in the other post directly above that one.

I can't even fathom how Te could possibly be related to psychosis. It is, by definition, governed by objective, observable facts. When you're psychotic you lose contact with the objective observable world and nose-dive uncontrollably into your own subjective mental wanderings. If typology can be used to understand mental illness then it seems pretty obvious that introverted and perception functions would be responsible for psychotic disorders in particular, especially the pattern-seeking ones like Ne, Ni, Ti and Fi.


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

I know an ISFP who is a conspiracy nut. All it took was for one thing to shake his trust in what the media tells us. Now he blindly believes Alex Jones like it's some sort of religion. He says it's because one can't trust what the government says, they lie. I've tried to show him how some of the conspiracies are irrational, but it's always the same defense "that's what they WANT you to believe, they LIE!".

I see an Fi/Se dynamic at work. Fi is afraid, feels that it can't trust Se. Instead it clings to another source of truth.

Another conspiracy believer I know, an INFP (actually the son of the ISFP) uses Fi to feel what's right and wrong, but with Ne, he can abstract his view, see things form different angles. Still not as rational about what he believes (in my opinion), but even he thinks his dad is nuts.

So that's an example of how Fi/Se can create paranoia.

Perhaps a person who blindly refuses to believe something in the face of hard evidence has Si (trusting the past) without a functioning Ne.

Schizophrenics show deteriorated brain matter, shrinkage of certain areas of the cortex. It follows that this would impair the use of certain functions, thus leading to paranoia and delusions.

But I think other things can impair proper use of functions as well. Medications perhaps, and maybe exhaustion and stress. 

Sometimes when I'm running on no sleep, I'll be thinking about something and have an epiphany. All the evidence adds up and I know I'm right...then after I get rest, I think back on the idea and use deductive reasoning to rationalize with myself on why it's not likely to be true. The evidence is still there, I'm not discounting that...it's just that there's counter evidence as well, and I wasn't using Ti to sort though the idea and invalidate certain parts of what I perceived. 

In this case, It's clearly because I'm overtaxing my mind when I'm exhausted. It's like you said, a runaway intuition function without a judgment function to keep it in check.


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

@owlboy you might be interested in reading this:
Neuroscience of Personality

If you haven't already. It presents empirical evidence for functions and how they operate, using EEG and brain mapping techniques.


----------



## AshtangiBear (Dec 27, 2014)

Seems absolutely BS. What was your source?



StunnedFox said:


> This looks to be relevant. (Click for larger image)
> View attachment 254154
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

AshtangiBear said:


> Seems absolutely BS. What was your source?


Random googling - hence why I said I can't vouch for its veracity, that I don't know how accurate it is, &c. I had another look around, and this appears to be the source:
http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/dsega...igation-Jungs-types-and-PD-features-JPT-2.pdf

Some limitations noted by the authors:
- this used a sample of convenience
- type was verified only by the MBTI, disorder only by the CATI, both of which are self-reported.
- assuming that separate pole correlations add up to a type needs to be done cautiously


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Lestany said:


> @owlboy you might be interested in reading this:
> Neuroscience of Personality
> 
> If you haven't already. It presents empirical evidence for functions and how they operate, using EEG and brain mapping techniques.


I've seen him give a talk on it but I haven't read the book...


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> I can only assume you're mistaking problems with what we do and don't classify as disorderly, or alternatively problems with the way we diagnose disorders, for supposed "problems" with the fact that X and Y happen to correlate. You'll note that the majority of correlations are fairly minor anyway, and as I think I said before, much of it comes down to overlap between definitions of the preference and definitions of the disorder (easy to understand the strong introversion-avoidant correlation, for instance). Maybe we treat normal behaviours for some types as disorderly, and that's a problem, but I cannot see that particular things happening to share a statistical relationship is somehow inherently problematic; what problems do exist aren't inherent to the correlation, they pertain to external issues with diagnosis and classification. If you disagree, I'd at least appreciate a proper explanation of why.


Sorry if I was a bit snappy/rude in my responses. I don't really feel like explaining it right now though.


----------



## Massiv0r (Oct 25, 2014)

*Skitzofrenia* is just a *gene* think of it as an *amplifier* of the underlying genetics a person carries but when an SJ has it, things gets *ugly *(ex Lady Gaga)


----------



## BurnMyBridges (Jan 25, 2015)

My sister (an INFP) told me she thought INFP sounded a lot like Borderline Personality Disorder.
INTJ sounds like Schizoid Personality Disorder to me. And INTP does seem kind of Schizotypal.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

BurnMyBridges said:


> INTJ sounds like Schizoid Personality Disorder to me. And INTP does seem kind of Schizotypal.


Lots of unhealthy IxTP types are probably kind of schizotypal. I'd say unhealthy TJs are usually more narcissistic than schizoid.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

I feel a lot of unhealthy Ni/Se in my expressions of severe anxiety and compulsive behavior. I've also met a couple of ESTPs who had paranoia in the "they are coming for me" style (inferior Ni), as well as one INTP with moderate social phobia (inferior Fe).

I wonder how much influence our dominant and inferior functions have on the development of mental disorders. Since types of personality point out which career field you're most likely to pick and how was your behavior as a kid, why it couldn't indicate which mental disorder your thought patterns have the higher probability to express?


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

hannahdonot said:


> I feel a lot of unhealthy Ni/Se in my expressions of severe anxiety and compulsive behavior. I've also met a couple of ESTPs who had paranoia in the "they are coming for me" style (inferior Ni), as well as one INTP with moderate social phobia (inferior Fe).


I probably have that. If not then just a lot of general anxiety and depression.


----------



## 1000BugsNightSky (May 8, 2014)

I think I have social anxiety.
And I think I had mild depression in high school but not anymore. 
Neither were diagnosed, but both are pretty easy to tell if you have them or not, especially social anxiety.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Psychosis has nothing to do with intuition.


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

Aiwass said:


> I wonder how much influence our dominant and inferior functions have on the development of mental disorders.


Here's a thought - perhaps it doesn't influence the development of mental disorders, perhaps the dymanic IS the mental disorder. Unhealthy development would intensify it's expression, to the extreme it becomes problematic, so that's not to say that everyone with that type has a disorder, but that disorders are associated with certain type dynamics more than others.

You also have to consider the triggers for grip behavior, and which type is more likely to encounter these triggers on a regular basis. 

Just something I'm throwing out there to think about.


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

Cesspool said:


> Psychosis has nothing to do with intuition.



That's nice. Earlier in the thread, we've discussed the possible whys and hows of this correlation. If you disagree with the theory, that's fine, but it would be nice to hear why you believe it to be wrong.


----------

