"Psychological Disorders": Just Maladaptive Qualities of Intense Myers Brigg Personality Types? Part 1

Intro to discussing similarities between widely known psych "disorders" and their descriptive counterparts in the "weaknesses" of Myers Briggs personality types. "Disorders" make as much sense as a poodle being found inadequate by standards of a bulldog



Before we begin, lets do an exaggerated analogy to our world. In a warrior society, a kind person who is a Buddhist (with good serotonin/dopamine production in his brain) would be diagnosed by warrior psychologists to suffer from "cowardice syndrome" and perhaps treated with liquor. Similarly in a kindly harmonious Buddhist society, an aggressive warrior would be diagnosed as having some sort of anti-social disorder and treated with whatever the monk psychiatrists deem proper.

In Myers Briggs personality typology descriptions, one can filter the most adaptive and maladaptive characteristics of each type. Assuming the type we're looking at is an acute one (say an ESTP with each letter being 60 or above), the so called "positives" and "negatives" can be extracted quickly. It then becomes very intuitively logical to think that some MBTI types are more likely to have some psychological "disorders" than others based on their default modes of being. All one has to do is match the descriptions of psych disorders with descriptions of MBTI types when they are not at their best and can't deal (say a stressed out low income and low education INFP in a country where ESTJs dominate culturally and expect everybody to be like them).

The reason why I put psych "disorders" into quote marks is that as hinted above, these maladaptive "conditions" appear to be (for the most part) physiological traits of different breeds of homo sapien when they are driven to the neurotic breaking point by social conditions. Negative psychology still dominates and only classifies conditions when they become the most apparent and severe. Usually that involves a certain breed of human being on a lower end of the socioeconomic scale who is compelled to seek help to continue functioning. Here is an in depth article dealing with the historically severe counterproductive nature of negative psychology versus the emerging field of positive psychology.

In other words,

1) The dominant culture/socioeconomic system of a country is often closely correlated to a few dominant Myers Briggs types (extroverted Ts usually)
2) Breeds that physiologically differ from the herd's ruling breeds are compelled to participate in a socioeconomic system (run by the rulers) that is incompatible with them
3) If people who are incompatible with their system are wealthy and connected, they have more coping mechanisms to deal with stressors and avoid/lessen activation of their MBTI type's "negative" neurotic qualities
4) Those breeds likely to seek help (and have their condition classified and codified as science) have had the positive qualities of their MBTI type suppressed and negative ones exaggerated by the neurosis causing social stressors. They are likely to be from the poorer less educated end of the proletariat class and thus have more on their plates daily while not being able to verbalize whats ailing them as well. Even if they are from the arrogant proletariat faction that fancies itself as "middle class", they are still likely to be misinformed about the fundamental structural nature of their neurosis and defer to the so called experts within the corporation dominated field of negative psychology.
5) All of this is exacerbated when the economic pie is shrinking instead of expanding (this means a reversal of industrialization rather than constant material renewal of an industrialized country)

To be continued...

Myers-Briggs Personality Pluralism

Greater harmony, productivity, and general happiness to be had from better study of differences between neural breeds of Homo Sapiens (hardwired brain differences resulting in diverse personalities and modes of function).



The year is 2009 and it has been over a century since popular consciousness has widely accepted the fact that humans are just another type of animal. Curiously, even as humans are increasingly accepting of political and cultural pluralism, there is still insufficient focus on how pluralism in general arises from differences in breeds of humans. Populous mammals like dogs and cats have a number of breeds that cluster by physiological external differences like size and internal neural differences like aggressiveness, friendliness, and task specialization. Humans of course are no different (even if their neural computers are able to run remarkably advanced virtual simulation and symbol manipulation programs).

The implications stand to improve the psychological quality of life and raise consciousness for billions of people. Although short sighted knee jerk idiots may think implications will automatically cause a return to forced eugenics (as practiced by countries like Sweden, USA, and Germany in the first half of the 20th century) or measurement of skulls to filter potential criminals, such proclamations point more to the pessimistic nature of those who make them. Scientific inquiry and further development of concepts known to be true have historically brought more net positives (raised the living standard of the human herd by allowing them to live longer and do less labor through technology) than net negatives such as destructive wars (brought on more by non-democratic political arrangements than technology used to wage them). Advancing study of implications from humanity being comprised of numerous unequally distributed breeds is worth the risks. Treatment of different breeds and self esteem of individuals within each breed stand to improve if there is strong emphasis that each breed is logically as important as the other in its social usefulness (although social usefulness should never be the only or even main criteria in social sciences or policy).

Right now we have a world where the German Shepards, the Pitbulls, the Poodles, the Border Collies, and the Golden Retrievers are all rightfully treated the same but they suffer from the problem of more numerous breeds (as well as the most vicious/cunning ones) determining what breed is the universal ideal for a human. Each person judges all others based on what the one judging is good at physiologically. A very empathic person judges others based on empathy. A conservative one judges the rest on how good of a conservative they are. Same applies to all the others be they a partying hedonist, an introverted scientist, an artist, an athlete, or a social butterfly with highly developed taste buds ("how can others eat that crap!?").

This is a very natural problem to have for humanity. Since every person subconsciously wants to expand personal power in all directions, for thousands of years, the strongest or more numerous breeds have tended to not just make their personalities and ideas into universal law for others but to actually buy into their own lies that everybody else should strive to be like the rulers. Even societies with caste systems were not immune as seen by India's inegalitarian caste valuation (warriors over farmers) and transformation from a caste system with social mobility to the entrenched stagnant system we now mentally associate it with.

A previous article touched on how Myers-Briggs personality test is a good quick way to get a glimpse of what neural breed a person is, how numerical predominance of some breeds helps preserve status quo, and how the differences in neural architecture split and unite people a lot more than externally visible characteristics like skin and hair color. If we use a typology system like Myers-Briggs, it soon becomes obvious that although breeds can form natural dominant coalitions (SJs) and (SPs), there will still be a lot of socially tangible differences within each coalition. That is enough to pose a serious problem not just for rare breeds like INTJs but common ones as well.

That problem is depressed self esteem from comparison of one self to those breeds that thrive in whatever socioeconomic system exists at the time (and whose mode of being are widely emulated for this reason) and from feeling alone and excluded since no breed exceeds 15% numerically. Whether it is an athlete, an artist, or a scientist, they are always outnumbered which leads to wishing that everybody else (or themselves) was different. Even within dominant pro status quo coalitions of SJs and SPs, a difference, between an ISTJ and an ESFJ for example, can be so great as to make them not get along well at all. This problem is heightened for NF and NT coalitions. Depression and various neurotic behavior thus results on a large scale. When a person says that nobody understands them, the case often is that vast majority (90%+ people) really don't fundamentally understand them. How can a German Shepherd understand a Chiwawa and vice versa? Only mutts provide the imperfect understanding bridge.

The often failed emulation of the most able to "make it" (or seen as more able) may be a more serious threat to the health of people's ego, their self respect, and their pride. Just as an emotionally cold and aggressive person may feel distressed when living in a hippie ENFP/INFP/INFJ/ISFP commune, a naturally empathic and kind Golden Retriever will feel distressed and alone in a society that values warrior Pitbulls. Similarly, when the types who make it in United States financial sector (children of the rich, psychopaths, and some of the more cunning SPs and NTs), a vast social pressure is created to pound in square pegs in round holes and be more like what is deemed "successful". It is no different than if soldiers were in charge and we all had to admire wars and go to bootcamps to be seen as having the right stuff.

As for psychopaths, their natural ability to blend in (so they can live off the herd better) makes them strong candidates to make it in any system. A super inegalitarian monetarist imperial system like our own is an extra juicy jungle to thrive in. Proportionally to psychopaths' population (1% for the true clinical ones and up to 6% for the subclinical ones), they are overrepresented on Wall Street and in prison (8% and 20% respectively for clinical ones).

Subclinical psychopaths can just be some breeds (ESTP/ENTP/ENTJ/INTJ backgrounds seem like good general prerequisites) whose T function and lack of empathy is so high as to make them exploit the herd (rather than improving it as has been the trait most admired in leadership by history) without a second thought. In fact it may be unfair to even have the concept of a "psychopath" as it represents just another breed of human that is adept at preying on fellow humans with elaborate disguises. Psychological pathology after all, represents mental "sickness" and mental "sickness" is just majority's flawed way to single out and focus on fringe breeds and individuals whose backgrounds make it extra difficult for them to make it. Not one breed is logically and generally more normal/abnormal or maladaptive/adaptive than the other since "normal" and "adaptive" is the bell curve average for a particular society.

Understanding these physiological differences can allow people to have more pride in who they are and develop towards a truly pluralistic and more compassionate society. Human breed science doesn't have to be a nightmare world. People like Foucault, Rousseau, and Kaczynski have made strong and effective arguments on how the more technologically advanced society becomes the less free we are. We need to understand these concerns and consequences of progress in social sciences but we can't turn the clock back since luddite solutions are not just impractical but inhumane.

Understanding that there are different breeds of Homo Sapiens (with often different needs and modes of thought) can allow society to:

1) Treat, help, and nurture each type better so as to make healthier hyperspecialized types. We can have healthier and better artists, cops, scientists, etc.
2) Treat, help, and nurture mutts better so as to have better ambassadors and communicators between the strongly specialized breeds
3) Develop better science as to which breeds work best with each other so as to prevent, mediate, and solve social conflicts
4) Help identify and isolate predatory humans better so as to lessen their abuses, reduce the number of their victims, and integrate them into society more productively
5) Strengthen proportional representation democracy and bring more harmony to the herd while preventing unhealthy caste structures from reemerging
6) Increase efficiency, productivity, and general happiness of society by allowing individuals to make full use of their strengths and be more proud of their neural architecture

Lets fully embrace what science has been telling us so we can graze on this planet with less confusion. A confused herd will make a poor recipient for when the singularity arrives. Lets end with a pro-mutt quote to balance the article and emphasize perils of too much specialization.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

-Robert A. Heinlein

Myers Briggs Personality Type and Political Affiliation

Modern psychology and brain anatomy studies reinforce the need for proportional representation democracy. That is because roughly 80% of people have brains that predispose them towards protection of the status quo





We've all come across people who just seem incapable of modifying their perspective based on new data being presented. Most of us still mouth the words that additional education (or indoctrination/propaganda as is often the case) is what is needed since surely this person will turn around if his/her consciousness is sufficiently expanded with additional data backing your perspective. However, all too often deep inside we know that some people are "hopeless". This conclusion concerning failure of propaganda is reached from all over the political, cultural, and religious spectrum at one point or another. It thus becomes fashionable to outright dismiss "inconvertible" individuals and opposing zealots (on political and religious fringes of any given population) as nuts and crazies.

Personality theory in psychology allows us to better categorize individuals in society without resorting to name calling. Myers-Briggs typology in particular offers a better construct (compared to useless terms like conservative and liberal for example) to predict how an individual will act politically and socially. Myers-Briggs research combined with biology and brain scan techniques also offers us hints at understanding the underlining anatomical basis that predisposes a person to be either a disagreeable radical or a gentle follower.

There's been little relative popular attempts to scientifically explain why the bulk of the population is always a warzone between the extreme fringes. It's just assumed that it will always be this way just like there will always be criminals and extremely altruistic self-sacrificing givers. This assumption seems reasonable and obvious but gives rise to two other creeping and unsettling assumptions:

1)  The human population is relatively fixed along a bell curve type continuum. Perhaps this is better visually represented by a sphere with a number of spikes extending from it. The moderate population is the bulk of the sphere and the zealous "radical" factions (whose opinions differ dramatically from the statistical average) are the spikes extending from the sphere's surface (as well as into the interior to some degree which would represent silent sympathizers). It is irrelevant to label the spikes as extreme left, right, etc. All that is important is that a relatively fixed minority of the population (lets say 10-20% range) will be:

a) prone to modes of thought that are tangibly different from majority's

b) prone to action and lifestyle based on these thoughts

Authors like Friedrich Hayek for instance, observed that in 1920s Germany roughly a million workers swung their support between communists and Nazis based on who was winning. It was noted that the two seemingly opposing ideological parties clashed with one another the most because they were very often competing for recruits in the same psychological pool of young people. Considering how many overexcited Americans called both Bush and Obama the new "Hitler" in recent years, we can easily imagine how an aggressive drooling at the mouth anti-war protester from a big city could have been an equally excitable protester at a teabag rally if only he was born in a small town and into a different culture.

2) Since the ratio of intensely active people (prone to being perceived by population at large as "wingnuts"or criminals or radicals or genuinely informed and committed activists, etc) to more relaxed apathetic majority seems to be roughly fixed across all societies and globally as a whole, the explanatory basis for such a dynamic can only be biological. Just like there exist (and can further be bred) aggressive dogs and peaceful friendly dogs, there exist aggressive people, natural Buddhist-esque peaceful people, etc. A person who is an aggressive pit bull equivalent (and who wants to impose his views of the world onto others the most) would differ in his relatively extreme ideology depending on what part of the world he was socialized in. Psychiatry has shown us that people are born with different ratios of neurotransmitter production and quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the types of chemicals that affect their mood and cognition. We now understand that people differ a lot more in terms of brain architecture than they differ in terms of things like body type, skin color, fast twitch/slow twitch muscle ratio, etc.

The reason why these assumptions are unsettling is not because there is a degree of fatalism involved ("he will be a radical of one stripe or another no matter what" or "he will be socially lazy, shallow, apathetic, and uninvolved no matter what). Obviously with modern socialization methods and pharmaceutical modification (with psychological genetic and cybernetic modification to follow in near future), an individual can be shaped more than ever before by society and by himself. The assumptions are unsettling because if the broad direction of our views, opinions, and political/cultural/religious affiliations are largely physiologically determined at birth, then societal progress becomes enormously more difficult. Societal progress can be defined here as one zealot faction (that is seen by majority as the most "correct" in its socioeconomic policy perspectives and formulations of what humans should do next) dragging everybody else along behind it as has always occurred throughout history.

Obviously people will disagree on what constitutes progress (some actually thought arrival of Reagan was progress) but if majority of people are physiologically predisposed towards the status quo, progress of any sort becomes a lot harder in a democratic society. In the past, one intense dedicated fringe of the aristocratic elites dragged the other nobility along behind it (since majority of nobility would also have a soft apathetic bulk) and thus dragged the rest of the population behind it as well. We also had scenarios of power vacuum developing and one intense fringe political faction overpowering the others (as in the case of Bolshevik and French revolutions) and filling the leadership position to then drag the rest of the serfs behind it.

In today's democratic structure however, protection of the status quo is a lot more preserved since the moderate bulk of the population has a political voice and thus a way to provide the ruling elites with legitimacy. The moderate bulk of the elites now also has ever more sophisticated consent and perception manufacturing methods to influence the newfound voice of the majority. For a small number of dedicated activists, pushing society along towards desired version of progress against the forces of social inertia is now harder than ever. The powerful activists now need to sway both the fellow elites and the people simultaneously.

Let's finally get to the Myers-Briggs part of the article to see what we are now dealing with.

The most widely used way to get a glimpse of people's underlining neural physiology has been the Myers-Briggs psychological questionnaire (one of the better versions found online for free can be found here). Over the past few decades, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been utilized to collect enormous amounts of statistical data on personality types found within the human population. The statistical type breakdown (I am using a combination of 3 different sources on the %. Don't mind the catchy positive nicknames each type and group cluster has been given. What matters here is the number within a population.) so far has been as follows,

Protectors (SJ)	Population
ESTJ - Overseer, supervisor	11 - 11.6 - 13	= 11.8%
ESFJ - Supporter, provider	10 - 12.3 - 13	= 11.7%
ISTJ - Examiner, inspector	6 - 11.6 - 12	= 9.8%
ISFJ - Defender, protector	6 - 10 - 13.8	= 9.9%
All SJs		43.2%

Creators (SP)	Population
ESTP - Persuader, promoter	4.3 - 8 - 13	= 8.4%
ESFP - Entertainer, performer	8.5 - 9.5 - 13	= 10.3%
ISTP - Craftsman, mechanic	5 - 5.4 - 9	= 6.4%
ISFP - Artist, composer	6 - 8.8 - 9	= 7.9%
All SPs		33%

Intellectuals (NT)	Population
ENTJ - Chief, fieldmarshal	1.8 - 3 - 5	= 3.2%
ENTP - Originator, inventor	3 - 3.2 - 5	= 3.7%
INTJ - Strategist, mastermind	1 - 1.5 - 2.1	= 1.5%
INTP - Engineer, architect	1 - 2.5 - 3.3	= 2.2%
All NTs		10.6%

Visionaries (NF)	Population
ENFJ - Mentor, teacher	2.4 - 3 - 5	= 3.4%
ENFP - Advocate, idealist	2.1 - 5 - 5.5	= 4.2%
INFJ - Confidant, empath	1 - 1 - 1.5	= 1.2%
INFP - Dreamer, healer	1 - 2 -4.3	= 2.4%
All NFs		11.2%

Each of the personality types (the well defined strong ones at least who haven't self reported to be a mutt of 2 or more different personalities) can be seen as a specific brain type. As mentioned above, the physiological neural difference between 2 people of vastly dissimilar brain types is a lot more significant than how a person looks on the outside. That is because the brain type determines a mental and emotional predisposition of a person for the rest of his life. People classified as "bipolar" or "anti-social/sociopathic" for instance, have neural structures that will make them lean towards some things more than others during their entire lives.

click to enlarge

We can see from the statistical breakdown that SJ (left-brained people with parietal lobe strength) predominate in the overall population. The second biggest group are the SP (right-brained with parietal lobe strength). Together they are almost 80% of the population. The SJs tend to be conservative, authoritarian in outlook, conventional, focused on concrete "what is", and protective of the general society. They don't rock the boat too much and defer to tradition. The SPs tend to be fun loving, crafty, entertaining, and have uncanny ability to focus on "what is" (with their parietal lobe) in order to fix and modify it.

If you look at the cute nicknames given to different brain types, you can see that the human herd pretty much needs all of them if it is to evolve and survive. Some types are needed more than others in the great scheme of things. The SJ and SP groups for example are conveniently numerous. SJ population provides a great amount of soldiers, policemen, social workers, self sacrificing charity givers, accountants, and status quo protectors. In other words they keep the herd safe even if it means stagnating the herd through using their positions in the executive to slow down rapid change. SP group provides us with artisans who improve quality of life for the herd through provision of entertainers, artists, dancers, singers, and resourceful improvising mechanics. SPs can be said to exist to entertain SJs and keep them on their toes by having more fun than them.

It's easy to see how SJs lean republican and SPs lean democrat overall. The jokes that democrats have better sex lives than republicans begin to acquire an element of truth (considering the different approach left and right sides of the brain take in deciding on how to deal with the here and now). However, the two large groups are united by their concern with all things as they are in the now. That makes the two groups friendly and status quo leaning by default. An ESTJ born in Brooklyn may identify as a traditionalist democrat whereas an ESTJ born in West Virginia may identify as a traditionalist republican, but both are more likely to seek similar professions and get along if they hang out together. Brain type identification provides a lot more material to predict a person's behavior and views on the world than simple political identification.

The overall theme emerges that people with neural computers that predispose them to either protect the status quo or be apathetic about it (since they are busy pursuing hedonistic adventures) are the supermajority that are not as interested in "what can be" (as the less numerous NP and NJ groups tend to be). A point must be made here that not one group is more important than another and that even their numerical breakdowns seem amazingly appropriate. It would be turbulent for the herd to have for example, more ENTJs/INTJs than ISTJs/ESTJs since the problem with authority that NJs have (due to their desire to be the authority themselves) would create unsustainable infighting and not allow enough people who follow orders. Each brain type has a very key social niche and function and over thousands of years there evolved an intricate genetic balance and ratio. There are of course also multitudes of physiological "mutts" who are a hybrid of all and can't be "pigeonholed" (the most common complaint brought against psychological typology in general).

Interestingly enough, the Hindus have spent thousands of years evolving classification of human beings into 4 broad psychological varnas or classes. Each was considered as important as the other (all parts of the same body) with their own particular temperaments and duties.

Some brain types are literally made to create new theoretical constructs on how society should be organized and which steps it should take next (INTPs, ENTPs,). When balanced by the emotional consideration and input of INFPs and ENFPs (since strong T theorists are prone to being too rigidly rational and thus not take into consideration the emotional impact of their constructs) new paths for society can be developed that would be acceptable to SJs and SPs combined. However, as explained above, these people will always be outvoted and marginalized by politicians who mobilize the other more numerous groups. "Think of the children!" is a call to arms for ESFJs and ISFJs for instance whereas being tough on crime, national strength, and defeating foreign enemies is the bread and butter of ESTJs and ISTJs.

This dynamic reinforces the need for proportional representation in our system of governance. Proportional representation is practiced in most European Union countries to great effect. This way each brain type cluster can get a political party of their own. The marginalized 20% of the population can get representation and even serve as coalition kingmakers. New voices can be heard in the discourse. Today the 20% of population has to either join the big parties they don't like and "radicalize" them (seen by the tail wagging the dog phenomenon of militants dominating today's Republican party and driving moderates out of it) or abstain from the process thus depriving society of valuable input. In proportional representation, each batch of brain types seen as "radicals" can find a party to call home and really support. They would also have more political representation to vent out their frustration and to institutionalize their presence and views. Citizens can then pick and choose which vision of progress to support and which to leave behind.