Types and Moodiness

[machintruc]

Gulenko said Dynamic types were more inclined to have moodiness. This is a true, but unsufficient observation that may lead to confusion.

Most inclined types :

1. ESI
2. SEI
3. ILI
4. LSE
5. LSI
6. SLE

As you can see, it's partly related to Sensing and Rationality. Keirsey wasn't really right on that point ("SJ = Melancholic"), but he wasn't that far of the truth.

- On the 2nd-4th variables groups (SP, SJ, NP and NJ), SJ is the most moody. Except that ESE's aren't really inclined to be moody.

- Gamma Quadra is the "moodiest".

- Negativists are more inclined to be moody.

- There seems to be a slight correlation between moodiness and Process.

- Introtims are more inclined to be moody. They have lower neurochemical activity. Moodiest Extrotim type is LSE.

- There doesn't seem to be any correlation between information elements and moodiness.

- Declarative types are slightly moodier.

- ST is slightly moodier.

- SEI-ESI quasi-identical pair is the moodiest.

- The least "moody" 1st-3rd variables group is EF.

Enneagram as somewhat a clear definition of moodiness. E4, E6, and E8 are moody. I put ESI on the top because it's the only socionic type which I don't have encountered with variants other than those. I only know ESI-6 and ESI-8 dudes/girls yet.

[Slacker]

Hmm. My ENFj dad, my ISFp father-in-law, and I are the three moodiest people I know.

[Joy]

Gulenko said Dynamic types were more inclined to have moodiness. This is a true, but unsufficient observation that may lead to confusion.

Most inclined types :

1. ESI
2. SEI
3. ILI
4. LSE
5. LSI
6. SLE

As you can see, it's partly related to Sensing and Rationality. Keirsey wasn't really right on that point ("SJ = Melancholic"), but he wasn't that far of the truth.

- On the 2nd-4th variables groups (SP, SJ, NP and NJ), SJ is the most moody. Except that ESE's aren't really inclined to be moody.

- Gamma Quadra is the "moodiest".

- Negativists are more inclined to be moody.

- There seems to be a slight correlation between moodiness and Process.

- Introtims are more inclined to be moody. They have lower neurochemical activity. Moodiest Extrotim type is LSE.

- There doesn't seem to be any correlation between information elements and moodiness.

- Declarative types are slightly moodier.

- ST is slightly moodier.

- SEI-ESI quasi-identical pair is the moodiest.

- The least "moody" 1st-3rd variables group is EF.

Enneagram as somewhat a clear definition of moodiness. E4, E6, and E8 are moody. I put ESI on the top because it's the only socionic type which I don't have encountered with variants other than those. I only know ESI-6 and ESI-8 dudes/girls yet.

You're full of shit, as usual.

One of the most obvious problems with this theory is that IJ's are the most stable types in general, and their moods are no exception.

[Kristiina]

OH WOW!
I'm not in the top 6! SEE EVERYONE, whoever said that ENFjs are moody was wrong! We're not moody!

[redbaron]

The moodiest people I know are two SEIs (both male--my dad and a good friend). My mother (EII) is maybe one of the least moody persons I know. I'm not that moody, nor is my ESE husband. He has ups and downs but not what I would consider moodiness. When he IS feeling down or whatever, he's quick to want to talk about it and airing it out can help to find a solution. I usually consider someone moody when they brood and keep to themselves. Sulking and denying that anything's wrong. That's the single most annoying thing about the SEIs I know. But give them space and they come around on their own, in their own time. Just don't bother trying to pull them out of the mood. Doesn't work.

[aka-kitsune]

Whew! What a relief! I always thought I was moody... good thing to know my type is really not inclined toward that!!

[Joy]

The moodiest person I know is ESE, and all of the moodiest people I know are ESxx's.

[FDG]

The relation is between moodiness and mental health. This renders impossible to construct a good model of moodiness based on our own observations because we will never have a sufficiently large sample of types for our distribution to be significant. The replies to this thread are matching with my conjecture. I have dated very moody ESIs, and their moodiness could be explained by very high degree of neuroticism; as well as very stable ESIs with an opposite score in terms of neuroticism. My moodiness also varies depending on how much I exercise and keep my diet in check and generally live a balanced lifestyle.

So, any attempt at making a list of most moody to least moody implies an attempt at placing types in cells relative to mental health. I'm starting to notice this pattern in unhealthy INTjs - first hitta, then you - of placing resolute types as those having the worst personality characteristics. I strongly suggest a reality check before any further dumb attempt at constructing a theory.

[Suomea]

<------- very moody....... maybe not on the outside, but at least on the inside.

[Joy]

The relation is between moodiness and mental health.

More often physical health than mental health. The later is very often a consequence of the former. Undiagnosed conditions are responsible for a lot of "mental" illnesses, though obviously there are exceptions, such as schizophrenia and the like. I don't think the type of "moodiness" discussed in this thread has anything to do with that type of mental illness though. Moodiness is different from mood disorders, and things like schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder and PTSD are different from mood disorders.

[FDG]

Yes there's obviously an high correlation between physical and mental health.

[Joy]

Unfortunately, it is too often overlooked in the US.

[machintruc]

One of the most obvious problems with this theory is that IJ's are the most stable types in general, and their moods are no exception.

IJ is globally the least moody 1st-4th variables group (temperament), but ESI is the moodiest type. I'm talking of enneagram correlations. E4, E6, and E8 are "moody" types.

Maybe there's ESI-1 somewhere...

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[machintruc]

Maybe there's ESI-1 somewhere...

Hmm, maybe there is. .. *looks around*

or is there ESI-3 !? I don't know any E3 Introtim yet.

[Joy]

Maybe there's ESI-1 somewhere...

Hmm, maybe there is. .. *looks around*

or is there ESI-3 !? I don't know any E3 Introtim yet.

not likely

Peter and Diana (if I'm not mistaken) are 1's.

[misutii]

The relation is between moodiness and mental health. This renders impossible to construct a good model of moodiness based on our own observations because we will never have a sufficiently large sample of types for our distribution to be significant. The replies to this thread are matching with my conjecture. I have dated very moody ESIs, and their moodiness could be explained by very high degree of neuroticism; as well as very stable ESIs with an opposite score in terms of neuroticism. My moodiness also varies depending on how much I exercise and keep my diet in check and generally live a balanced lifestyle.

So, any attempt at making a list of most moody to least moody implies an attempt at placing types in cells relative to mental health. I'm starting to notice this pattern in unhealthy INTjs - first hitta, then you - of placing resolute types as those having the worst personality characteristics. I strongly suggest a reality check before any further dumb attempt at constructing a theory.

I think moodiness and "mental health" is more relevent in regards to logical types than with ethical types. Healthy ethical types are quite capable of being "moody" and it's not unhealthy but natural. i.e. if someone they trust behaves in a hurtful way, if they feel they're being forced to accept/do something that violates their principles/morals, if they're pressured to observe situations where others are being treated unfairly... I remember watching the movie "Gandhi" recently and he seemed quite "moody"

Also it must be noted that logical types are more likely to repress their "moodiness" for they're more apt to view showing emotion as a sign of weakness where as ethical types will use emotions and their moods as strengths - as well as be more inclined to quickly become aware of changes in their own mood. Where the "moodiness" is being focused is also important (i.e. against certain people and thus with intent vs. out of control and against everyone regardless of their actions)

I'd say that I'm relatively moody, even if I don't always show it. Environmental cues can suddenly bring me down or up and this can happen multiple times in one day. Whether this is 'negative' or 'positive' for my "well-being" is dependent on where I am, who I'm with, and what I'm doing

[FDG]

Ok, I see your point mitsuii. What if then we say "moodiness without any external reason?".

[marooned]

What do we mean by moodiness really?

For some reason I find people who have the more "volatile" form of moodiness to be in my estimation more "moody": People who fly into rages, or without warning pull a severe emotional 180, or can experience frequent, strong, fast, and abrupt changes in mood. This form of moodiness is unsettling to me. (Are these the people Freud would call "anal retentive"? Or perhaps they never stopped being a toddler.)

Then there are other people who have these frequent mood changes that are very mellow, sort of flowing... one into the next... changing constantly but not usually in any volatile way (the change is smooth). I identify this as less moody than the first category, and I also identify myself in this category. Hence I don't think I'm very moody... my moods change frequently, but it doesn't have much of an actual "impact." It's a stability of instability in mood, always changing, yet still often calm.

And then some people appear to not have many moods, or seem to usually simply be calm with little fluctuation. This, of course, is not very moody... or so it appears. Not only are there not many moods involved, and little change in mood, but it is also placid.

And other people appear to have permanent PMS (even if they aren't female... lol). These people are always seemingly in a horrible mood, but since their mood doesn't change much from that always pissed off state, can I really call it moody?

Anyway, I think moodiness is often a matter of perception, which was the point of listing those silly categories above. Also I think moodiness can differ highly in people depending on their psychological and physical well-being, diet, level of exercise, environment, etc. It could differ strongly within a single socionics type, I would imagine. Well-adjusted, psychologically healthy people should display less "moodiness" of the "unpleasant," volatile kind... and should be "at their best" more often, and better able to cope with situations.

I don't think I see a strong correlation between type and moodiness (which is often what I say regarding correlating type with anything... hmm... suspect...). In my subjective, biased way, I might assume that the EJ temperament might be the most moody, and then the IJ temperament... but this is highly subjective and really quite irrelevant. Also, along these lines, I might agree that ESE may well be the most moody. But it's a horrible generalization. So... there we are.