Repost of "Typing People with Affective Disorders"

[tereg]

I don't think affective disorders themselves are type related, but I think they present some specific issues to typing.

A list of some affective disorders for reference:

• Bipolar I (manic episodes and depressive episodes with normal mood in between)
• Bipolar II (hypomanic episodes and depressive episodes, notable chance of rapid-cycling, "normal" mood may intervene in between episodes, but may also be rare)
• Cyclothymia (chronic hypomania and mild-moderate depression, normal mood mostly absent)
• Dysthymia (chronic mild-moderate depression, normal mood mostly absent)
• Unipolar depression (depressive episodes with normal mood in between)

I touch on issues related to mania/hypomania and depression, as well as issues specific to dysthymia/cyclothymia and bipolar II with rapid cycling. At this time I won't touch the issue of mixed episodes.

Mania

Manic episodes (and to a lesser extent, hypomanic episodes) are typically a marked deviation from the "normal" personality which is generally obvious to people who have known them for some period of time. Unless they suffer from chronic hypomania (chronic mania seems to be either less likely or less documented), friends and family are likely to describe the manic person as "not themselves", and they may even be afraid as a result.

The manic person will likely believe that they are their usual selves or at least "high-functioning" versions of their normal selves, as mania is characterised by a lack of insight into their condition (compared with depression, which is characterised by enhanced insight). Manic people might also be unable to recall times when they were not manic. These factors, often coupled with grandiosity, can easily skew the results of interviews and self-report questionnaires.

Mania and hypomania can feature symptoms that may seem to overlap with particular socionic types, for example:

• High extroversion and initiative-taking (socionic introverts may even appear as socionic extroverts)
• Increased gregariousness and social confidence (might be interpreted as socionic extrovervion, or an ExFx type)
• Lack of attention to physical needs, for example sleep and nutrition (socionic sensors may appear intuitive, and especially Si-PoLR)
• Very high, sustained energy (appearance of EJ temperament)
• Increased talkativeness (some socionic types are typically more talkative than others, esp. ESE, LIE)

It is entirely fair and blameless if you were to mistype someone, even quite drastically, while typing them during a manic or hypomanic episode.

If the person you are typing is known to have an affective disorder that includes mania or hypomania (bipolar disorder and cyclothymia), I'd recommend caution. I wouldn't discount their self-reports, but I would be sure to consider the observations of their friends and family if possible, and especially reassess the typing over a period of time. Ignore questions of temperament altogether.

Depression

Depression obscures the personality far less than mania, though it may obscure socionic temperament to some extent (due to depression's marked effect on energy levels) and I would recommend against any emphasis on temperament if you know someone to be depressed. Aside from the temperament issue, mildly to moderately depressed people are likely to be recognisable as simply depressed or tired versions of their sociotype.

The self-reports of depressed people are going to be much more reliable than those of hypomania because insight remains intact and can even be enhanced. There is still a possibility that it may be skewed because depressed people frequently have difficulty recalling periods when they were not depressed, but knowing their "normal" mood might not be totally essential for typing in all cases. Like manic people, they are not totally "themselves", but they are generally recognisable.

Severe depression is something of a different issue. Depending on precisely how severe it is, the depressed person may still be recognisable as a socionic type. Catatonic and near-catatonic people are probably not typeable.

In general I think that less caution is needed than in the case of mania, but I would still seek out the observations of their friends and family members, and reassess the typing over time (their type will be clearer when they're not depressed, or at least not as depressed). I would also ignore questions of temperament altogether.

If a person suffers from atypical depression (common especially in bipolar disorder), where it is possible to cheer them up for short periods of time, after which they return to feeling depressed, the stimulus that manages to cheer them up may provide insight into their sociotype.

Dysthymia and Cyclothymia

The lack of normal mood in these disorders may be problematic, but their relative stability as affective disorders makes them somewhat easier than their more severe counterparts.

It is probably relatively safe to type dysthymics and cyclothymics while they are moderately depressed, as it should be fairly close to their "normal" personality.

Due to the chronic nature of the conditions, not recalling other states of mind is not really problematic because they are, by definition, in that state of mind most of the time. As long as they're not hypomanic, their self-reports should be generally reliable and will likely closely match the observations of their friends and family, so your thoroughness should not be quite so essential in these cases.

Bipolar II

A common issue in bipolar II is rapid cycling, where the sufferer has multiple mood episodes per year. It can range from having as few as 4 discrete episodes per year, perhaps with normal mood in between, to what may look like a more "severe" form of cyclothymia (with moderate-severe depression instead of mild depression) where normal mood is absent or rare and the sufferer switches straight from one mood to another, to moods that change from depressed to hypomanic and vice versa several times a week or even within a day.

Rapid-cycling can obscure one's sociotype independently of the mood itself. I would advise the following rules of thumb:

• First of all, remove a person's "reliability" (as in, the character trait) and emotional stability and socionic temperament from the type equation, unless they have unambiguously "normal" (non-depressed, non-hypomanic) moods.
• If the rapid-cycling takes place over the course of the YEAR: place more emphasis on periods of depression (and on "normal" moods, if present).
• If the rapid-cyclings takes place over the course of a WEEK or DAY: in my experience the sociotype actually shines through quite clearly, but it is even more imperative that you disregard their emotional stability and questions of temperament when typing them.

-----------------------------

Thoughts?

.

[tereg]

.

[tereg]

Depression can happen to any type, now, it's up to the individual to disclose that they are depressed in order to be diagnosed; more often then not, ST types will not disclose depression but will disclose anxiety. Anxiety might be combination of depression and anxiety in ST types particularly with IST's more so with ISTj's. Most F's of any type except ISFp and ESFj will be in the depressive zone; ESFp and INFj in deeper more complex depressions; INFj's diagnosis as "manic depressive disorder" is BS. I figured the whole thing out after looking at Van Gogh's struggle and how that was exactly like mine and how wrong people are in diagnosis of bipolar. That's a long conversation piece. Since most women are F type, it makes sense that statistically more women then men are diagnosed with depression. I will work on changing the system after my PhD. It's very complicated.

Alpha Quad is by far, least to suffer any real depression if any at all.

.

[tereg]

For what it's worth. My small internal database tells me that I know two ESE who are pretty depressed, and take anti depressants. For the rest IDK.

.

[tereg]

I'm still sorting my thoughts out on this. What you wrote is intriguing, and you're probably right.

What I'm curious about though, is what about people who are medicated to be "normal?" Maybe it's not applicable to mood disorders, but reading something on ADD meds used as a sort of mental steroid is what specifically started that line of thought. If someone is pumped full of medication in order to function a certain way, then they are NOT naturally that way, and shouldn't use their medicated self to type (any more than a person should limit their typing to how their mind functions when drunk or high or something.) It's comparable in my mind to people breaking sports records while on steroids. It's generally recognized that they don't deserve the record for something they were not capable of unmedicated. Likewise a person shouldn't type themselves as something they wouldn't be unmedicated.

Applying it to mood-regulating meds might not work though. From what I've heard, manic people tend to dislike taking those as it inhibits their natural creativity. And, if there are shifts from one state to another as in bipolar - which one is "normal?" Just something that came to mind when reading, overall I'm fairly ignorant on the subject.

.

[tereg]

For what it's worth. My small internal database tells me that I know two ESE who are pretty depressed, and take anti depressants. For the rest IDK.

I have had severe problems with depression in the past, was diagnosed with Borderline PD and attempted suicide. But I'm almost completely better now...

.

[tereg]

For what it's worth. My small internal database tells me that I know two ESE who are pretty depressed, and take anti depressants. For the rest IDK.

I've spent long stays in psychiatric wards twice now and you can find pretty much the whole socion there.

.

[tereg]

I'm still sorting my thoughts out on this. What you wrote is intriguing, and you're probably right.

What I'm curious about though, is what about people who are medicated to be "normal?" Maybe it's not applicable to mood disorders, but reading something on ADD meds used as a sort of mental steroid is what specifically started that line of thought. If someone is pumped full of medication in order to function a certain way, then they are NOT naturally that way, and shouldn't use their medicated self to type (any more than a person should limit their typing to how their mind functions when drunk or high or something.) It's comparable in my mind to people breaking sports records while on steroids. It's generally recognized that they don't deserve the record for something they were not capable of unmedicated. Likewise a person shouldn't type themselves as something they wouldn't be unmedicated.

I agree with that general sentiment. It is usually the case that medications don't cause actual personality changes, but it is certainly possible (for example if you chronically abuse them, if you're allergic to them, of if you simply had a bad reaction).

I think it does potentially present another typing challenge. I'm of the opinion that you can safely type most medicated people -- though again I'm going to have to say beware of temperament, because CNS-acting medications (and a few others) often affect energy levels to a fairly significant degree.

In the case of ADHD -- the people I know offline with primarily-inattentive subtype are practically identical whether they're medicated or unmedicated, they just focus a lot better when they're medicated and you wouldn't necessarily know it unless you were monitoring their productivity. When people are also hyperactive there tends to be a noticeable difference in behaviour, but not necessarily type-related differences. I think that ADHD hyperactivity/impulsivity can superficially resemble EP temperament so mistypes might be possible for the unmedicated, but EPs with ADHD are not likely to lose their EP qualities when medicated.

It's still possible to have personality changes though, so considering both the medicated person and the unmedicated person is probably the best way to go if it's even possible. If someone is being medicated for neurological disorders, schizophrenia or affective disorders, it's dangerous, unethical and in any case unproductive to test them unmedicated, you'd have to know what they were like before they started treatment.

Applying it to mood-regulating meds might not work though. From what I've heard, manic people tend to dislike taking those as it inhibits their natural creativity. And, if there are shifts from one state to another as in bipolar - which one is "normal?" Just something that came to mind when reading, overall I'm fairly ignorant on the subject.

Mood-regulating meds can work really badly or really well depending on the patient. If the meds work well and they report few side effects, I'd say it's safe to type them on those meds unless you have a specific reason for concern. When they work badly or have a lot of side effects, I'd be cautious. For example, I was allergic to Prozac and I was definitely a different person, but Lamictal made me feel more like myself than I'd felt for years.

People who are manic, unless they're unusually rational or insightful (it does happen), will tend to balk at any suggestion that there's something wrong with them, and even if they realise that mania is technically not a good thing they are very likely to complain about how they don't want their creativity or productivity to be compromised (I know I've done it when hypomanic and I know enough about the subject that I should know better, but that is mania for you).

In reality, people who are manic feel more creative, because of their grandiosity. Mania itself actually impairs creativity because manic people have a hard time concentrating, they have lots of creative thoughts but find it hard to "hold them down", and their critical judgement of their work or thoughts is impaired. People with bipolar disorder are frequently more creative than those without the disorder -- they're over-represented among artists, writers, and musicians -- but their best quality creative work is usually done during periods of normal mood, because that is when they have enough energy (impaired in depression), when they are able to critically analyse their work (impaired in mania), and when they are able to concentrate (impaired in both depression and mania).

As for what is "normal" in bipolar disorder -- everything is really "normal", but not everything is type-related, even if it might seem so if you look at it in isolation. The mood swings are rarely (if ever) total personality changes. Most aspects of personality that are not related to self-esteem, energy levels, emotional stability, reliability and sociability will remain intact. A person who is notably rational and logical (in the non-socionic sense) during normal moods will still be obviously rational and logical when they're depressed and when they're manic, or who have a generally positive or negative attitude, likewise for people who value Ti/Fe or Fi/Te, or who respond really well to Ne, or whatever else. The innate personality, and sociotype, might be obscured, but it is still there.

.

[tereg]

Since most women are F type, it makes sense that statistically more women then men are diagnosed with depression.

Why does this make sense? I don't see the relationship between being F type and depression in term of causal effects.

It also make sense that, on average, people with larger feet have acquired more knowledge. This does not mean there is causal relationship between foot size and the amount of knowledge.

Spurious relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

[tereg]

Could you maybe explain how this would affect typing someone by functions?

For example:

High extroversion and initiative-taking (socionic introverts may even appear as socionic extroverts) (is a dichotomy related thing - at least, more so MBTI than socionic dichotomy)

Increased gregariousness and social confidence (might be interpreted as socionic extrovervion, or an ExFx type) (Can also just be personality or confidence within a person or people without a diagnosed/diagnosable condition)

Lack of attention to physical needs, for example sleep and nutrition (socionic sensors may appear intuitive, and especially Si-PoLR) (there's more to Si than staying up late or eating the right type of foods, Gabin for instance was an alcoholic)

Very high, sustained energy (appearance of EJ temperament) (Possible indication of temperament, but very high energy can be seen as disproportionate when compared with other known EJ's so not relied on)

Increased talkativeness (some socionic types are typically more talkative than others, esp. ESE, LIE) (Related to dichotomy of E)

Although it's possible it could cause confusion between mirrors, when using functions, maybe.

.

[tereg]

Why does this make sense? I don't see the relationship between being F type and depression in term of causal effects.

It also make sense that, on average, people with larger feet have acquired more knowledge. This does not mean there is causal relationship between foot size and the amount of knowledge.

Spurious relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why don't you get your head out of your psychology textbooks and go to real clinics and work with people. If in the past, we havn't used Socionics, or morphological typing to type people then we don't have any real statistical information to work with as far as type and depression, or other conditions; so you telling me something of this nature makes no significant point from the perspective of Socionics.

When I speak of depression, I mean chronic persistant condition that a person has a hard time dealing with it for years...something very serious.

We often associate blues and such with depression; there are generally, a lot of cases that can be easily solved with the right type of therapy.

@Jarno - my sister and cousin are both ESE and yes both suffer what would be called depression, but, both refuse to take medication. My sister had a very serious case once, but she decided to closet the case from a lot of people until she got really bad.

.

[tereg]

If you're thorough when typing by functions you should be safer, but most people use dichotomies and small groups in order to strengthen their typings so I still advise caution.

High extroversion and initiative-taking (socionic introverts may even appear as socionic extroverts) (is a dichotomy related thing - at least, more so MBTI than socionic dichotomy)

Socionics introversion and extroversion is related to initiative. MBTI introversion and extroversion is more about sociability. Yes, it's a dichotomy, but it's usually a useful one in the typing process.

Lack of attention to physical needs, for example sleep and nutrition (socionic sensors may appear intuitive, and especially Si-PoLR) (there's more to Si than staying up late or eating the right type of foods, Gabin for instance was an alcoholic)

There is more to Si than that, sure, and that isn't even the issue ("staying up late" is one thing and has nothing to do with Si, but being proud of the fact that you're only getting 3 hours sleep, regardless of your bedtime, is not exactly a typical attitude of Si-ego types), but in any case what I mean to say is that it specifically resembles Si-PoLR.

Very high, sustained energy (appearance of EJ temperament) (Possible indication of temperament, but very high energy can be seen as disproportionate when compared with other known EJ's so not relied on)

It won't necessarily be obviously disproportionate in comparison to others, especially when it's hypomania rather than mania. Mania is also relative to the individual, so if a very low-energy person becomes manic they might not exceed the normal EJ energy levels at all, so comparing them to others to assess temperament might not save you.

Although it's possible it could cause confusion between mirrors, when using functions, maybe.

Between mirrors, yeah, or even between types in a club.

.

[tereg]

Huggin: When I wasn't fully developed under the age of 25, I would say, I was very ambitious and looked like I could become a lawyer or someone very successfully within a few years and valued material wealth and security, but after full development my intellectual side has kicked in and now I feel that money is not something I strive for it's the intellectual things and things of real value as they pertain to the welfare of human beings that's important.

I am not sure about initiative; I would say that I as an introvert dont take as much initiative now that I am fully developed into my types but I did before fully development.

.

[tereg]

In the case of ADHD -- the people I know offline with primarily-inattentive subtype are practically identical whether they're medicated or unmedicated, they just focus a lot better when they're medicated and you wouldn't necessarily know it unless you were monitoring their productivity. When people are also hyperactive there tends to be a noticeable difference in behaviour, but not necessarily type-related differences. I think that ADHD hyperactivity/impulsivity can superficially resemble EP temperament so mistypes might be possible for the unmedicated, but EPs with ADHD are not likely to lose their EP qualities when medicated.

i agree with all of this ^

fwiw i sell my prescription adderall regularly at school (and i've given away another type i used to be prescribed to), and although there are noticeable behavioral changes, they're only temporary and they vary drastically depending on the given activity someone's focused on.

basically it intensifies my focus, which means if i'm focused on something independent/mental (like writing a paper, or painting) then i will be extremely introverted, going hrs without speaking or wanting to interact with anyone at all. i'll feel very cold, distant, and disinterested in everything but my own thoughts. but say i take adderall while i'm hanging out with a friend, and it kicks in during conversation—it effects the opposite behavior in me… i'll be way more engaging and interested in connecting to the person, fully taking in what they say, how they act, how they feel, how they make me feel, etc. if i'm comfortable around that person and i find them intriguing, i'll be very 'extroverted' and often emotional, because of the strong focus on how the person makes me feel, and i find it difficult to not express it to the person.

so it can blur your standard E vs. I differences depending on whether you're focused on something mental/internal or social/external.
it blurs N vs. S depending on whether you're focused on your thoughts vs. your environment: like i can be sooo spaced out on it, the most absent person in the room when i'm in my head. yet say i'm on it while i'm outdoors or in a group—i'm by far the most "aware" physically/spatially, i take in everything in strong detail. i feel very independent, confident, and even predatory in a way.
T vs. F is obviously dependent on whether my focus is on people or ideas—resulting in me becoming either totally logical/cold or emotional/engaging.
J > P is the only exception to all of this. almost everyone behaves like a stereotypical "rational" type on it. always.

but unless you're typing someone after observing them only once, ADHD medication shouldn't throw you off too much. as long as you're aware of their behavioral patterns both on and off amphetamines, while keeping in context why they are behaving in such ways (e.g., are they "cold" because they happened to be focused on something mental atm?).

anyway i find people's reactions to drugs (prescription, recreational, illegal, whichever/whatever/doesn't matter) fascinating. i like noting who benefits from a particular substance, how they react, whether they like it, etc. i know the types of all the people i've ever given/sold amphetamines to, so if you're interested i can list how (ime) different socionics types' behavior changes… i.e., which ones become more extroverted vs. introverted, N vs. S, T vs. F… blah blah, etc. on them.

.

[tereg]

that is strange.

.

[tereg]

i agree with all of this ^

fwiw i sell my prescription adderall regularly at school (and i've given away another type i used to be prescribed to), and although there are noticeable behavioral changes, they're only temporary and they vary drastically depending on the given activity someone's focused on.

basically it intensifies my focus, which means if i'm focused on something independent/mental (like writing a paper, or painting) then i will be extremely introverted, going hrs without speaking or wanting to interact with anyone at all. i'll feel very cold, distant, and disinterested in everything but my own thoughts. but say i take adderall while i'm hanging out with a friend, and it kicks in during conversation—it effects the opposite behavior in me… i'll be way more engaging and interested in connecting to the person, fully taking in what they say, how they act, how they feel, how they make me feel, etc. if i'm comfortable around that person and i find them intriguing, i'll be very 'extroverted' and often emotional, because of the strong focus on how the person makes me feel, and i find it difficult to not express it to the person.

so it can blur your standard E vs. I differences depending on whether you're focused on something mental/internal or social/external.
it blurs N vs. S depending on whether you're focused on your thoughts vs. your environment: like i can be sooo spaced out on it, the most absent person in the room when i'm in my head. yet say i'm on it while i'm outdoors or in a group—i'm by far the most "aware" physically/spatially, i take in everything in strong detail. i feel very independent, confident, and even predatory in a way.
T vs. F is obviously dependent on whether my focus is on people or ideas—resulting in me becoming either totally logical/cold or emotional/engaging.
J > P is the only exception to all of this. almost everyone behaves like a stereotypical "rational" type on it. always.

but unless you're typing someone after observing them only once, ADHD medication shouldn't throw you off too much. as long as you're aware of their behavioral patterns both on and off amphetamines, while keeping in context why they are behaving in such ways (e.g., are they "cold" because they happened to be focused on something mental atm?).

anyway i find people's reactions to drugs (prescription, recreational, illegal, whichever/whatever/doesn't matter) fascinating. i like noting who benefits from a particular substance, how they react, whether they like it, etc. i know the types of all the people i've ever given/sold amphetamines to, so if you're interested i can list how (ime) different socionics types' behavior changes… i.e., which ones become more extroverted vs. introverted, N vs. S, T vs. F… blah blah, etc. on them.

this is similar to my experience w/ the aforementioned drugs. They provide anyone who takes them, generally, with an absurd degree of self-confidence.

.