Histrionic personality disorder ~ Sakinorva Databank

The Sakinorva Databank

Histrionic personality disorder

Personality Disorders

in Philosophy, Psychology, and Social Sciences

Histrionic personality disorder ~ Sakinorva Databank

Histrionic personality disorder

Personality Disorders

Philosophy, Psychology, and Social Sciences

e

i

n

s

f

t

p

j

function

ennea

variant

socio

psyche

ENFP 5

ESFP 1

2w3 5

4w3 1

3w2 1

sx/so 6

so/sx 1

ESE 4

EFLV 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

h

e

x

a

c

o

total votes 34

9

6

7

7

1

4

1

Click to toggle markup guide.

bold	bold
italic	italic
hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"	[hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"](https://sakinorva.net/library/contextualizing_functions)
	(i){https://i.imgur.com/g0oL9CB.png}

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2018/07/02 (Mon) 18:30:00 #1764
	Classic! I’m actually giving you an opportunity to explain yourself but somehow I—not the person who didn’t take that opportunity and wants to run away from the conversation instead—am being dismissive. I also love the “you reacted emotionally” card; express anything at all and you get True Intellectuals telling you that you’re getting emotional and that they can’t discuss anything seriously with someone gets emotional like that. Because I’m just so obviously bawling my eyes out timidly clicking the keyboard buttons trying to respond to you, right? And why would that even matter? It’s just like the autism thing you loved to do; try to invalidate an interlocutor’s point by bringing up (wrong) stuff that has nothing to do with the point. You’re saying something I’m asking you to clarify and we could be having a fine discussion trying to set your words straight but I guess you wanna run away instead? That’s cool too I guess.

Editing post #1764 by strawberry crisis <p>Classic! I’m actually giving you an opportunity to explain yourself but somehow I—not the person who didn’t take that opportunity and wants to run away from the conversation instead—am being dismissive. I also love the “you reacted emotionally” card; express anything at all and you get True Intellectuals telling you that you’re getting <em>emotional</em> and that they can’t discuss anything seriously with someone gets <em>emotional</em> like that. Because I’m just so <em>obviously</em> bawling my eyes out timidly clicking the keyboard buttons trying to respond to you, right? And why would that even matter? It’s just like the autism thing you loved to do; try to invalidate an interlocutor’s point by bringing up (wrong) stuff that has nothing to do with the point. You’re saying something I’m asking you to clarify and we could be having a fine discussion trying to set your words straight but I guess you wanna run away instead? That’s cool too I <em>guess</em>.</p>
Replying to post #1764 by strawberry crisis

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2018/07/02 (Mon) 18:06:20 #1762
	Ahahahaha gosh see you're doing it again! You love doing this thing where you deflect what other people say and assert that you "explained yourself" to try and avoid getting pressed on the matter. Watch this—I laid out a point and justified it using reasoning that covers all the grounds so that nothing I say can be taken out of context so long as the meaning itself gets interpreted correctly. But the closest thing I got to a response from you was… pulling out some things I mentioned, reframing them (without any actual justification), and ignoring all the important fluff that was around it for it to actually make sense. "As for the rest, reaching" was your only attempt to hit at the point, and it's meaningless without you expanding on what you mean by that. I think that may be your biggest problem when you argue for things; you make a lot of claims only to pretend you've laid out the reasoning. "This is that and that is is, you're wrong and I've already explained it" is really the only way I can summarize what you communicate. I still have no clue if you do this intentionally or not, but I find it extremely funny and I'm glad you stick around to provide us all with that humor. We can try all this again, though! "You just made some weird logic leaps and argued that histrionics has to do with imagination." Hahahaha I really feel like people extrapolating things and laying out reasoning is what you call "logic leaps" because you yourself can never actually verbalize your own thought process. Maybe if you were able to, you'd realize where the real "logic leaps" lie. I'd love to see how "immediate gratification" is "SP." Why SP particuarly? Shouldn't that mean both S and P individually have to do with "immediate gratification" too? And that's not a logic leap by the way! It's just the only way MBTI and its four dimension framework supports such a notion—that a trait leaning in two certain directions must also lean in those two directions individually.

Editing post #1762 by strawberry crisis <p>Ahahahaha gosh see you're doing it again!</p> <p>You love doing this thing where you deflect what other people say and assert that you "explained yourself" to try and avoid getting pressed on the matter. Watch this—I laid out a point and justified it using reasoning that covers all the grounds so that nothing I say can be taken out of context so long as the meaning itself gets interpreted correctly. But the closest thing I got to a response from you was… pulling out some things I mentioned, reframing them (without any actual justification), and ignoring all the important fluff that was around it for it to actually make sense.</p> <p> </p> <p>"As for the rest, reaching" was your only attempt to hit at the point, and it's meaningless without you expanding on what you mean by that. I think that may be your biggest problem when you argue for things; you make a lot of claims only to pretend you've laid out the reasoning. "This is that and that is is, you're wrong and I've already explained it" is really the only way I can summarize what you communicate. I <em>still</em> have no clue if you do this intentionally or not, but I find it extremely funny and I'm glad you stick around to provide us all with that humor.</p> <p> </p> <p>We can try all this again, though! "You just made some weird logic leaps and argued that histrionics has to do with imagination." Hahahaha I really feel like people extrapolating things and laying out reasoning is what you call "logic leaps" because you yourself can never actually verbalize your own thought process. Maybe if you were able to, you'd realize where the real "logic leaps" lie. I'd love to see how "immediate gratification" is "SP." Why SP particuarly? Shouldn't that mean both S and P individually have to do with "immediate gratification" too? And that's not a logic leap by the way! It's just the only way MBTI and its four dimension framework supports such a notion—that a trait leaning in two certain directions must also lean in those two directions individually.</p>
Replying to post #1762 by strawberry crisis

	Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys INTP 5w4 2018/07/02 (Mon) 00:41:35 #1745
	Whatever that means. If you're going to just throw around random traits that have little to nothing to do with anything and call it an "argument" than don't get pissed off when I correct you on what they would entail. "Give me a break" wow cool, I'm convinced! I did explain myself. You just made some weird logic leaps and argued that histrionics has to do with imagination. Like what even are you talking about right now?

Editing post #1745 by Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys <p>Whatever that means. If you're going to just throw around random traits that have little to nothing to do with anything and call it an "argument" than don't get pissed off when I correct you on what they would entail. "Give me a break" wow cool, I'm convinced! I did explain myself. You just made some weird logic leaps and argued that histrionics has to do with imagination. Like what even are you talking about right now?
Replying to post #1745 by Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2018/07/02 (Mon) 00:01:54 #1744
	Projection? Isn’t everything “projection” here? Typing people is a projection. Believing that the study would favor sensing if it were tried again is a projection. If you’re going to pull meaningless buzzwords out of your mouth to try and sound smarter, may I suggest looking them up and seeing how they apply back to you? It’s really hard to take what you’re saying seriously when your counterargument against what I’m saying is just attempting (and miserable failing: “immediate gratification” is SP? give me a break) to type an arbitrary, standalone trait that doesn’t connect at all to my point. Are you trolling? And openness? Reaching? I’m just laying out the differences between a preference for intuition and a preference for sensing—you’re pinning it all to something that I never mentioned without explaining yourself. I would say you’re the one reaching? It looks like you still have a stark misunderstanding of what all this means, and pretending that I’m talking about another concept entirely while laying out your own rubbish as though you were correcting me doesn’t actually make you more right.

Editing post #1744 by strawberry crisis <p>Projection? Isn’t everything “projection” here? Typing people is a projection. Believing that the study would favor sensing if it were tried again is a projection. If you’re going to pull meaningless buzzwords out of your mouth to try and sound smarter, may I suggest looking them up and seeing how they apply back to you? It’s really hard to take what you’re saying seriously when your counterargument against what I’m saying is just attempting (and miserable failing: “immediate gratification” is SP? give me a break) to type an arbitrary, standalone trait that doesn’t connect at all to my point. Are you trolling? And openness? Reaching? I’m just laying out the differences between a preference for intuition and a preference for sensing—you’re pinning it all to something that I never mentioned without explaining yourself. I would say you’re the one reaching? It looks like you still have a stark misunderstanding of what all this means, and pretending that I’m talking about another concept entirely while laying out your own rubbish as though you were correcting me doesn’t actually make you more right.</p>
Replying to post #1744 by strawberry crisis

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2018/07/01 (Sun) 20:37:22 #1735
	"ENxPs seem more mellow than ESxPs by comparison who are the ones typically viewed as such." This is a good example of that odd way of thinking where you imagine an archetype first and decide for yourself if who or what you're voting for fits into that archetype regardless of what actually defines the type in the first place. The behavior in people with HPD is often justified by an impetus: a desire for immediate gratification and a demand for satisfaction, hence why their emotions are also described as volatile, shallow, changeable, and suggestible. I think the condition is connected enough to intuition even without the direct mention of chasing the novel to achieve that gratification, since being "emotionally-oriented", or in other words, being fixated on a set of ideas that are intrinsically removed from the groundedness and (bluntly put) unimaginativeness that S stands for could only point toward the N direction. I think the reason the study showed up with weak links everywhere on all the dimensions (the strongest is .54 with avoidant, which is only about a moderate correlation — wouldn't you imagine this number to be around .8-1?) is because of the nature of the testing instruments they used, where I'm sure the theoretical connections between MBTI and the personality disorders were diminished by all the factors that came in between: the 330 or so people taking the tests, MBTI's Form F and the CATI, which likely had less MBTI-centric criteria for paper diagnosis compared to what you'd read in articles like these.

Editing post #1735 by strawberry crisis <p>"ENxPs seem more mellow than ESxPs by comparison who are the ones typically viewed as such." This is a good example of that odd way of thinking where you imagine an archetype first and decide for yourself if who or what you're voting for fits into that archetype regardless of what actually defines the type in the first place. The behavior in people with HPD is often justified by an impetus: a desire for immediate gratification and a demand for satisfaction, hence why their emotions are also described as volatile, shallow, changeable, and suggestible. I think the condition is connected enough to intuition even without the direct mention of chasing the novel to achieve that gratification, since being "emotionally-oriented", or in other words, being fixated on a set of ideas that are intrinsically removed from the groundedness and (bluntly put) unimaginativeness that S stands for could only point toward the N direction. I think the reason the study showed up with weak links everywhere on all the dimensions (the strongest is .54 with avoidant, which is only about a moderate correlation — wouldn't you imagine this number to be around .8-1?) is because of the nature of the testing instruments they used, where I'm sure the theoretical connections between MBTI and the personality disorders were diminished by all the factors that came in between: the 330 or so people taking the tests, MBTI's Form F and the CATI, which likely had less MBTI-centric criteria for paper diagnosis compared to what you'd read in articles <a href="https://psychcentral.com/disorders/histrionic-personality-disorder/">like these.</a></p>
Replying to post #1735 by strawberry crisis

	switchblades INFP delete 2018/07/01 (Sun) 19:44:57 #1712
	how is histrionic S? "Behaviors may include constant seeking of approval or attention, self-dramatization, theatricality, and striking self-centeredness or sexual seductiveness in inappropriate situations, including social, occupational, and professional relationships, beyond what is appropriate for the social context." those two things in bold are definitely N and intuitives are usually more prone to doing things that are beyond what is appropriate for social contexts

Editing post #1712 by switchblades <p>how is histrionic S? </p> <p><em>"Behaviors may include </em><em>constant</em><em> seeking of approval or attention, <strong>self-dramatization, theatricality</strong>, and striking self-centeredness or sexual seductiveness in inappropriate situations, including social, occupational, and professional relationships, <strong>beyond what is appropriate for the social context.</strong>"</em></p> <p><em>those two things in bold are definitely N and intuitives are usually more prone to doing things that are beyond what is appropriate for social contexts</em></p>
Replying to post #1712 by switchblades

date	username	vote
20/05/20 05:19	Thyssen	ENFP
18/12/08 11:07	tch	ESFP
18/11/30 18:27	twinpinks	ESFP
18/09/27 01:20	LadyX	ESFP
18/08/23 14:11	Teru Mikami	ExFP
18/07/01 07:37	Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys	ESFP
18/07/01 07:32	switchblades	ENFP

date	username	vote
22/03/08 17:49	Woll Smoth	ESFP
20/05/20 05:19	Thyssen	ENFP
19/01/28 17:54	tch	ENFP
18/08/23 14:11	Teru Mikami	ENFP
18/06/29 11:52	switchblades	ENFP

date	username	vote
20/05/20 05:19	Thyssen	2w3
20/03/16 13:08	bibliology	2w3
18/09/27 01:20	LadyX	2w3
18/08/23 14:12	Teru Mikami	2w3
18/06/29 11:52	switchblades	2w3

date	username	vote
20/05/20 05:19	Thyssen	sx/so
20/03/16 13:08	bibliology	sx/so
18/12/08 22:16	LadyX	sx/so
18/08/23 14:12	Teru Mikami	sx/so
18/06/29 11:52	switchblades	sx/so

date	username	vote
20/05/20 05:19	Thyssen	278

date	username	vote
20/05/20 05:19	Thyssen	ESE
18/08/23 14:12	Teru Mikami	ESE
18/07/01 07:32	switchblades	ESE
18/06/30 04:09	fg	ESE

date	username	vote
19/12/25 21:50	Thyssen	EFLV