If there’s one thing that religion tells us, it’s that human beings are broken and long for salvation. To a certain extent, we all feel lost, anxious, and alone. Our fragmentation extends both inwardly and outwardly; we are neither at peace with ourselves nor the world around us. As the religious accounts suggest, we are a “fallen” species.
Both religion and psychology have seen it as their role to diagnose and help alleviate human suffering. The manner in which they do so, however, depends on their beliefs about the roots of suffering. Within both religion and psychology, we find ample disagreement regarding the primary or ultimate causes of our suffering.
The Buddha, for instance, concluded that suffering stems from our propensity to become overly attached to things, including our thoughts, beliefs, and desires. More specifically, suffering occurs when our desires are frustrated, when things don’t go the way we hoped or imagined. The Buddhist solution, in a nutshell, involves realizing that everything is in fact impermanent and that fighting to hold onto impermanent things is a primary source of our suffering.
The Judaeo-Christian account suggests that ever since “the Fall” we have been separated from God. The solution, we are told, lies largely with God himself, who intends to redeem his people and heal their brokenness. All that is required then is to trust and obey God’s instructions and know that, in the end, all will be made right.
If we fast forward a few millennia, we encounter a Swiss psychiatrist named Carl Jung who believed that suffering resulted from being inwardly divided and at war with ourselves. According to Jung, the human psyche is comprised of numerous parts and functions which can easily fall into conflict if not properly handled and integrated.
Now consider this. Despite being a psychiatrist, Jung’s view actually resembles the religious accounts in one key aspect, namely, he considered suffering to be an inherent part of being human. Thus, even if one were raised in a perfect environment, suffering would still occur and require remediation. Why? Because the psyche, regardless of who you are, is full of polarities that can make you feel fragmented, incomplete, and dissatisfied.
In contrast to the above perspectives, which suggest that suffering is part of the human condition or psyche, many modern psychotherapists prefer to locate the roots of suffering in the personal past of the individual. On this view, suffering is largely attributable to unfortunate circumstances / experiences that produced psychological wounds and traumas. Ameliorating suffering thus requires identifying and working through past traumas that weren’t sufficiently addressed at the time they were incurred.
In his book, The Courage to Be, theologian-philosopher Paul Tillich discusses the starkly different ways in which religion and psychologists approach suffering and more specifically, anxiety. Tillich outlines two broad forms of anxiety: existential and pathological. Existential anxiety is an inevitable part of being human, arising in response to deep-seated concerns about death, meaninglessness, condemnation, and the like. Pathological anxiety, by contrast, is more contingent and specific to the individual, arising from an admixture of biopsychosocial factors. Tillich suggests that many psychotherapists either downplay or overlook this critical distinction, treating all anxiety as though it were the pathological type.
It has been my experience that people often gravitate toward one of these views of suffering more than the other. Those who approach it as part of the human condition may not only be drawn to religion and/or philosophy, but also to normal (as opposed to abnormal) psychology, including disciplines like positive psychology, mindfulness, personality typology, etc., all of which offer general prescriptions for living a happier and more satisfying life. Individuals in this camp are inclined to downplay pathology or victimization, preferring instead to interpret suffering within the bounds of normalcy.
By contrast, those inclined to see suffering as circumstantial, individualized, and outside the bounds of normalcy will often think in terms of environmentally-induced traumas or psychological disorders that require specialized treatment with drugs, extensive psychotherapy, or some combination thereof. Those in this camp are disposed to underestimate normality and overestimate the incidence of pathology or victimization.
The Role of Personality Type in Beliefs about Suffering
To my knowledge, my sidekick Elaine Schallock was the first to suggest that our inclination toward one of the above views is, to a certain extent, type dependent. Namely, she has observed that personality types using Ti and Fe (i.e., TPs & FJs) are more inclined to approach suffering in terms of normal psychology or the human condition in general, while types employing Fi and Te (i.e., FPs & TJs) are more likely to think about it in terms of past circumstances, traumas, or underlying pathology.
Before further enumerating Elaine’s theory, I would like offer a few preliminary remarks. First, the degree to which we see our past circumstances in a positive versus a negative light will likely impact our beliefs about suffering. It stands to reason that those who interpret their past circumstances and upbringing as normal / healthy will focus less on pathology or victimization than those coming from less optimal circumstances. Second, we must recognize that Elaine’s theory highlights general patterns to which there are bound to be exceptions. Third, because religiosity is common in all personality types, many individuals will feel similarly drawn to both accounts of suffering. This is entirely understandable and I have no intention to dispute it here. While acknowledging that there are more qualifications that could and perhaps even should be made, we will now proceed further into Elaine’s theory.
First, it is important to understand that Elaine begins with the assumption that F pertains to the realm of life and humanity, whereas T represents the physical / inorganic sphere. So in discussing the topic of human suffering, we’re really talking about an F issue. Therefore, to properly understand type differences in this respect, we must focus largely on the different approaches taken by Extraverted versus Introverted Feeling.
Extraverted Feeling (Fe), especially when combined with N (as seen in NFJs and NTPs), engenders an interest in general theories of human nature, which is why these types tend to enjoy philosophical and/or religious studies. If we associate Te (e.g., the hard sciences) with the formulation of broad theories about the physical universe, Fe (with N) is responsible for discerning overarching laws and patterns in human behavior.
Instead of highlighting general features of the human condition, Introverted Feeling (Fi) emphasizes the unique situation and experiences of the individual. It is thus inclined to criticize Fe theories (just as Ti is skeptical / critical of Te approaches), often seeing them as biased (e.g., stereotypes) or overreaching. Especially when dominant, Fi is reluctant to concede that there is much we can generally say or assume about human beings. It much prefers to see the individual as unique, malleable, and ever-evolving—far too complex to be put into boxes or categories. Due to Fi’s interest in appreciating and protecting individuality and diversity, FPs can be commonly found studying the arts, anthropology, and sociology (e.g., studies of prejudice / inequality).
With all that being said, different orderings of the function stack / hierarchy may make it harder for some types to appreciate or resonate with certain aspects of Elaine’s theory. For example, because many NFPs are drawn to all things natural / organic, they may resist pathologizing or managing human suffering with pharmaceuticals. Moreover, TJs may be perfectly comfortable with general theories of human nature / suffering as long as they are backed by sufficient evidence. Because Te comes before Fi in TJs’ function stack, objective facts, in whatever form, are apt to take precedence over Fi concerns about individuality.
It nonetheless remains the case that Ti and Fe always co-occur and operate together as a “function pair,” as do Fi and Te. For this reason alone, Elaine’s theory should not be readily dismissed. In other words, students of type theory should expect to find similarities between TPs and FJs, as well as FPs and TJs, because of their shared functions. Thus, it really isn’t a question of if these types are similar, but how they are similar. Fleshing out the details demands an accurate understanding of the particular functions, as well as an understanding of how they manifest in the beliefs and behaviors of various types. This post has elaborated some of Elaine’s views on the nature and manifestations of the Ti-Fe vs. Fi-Te function pairs.
In closing, I’d like to add that despite my early skepticism, I (A.J.) have largely come to agree with the basic outlines of Elaine’s theory. We have even incorporated some of its elements into our INTJ-INTP Type Clarifier and INFJ-INFP Type Clarifier tests. Finally, I must apologize to Elaine if I have in any way failed to represent, or have misrepresented, the essence of her intuition on these matters.
Learn More in our Books:
My True Type: Clarifying Your Personality Type, Preferences & Functions
The 16 Personality Types: Profiles, Theory & Type Development
The INTP: Personality, Careers, Relationships & the Quest for Truth and Meaning
Jure says
Great post, great ideas.
I’m an INFJ myself and of course I’ve been thinking about these things a lot. Of course the way we view our own suffering is type dependent. But we could easily turn it the other way around – is our type our early age experience dependent? Is there any proof that our type is inherent and everything else stems from it? Personally, I don’t believe I would develop in such an overly sensitive, extremely introvert INFJ without being raised by a narcissistic mother and hepless, frightened father.
Of course our intellectual and emotional complexity and thus MB type is predetermined to some extent, but I also believe that our final adult personality and our view of things, including our own suffering, is very much influenced by our childhood experiences.
The best personality page I know, keep up the great work!
Andrew says
INTP here. Overall I really enjoy the content of your website. However, I have just one bone to pick with your view of Christian beliefs.
As a Protestant this correction would not apply to Roman Catholicism, as they do believe what was stated. However, when you say that “the solution lies largely with God”, this ignores the Protestant belief that man can do nothing good without God, therefore, the solution lies FULLY and completely with God.
Also, for the Roman Catholics and Protestants alike, we agree that suffering is NOT an inherent part of being human. We believe mankind was created perfect which makes any sort of suffering foreign to human beings.
Again, I truly enjoy the analysis of this website, but my Ti could not let those details slip. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Rebecca says
I’ve been leaning largely towards identifying as INFP, but in this scenario my belief system lines up with normalcy, religion, and suffering being part of the human predicament. However I feel we each have our own unique sufferings and are a mixture of nurture and nature (with our core weighted towards nature). Sociology was my major, religion was my minor, and I took some psychology near the end and loved it. I view sociology and psychology as a macro and micro level partnership. They both help explain our problems and offer different puzzle pieces to the solution. I feel one level/ system can never encompass the entirety of explaining things because they both hold their own types of truth.
Kristene says
Also an INFP and my opinion is much the same as Rebecca before me. Yes, we are Fi dominant, but we are also very strong users of Ne and to a lesser extent Te, a combination which does let us see the commonality of human suffering, which I believe gives us a more balanced view of the situation than alluded to here.
We see it, we’re just probably less likely to outwardly acknowledge it due to both its obviousness (to us, anyways) and the fact that we’re usually so deep in our own minds and focused on our own suffering that we don’t think to talk about anything other than more personal past trauma based suffering.
A.J. Drenth says
Good point Kristene. Ne can serve as a nice counterbalance to Fi, opening and broadening its scope. In ISPs, we expect a similar effect as they increase the breadth and diversity of their Se experiences.
Jeff F. says
This was a great read. And again I agree with Rebecca. So much to unpack here. These same ideas have occupied my mind lately. One interesting note: until developing an understanding of MBTI and cognitive functions, and being an “FP”, I was solidly in the Nurture camp. Now? I’d say I reside full-time in Nature, but still appreciate how circumstance can shape that Natural landscape.
I sense that circumstance (especially very early and developmental) contributes significantly to the ‘firmware’ wiring that will crystallize and come to resemble something closer to hardware (hard-wiring) over time through feedback mechanics and so on. I do recognize the brain’s perpetual plasticity, but the other edge to its malleability is what probably allowed its initial “type configuration” to take shape.
For example, my mother tried the “let him cry in his crib” thing with me. I’ve no conscious memory of this. What I do remember is having to rock myself to sleep (it looked like I was crawling, but stationary, and rocking back and forth for twenty minutes each night so that I could fall asleep) until I was about ten years old. Being wary of correlation vs. causation, what role did that and related circumstance play in my otherwise physiological type development?
Rather than a chicken-vs-egg paradox, I think it’s a dynamic of perpetual interplay which, if graphed over one’s life would assume a “punctuated equilibrium” appearance. Our Nature (physiology) providing the consistent landscape that our Nurture (circumstance) shapes ~ sometimes very quickly and dramatically.
So many more thoughts on all of this, but I’ll just add: I’ve been stunned (bewildered, really) that systems such as MBTI which afford great insight and understanding of oneself and others is so esoteric. Without a serendipitous encounter with a graphic on Pinterest (and the compulsion to research initialisms), I would likely never have been exposed to these ideas. I’ve seen several therapists and have been prescribed drug cocktails. Not a single one of those professionals in either psychology or physiology ever mentioned anything like these systems to me. Why?? One sense is that MBTI poses great threats to very entrenched, and also very profitable, institutions on both ends of this spectrum. Much like our brain’s plasticity, our societal collective is also fairly hard-wired. Our task as individuals (Fi dom here ;) might be to embrace our ‘free radical’ role in keeping the larger organism healthy overall. Even while under attack by social and culture immune systems (e.g., fear, prejudice, closed-mindedness), we need to provide some forward and progressive motility to counter the conservative inertia and resultant toxicity.
INTJ Existentialist says
Excellent post. As an INTJ, I definitely experience existential anxiety on a reoccurring basis. I wish more people would talk about this, instead of focusing on the minutiae of life.
A.J. and Elaine, you are doing an excellent job with your keen insights into typology and functional stacks. Keep up the great work!. I’ve learned a lot from you two. What about the podcast?
Irene says
That was really very interesting. I observed this dichotomy in myself (intj) and entp members of my family and had put it on the j/p difference. (Suffering is an anomaly that needs fixing: intj enneatype 1 vs Suffering is part of life : entp enneatype 7 (sister) entp enneatype 2/3 (father)).
The response and reaction is quite different in our cases. I went on full Ni trying to figure out all possible aspects of it, studying it fully (of course I can’t, but I try to learn as much as possible about it). This knowledge, paradoxically soothes the suffering (without medication/ extra efforts to solve the anomaly). I think about Dabrowski’s positive disintegration or Kohut’s paradigm shift or Nietzsche’s übermensch overcoming nihilism. I think about how normalcy can/does follow disintegration AND that it is actually part of life and necessary to growth (the übermensch being better than the mensch / the impossibility of a revolution within a paradigm…etc) AND actually not a bad thing, rather a sign that you’re ready for more. You need to get hungry in order to not forget to feed yourself sort of analogy. Suffering prompts you to protect yourself from abuse for example. However, not all suffering is good or useful and it’s not always solved/adressed in positive ways.
My entp father and sister are not really bothered by solving this puzzle for themselves and would go for short medication/therapy when they need it. As if it were also part of life!
So the answer (meta vs local) is quite opposite in our case.
Thank you very much for the fascinating read.
Kara says
Great discussion topic. As a former counselor (INFJ) I could see the need to address past traumas and childhood issues as a way of healing. The hindrance to this was in the client’s social circle. What an oxymoron. Most people wanted a quick fix. As an infj my views were inborn, nothing has changed that, though my understanding of myself has as I’ve delved deeper into philosophy and embraced my creative side over the years.
Danielle says
As an INFJ I am ACUTELY aware of the suffering in the world especially related to animals and nature, to the point of maybe being an empath?Though I don’t allow it to swallow me into a depression. My artistic pursuits help in that regard. I haven’t had any major life traumas except loss of a loved one or parental divorce so I cannot say that factors into my outlook. I’ve always been this way. Great post!