Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 173

Thread: The Crosstype Principle: Theory and Information Elements

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The Crosstype Principle: Theory and Information Elements

    Multipart, I'm not going to put all of this in one post.

    Using the code tag to cut off comments from the main thesis.

    Code:
    Cross typed individuals, as people who experience personality functions that exist in even polarity to each other, are witness to what Carl Jung, the psychology of depth pioneer, called "the collective unconscious". The fact of their existence in a unipolar personasphere connotates several distinguishing inner-personal characteristics as mechanisms of adjustment to a society that by in large does not share their experience. These are the characteristics of gestaltia, non sequitur, impulsivity, and archetypal appraisal.
    
    The first characteristic, gestaltia, is exhibited by those individuals whose extroverted and introverted functions are of equal polarity, and not present in the ego. This personality, the gestalt person, experiences a misidentification of the subject (the source of psychic energy, in the Jungian form) with the object. (the focus) The gestalt person sees their thought in the words and deeds of others, viewing every other person as a distinct aspect of their own psyche. This is not to say, however, that the gestalt person does not feel the need for acceptance by others; quite the contrary, the gestalt person looks to the group for self-identity. Lacking an inner sense of self, the gestalt person places an acute sense of importance upon meeting the needs and expectations of their group. They will often act as the "devil's advocate", repeating the directives and purposes of the group to its members when there is disagreement among them. This restatement is not only on behalf of the group; for the ensuing argument will allow each side of its political spectrum to make its view known, individual by individual. This debate serves as a problem solving process for the gestalt person: the individual egos within the group function as the competing forces within the gestalt personality. Thus the person of the group and the gestalt individual are and remain the same, and the growth of the group corresponds to the growth of the individual. This largess of personality naturally lends itself to sustained exhaultation of the ego: the survival of the group becomes dependent upon the survival of the gestalt person. This line of reasoning lends itself to motive purification measures within the group by its own members, as the natural interest in each individual within the group by the gestalt person exhaults a truely charismatic aura and deep rapport between the gestalt person and the other members. As the group becomes increasingly aware of its social environment--and of its enemies in purpose--its mission becomes increasingly specialized and inflexible. The gestalt person correspondingly emerges as an uneven force within it, more deeply determined to sustain theirs and the group's survival than ever. The natural outcome of this elimination of alternatives in the gestalt mind is the elimination of dissenting individuals from the group; therefore the inevitable decline of the group corresponds to the decline of the influence and person of the gestalt individual as the social environment invariably voids the increasingly specialized functioning and relevance of both.
    
    The second characteristic is possessed by those individuals whose sensate and intuitive psychological functions are in equal polarity, and therefore not present in the ego. An individual whose sensate and intuitive functions are operative in a master-slave pairing (subordinating the one in favor of the other) would suggest that the experience of the iso-polar person is one of crossed functions, postulating the existence of the functions in the personality on the condition that they interpret the psychic information normally (defining "normal" as pertaining to the basic 16 types) reserved to their partner. This is the principle of crossed function. Without the postulate of crossed function, the experience of the iso-polar functions is unintelligible to personalities whose functions are normal.
    
    The experience of an individual whose sensate and intuitive functions are iso-polar can be thought of as "lighthearted" or "nonserious". For this reason we use the latin "non seqitur" (without logic) to discribe this condition. The non sequitur personality exists in a middle state between sensation dominance and intuitive dominance, allowing neither a decisive role in decision making. The non sequitur experiences reality, but does not rely on it as a means of living. Nor does the non sequitur engage in the abstract reality of intuitive possibility. The non sequitur chooses instead to allow the unconscious to mold their decision making, allowing themselves to float in what can only be described as willed oblivion from one situation to the next. The experience of the non-sequitur is the experience of society as a whole, punctuated by trends and styles, and governed by the needs of the times. Past experiences and future possiblities are of little concern to the non-sequitur, for in their experience the future is unpredictable and the past framed by events beyond anyone's control. The role of the non-sequitur is to help society come to terms with the inexplicable and at times disconcerting nature of change, and to align people in harmony with their changing environments.
    This may be difficult reading for some. I would like to know your opinions of what I have written. If you seem to be having trouble understanding, ask me and I will try to help you understand more clearly.

    EDIT: *Doink*, forgot megalomania. I need a better word for it though. Maybe gestalt?

    EDIT: (Feb 05 2006) Added description of the gestalt trait. Will revise for consistency of flow later.

  2. #2
    Creepy-

    Default

    This non-sequiter sounds a lot like Jim Morisson, which has been difficult to type due to the fact he was drunk most of the time. I guessed him to be an IXTP, but who knows what he really is. He might have a personality disorder like ILENTP mentioned or maybe being balanced when it comes between intuition and sensing or feeling and thinking could be another cause of his erratic behaviour.

    Is this non-sequiter some kind of super-person that has the abilities of both intuitive and sensing types, but discredits both and lives on a whole different view or maybe switches between types or even mold them together to perform both at the same time?

    The quote did not mention thinking and feeling and it boggles my mind because how could a non-sequiter exist for types such as ENTJ and ENFJ OR INTP and INFP? . How could someone have the abilities of of an INFP and of an INTP (socionics), (MBTI), they're too far spaced out and this person would transcend the other types and become a whole new type. Though naming this person as an INXP is not the answer. Labelling this person as an INTP with like so: INTP(Fi) or vise versa would make a lot more sense.

  3. #3
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,692
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I did the above post, I really got to break this habit....

    I think I'll roll my eyes over myself now.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    This non-sequiter sounds a lot like Jim Morisson, which has been difficult to type due to the fact he was drunk most of the time. I guessed him to be an IXTP, but who knows what he really is. He might have a personality disorder like ILENTP mentioned or maybe being balanced when it comes between intuition and sensing or feeling and thinking could be another cause of his erratic behaviour.

    Is this non-sequiter some kind of super-person that has the abilities of both intuitive and sensing types, but discredits both and lives on a whole different view or maybe switches between types or even mold them together to perform both at the same time?

    The quote did not mention thinking and feeling and it boggles my mind because how could a non-sequiter exist for types such as ENTJ and ENFJ OR INTP and INFP? . How could someone have the abilities of of an INFP and of an INTP (socionics), (MBTI), they're too far spaced out and this person would transcend the other types and become a whole new type. Though naming this person as an INXP is not the answer. Labelling this person as an INTP with like so: INTP(Fi) or vise versa would make a lot more sense.
    Well, I believe you can successfully figure out who he is. But I'm an INTJ so I'm probably not going to be of much help. (?)

  5. #5
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    This non-sequiter sounds a lot like Jim Morisson, which has been difficult to type due to the fact he was drunk most of the time. I guessed him to be an IXTP, but who knows what he really is. He might have a personality disorder like ILENTP mentioned or maybe being balanced when it comes between intuition and sensing or feeling and thinking could be another cause of his erratic behaviour.

    Is this non-sequiter some kind of super-person that has the abilities of both intuitive and sensing types, but discredits both and lives on a whole different view or maybe switches between types or even mold them together to perform both at the same time?

    The quote did not mention thinking and feeling and it boggles my mind because how could a non-sequiter exist for types such as ENTJ and ENFJ OR INTP and INFP? . How could someone have the abilities of of an INFP and of an INTP (socionics), (MBTI), they're too far spaced out and this person would transcend the other types and become a whole new type. Though naming this person as an INXP is not the answer. Labelling this person as an INTP with like so: INTP(Fi) or vise versa would make a lot more sense.
    Well, I believe you can successfully figure out who he is. But I'm an INTJ so I'm probably not going to be of much help. (?)
    Well, Jim Morrisson sounds a lot like an INFP anyways, and this non-sequiter was what I was mainly talking about in that quote. Though, unless you were talking about the non-sequiter.....

  6. #6
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    This non-sequiter sounds a lot like Jim Morisson, which has been difficult to type due to the fact he was drunk most of the time. I guessed him to be an IXTP, but who knows what he really is. He might have a personality disorder like ILENTP mentioned or maybe being balanced when it comes between intuition and sensing or feeling and thinking could be another cause of his erratic behaviour.

    Is this non-sequiter some kind of super-person that has the abilities of both intuitive and sensing types, but discredits both and lives on a whole different view or maybe switches between types or even mold them together to perform both at the same time?

    The quote did not mention thinking and feeling and it boggles my mind because how could a non-sequiter exist for types such as ENTJ and ENFJ OR INTP and INFP? . How could someone have the abilities of of an INFP and of an INTP (socionics), (MBTI), they're too far spaced out and this person would transcend the other types and become a whole new type. Though naming this person as an INXP is not the answer. Labelling this person as an INTP with like so: INTP(Fi) or vise versa would make a lot more sense.
    INFp has , not .

  7. #7
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In MBTI they do, and I think he was referring to MB for some of that. Which doesn't really make sense.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  8. #8
    Creepy-

    Default

    He was mixing MBTI with Socionics, which can only ever work for extroverts.

    He also didn't indicate that he was referring to MBTI for the INFp despite indicating Socionics for INTp.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    actually, i think even for extroverts some types are hard to reconcile. something i discovered when trying to reconcile my friend's highly extroverted fiancee's type from MBTI to socionics.

  10. #10
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirana
    actually, i think even for extroverts some types are hard to reconcile. something i discovered when trying to reconcile my friend's highly extroverted fiancee's type from MBTI to socionics.
    But it is theoretically possible, at least.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Updated with a description of the gestahlt (cross-extroverted/introverted) person.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Cross typed individuals, as people who experience personality functions that exist in even polarity to each other, are witness to what Carl Jung, the psychology of depth pioneer, called "the collective unconscious".
    Ohhh really? Hmmm, sounds to me like someone has been "reading inbetween the lines." I would like to see a reference where Jung said this exactly the way that this is presented here and in this context. Not that I am disagreeing with you, but I have never read an instance where Jung referred to the functions themselves as has been written here. It appears to me that there are some heavy implications here that may not have the proper founding or in the worst cases an utter lack of proper study using exogetical methods. Eisegesis is not the way to go!

    Also, I have read the entire things ... thanks for writting this whole thing out, but this whole crosstyping theory is not origional socionics. It is something else or a convuluted form of socionics that has deviated from the main theory. I think it should be made clear that this is a seperate theory so others newer to the concept will not mistake one for the other.

    Also, I really do not see any evidence or proof in any of this that would make the origional theory or "Model-A" seem defunct. Unless I have horribly misunderstood the reasoning behind this, which should propmt someone to make a follow-up if that is the case, not even with Jung's theories of Archetypes and the collective unconscious is there any conflict with socionics theory.

    First of all, "Gestalt" is a german word which means "form" or "type". Jung adopted the term from classic Catholicism, which took various images of Christ, Jesus, Mary, and other Saints and considered them to be "manifestations" of that that are in the "spiritual word". Probably the most widely used example of "Gestalt" as it is used in the Catholic church and also similarly in Jungian psychology is the tradition of "Transubstination," which involves the communion ceremony and is the belief that the bread and wine literally turn into Christ body and blood. It is a "physical manifestation" of a "spiritual manifestation." It was with this very aspect and conext that Jung intended his Archetypical theories. That people have to make themselves "physical examples" in order to understand "spiritual matters." Hence, the means to an end from that of intuition to that of sensing and the full and utter manifestation of the unseen to the seen. Therefore, to "bring the secret hidden things to light."

    In fact, the whole purpose of "Model-A" and the socionic Intertype Relationship theory is actually based specifically and exactly on the Jungian model of the collective unconscious, which is in itself an illustration of the "things that are hidden" as opposed to the "things that are seen."


    http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/synchronicity

    The socionic's model follows the "collective unconscious" wholeheartedly. It follows in Jung's example and is a means to help "bring the dark shadow side to light" and self-actualizing by finding the support of those who have awareness where we our selves are not aware.

    But, I look at this "cross-type" theory and how it actually shits all over Jung and socionics theory, and makes a complete mess of things.

    Tchaullldig, I wish you luck ... but I see no evidence to suggest that "cross typing" offers anything above standard socionics theory and I believe that it is backtracking into bad territory that should not be explored by anyone. It actually appears more to me that this crosstyping theory was origionally devised to make socionics seem more like MBTI, but is really a bad substitute for it.

    I will leave with a final warning - proceed with caucion! Cause some people are not going to be fooled! You might!

  13. #13
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think cross-types are something that should be debunked because of "lack of substantive evidence". I think cross-types are a natural deduction from the consideration of only being able to have one bias in a specific area. Cross-types should be analyzed for flaws in its theoretical base and whether it is valid to assume that possibilities exist in this realm.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    I don't think cross-types are something that should be debunked because of "lack of substantive evidence". I think cross-types are a natural deduction from the consideration of only being able to have one bias in a specific area. Cross-types should be analyzed for flaws in its theoretical base and whether it is valid to assume that possibilities exist in this realm.
    I am not really disageeing against crosstyping because of "lack of substantive evidence," there are lots of theories that I have accepted and studied in the past that had lack of evidence, but I only accepted them because they were all better alternatives. In this regards,"Crosstyping theory is not a better alternative above standard socionics theory and actually backtracks unnecessarily away from the theory without solid reason to do so" and therefore I can not accept the theory ahead of standard socionics theory.

    I hate to offend people, but it is the truth!

  15. #15
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    The question is: Is a theory at all needed?

  16. #16
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Forgot to add btw. Stats, Theories and the like are good and all but I do feel that it is our job to look and weigh multiple sides to see which has the strongest possibility of truth and/or realistic value.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    I don't think cross-types are something that should be debunked because of "lack of substantive evidence". I think cross-types are a natural deduction from the consideration of only being able to have one bias in a specific area. Cross-types should be analyzed for flaws in its theoretical base and whether it is valid to assume that possibilities exist in this realm.
    I am not really disageeing against crosstyping because of "lack of substantive evidence," there are lots of theories that I have accepted and studied in the past that had lack of evidence, but I only accepted them because they were all better alternatives. In this regards,"Crosstyping theory is not a better alternative above standard socionics theory and actually backtracks unnecessarily away from the theory without solid reason to do so" and therefore I can not accept the theory ahead of standard socionics theory.

    I hate to offend people, but it is the truth!
    Well I've made my case clear. By God with all the will in me I will sustain my analyses against those who would question the validity of intuition. You are arguing against the reality of my conclusions!? Who is going against socionics now, rmcnew? Is not the INTJ the master of uncovering these things, these intuitive forms? You're war against the concept of crosstype is not a war against me alone; it is an affront to every INTJ who demands a clear logical premise for their conclusions.

    INTJs, I have discovered this system on behalf of all of us. But not us alone: I also intend to broadly question society's existing interpretations of social institutions with it. This mastermind isn't about to take a threat to his plans lying down. Crosstype is a new avenue of opportunity for everyone.

    Am I affiliated with Socionics? No, I'm not. But I realize that they have the right idea on a lot of things. They're stopping at the water's edge though... and it is stupid for me to be suspicious of the reason why. When people can't see where a new idea will take them, they get afraid. They run. I'll bet there is a sect of socionics professionals that believes in crosstype--but they're being silenced by something. As for people like rmcnew who appear to have 1) values that differ from my own and 2) feel they have a definite stake in seeing these ideas stopped at the "water's edge", I know from experience that I can't hold back against them nor should I try to reason with them to any verifyable extent. Although, if you are really an ENxP rmcnew, (and I don't have a picture with which to make that conclusion) then perhaps you are making these charges in service of the unconscious fear that naturally extends from any encounter with a revelation this profound. Einstein had the Antirelativity Co., a group of antisemetics who were deeply disturbed by the discoveries he uncovered through his determination to understand the world. I may not be an archetypal thinker by nature, but I know what made him what he was....

    I've seen this phenomenon--reasonless disapproval of my ideas without adequate explanation--happen before. Well, I've learned my lesson and this time I'm not going to hold back. I will cast down the existing system that troubles people so, and even if the one I set up in its place proves to have flaws of its own I will at least be able to say I tried. And to me, that's all that matters.

    Mine is not my fight alone. It's the fight of every INTJ who holds similar values. Because INTJs, what works against me--will work against you. We need to stick together on this one.

    Yes rmcnew, you are an ENxP. An ENFP wouldn't be fighting me so hard. An ENTP would have an interesting new perspective. But what I'm seeing from you is quite bizzare.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    The question is: Is a theory at all needed?
    A good question.

    A theory is meant to advance man's understanding of truth. That's all I'm trying to uncover with crosstype: the truth.

    Running away from the truth is just that: running away. Not facing up to responsibility. Letting other people down. I couldn't live like that. I must search for the truth so that I know that the way I am living is the best that I can live on behalf of everyone.

  19. #19
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe this isn't about whether or not people are afraid of new ideas, but rather that your explanation of cross-types just plain sucks. I am not doubting the existence of cross-types, but I am doubting your interpretation of it.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  20. #20
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    So the truth is your logical/ethical value?

    Anyways, it is not running away from something if it is not valued. Not needing something would be like passing a paper cup and not caring.

    This is kind of fun to think about :/

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    I think that "crosstypes" or whatever can be a DIRECTION of certain types. Kind of like subtypes in a way.

    For instance, I have read in many places that the "Role Function" tends to be of an extreme sort. So, you can have a "subtype" that is at one extreme, and a different "subtype" at another extreme.

    Say, an ENTp with superobnoxious and an ENTp with nonexistant .

    An INFj that overanalyzes everything to the point of absurdity, and an INFj that doesn't think at all and just "does".
    *sigh* you're NOT EXPANDING THE MODEL.

    Nevermind. I had a good reply ready but it died when the page refreshed somehow. It wouldn't change anything anyhow. I'm sorry Rocky but I think I'm going to strike out on my own. I'll pay homage to socionics where it is due, but I can't tolerate this stupidity anymore. Seeing Cone turn on me just teared it. I've had enough of INTPs' reckless inability to perceive relationship states. Somehow, someway I'll find a way to promote this idea, you bet your lives on it.

    By the way, the ordering method for these things (for those of you who are can't see the forest for the trees) is "for every crossed function pair, assign its responsibilities to the next non-crossed pair from the left." Therefore the seventh function becomes the sixth, the fourth becomes the third, etc. It's really simple to deduce, but why does someone need to know the function "ordering" anyhow?

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    703
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    *sigh* you're NOT EXPANDING THE MODEL.

    Nevermind. I had a good reply ready but it died when the page refreshed somehow. It wouldn't change anything anyhow. I'm sorry Rocky but I think I'm going to strike out on my own. I'll pay homage to socionics where it is due, but I can't tolerate this stupidity anymore. Seeing Cone turn on me just teared it. I've had enough of INTPs' reckless inability to perceive relationship states. Somehow, someway I'll find a way to promote this idea, you bet your lives on it.
    You know, it could be possible you're mistaken instead of the rest of the world. All anyone asks is a reason to even bother considering crosstypes, and the best you give us is the emperor's new clothes argument. You've yet to actually prove there are people that don't fit into the 16 types. You don't give us anything to understand how a crosstype functions (such as Model A or suitable equivalent), instead you expect us to just take your word for it. You seem to have some kind of expanded intertype relationship theory, but no explination behind how it's formed. Until you start giving it some solidarity and flesh it out, don't expect anyone to take it seriously.

    Dude, that emperor is naked.
    That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [quote="tcaudilllg"]
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    I don't think cross-types are something that should be debunked because of "lack of substantive evidence". I think cross-types are a natural deduction from the consideration of only being able to have one bias in a specific area. Cross-types should be analyzed for flaws in its theoretical base and whether it is valid to assume that possibilities exist in this realm.
    I am not really disageeing against crosstyping because of "lack of substantive evidence," there are lots of theories that I have accepted and studied in the past that had lack of evidence, but I only accepted them because they were all better alternatives. In this regards,"Crosstyping theory is not a better alternative above standard socionics theory and actually backtracks unnecessarily away from the theory without solid reason to do so" and therefore I can not accept the theory ahead of standard socionics theory.

    I hate to offend people, but it is the truth!
    Well I've made my case clear. By God with all the will in me I will sustain my analyses against those who would question the validity of intuition. You are arguing against the reality of my conclusions!? Who is going against socionics now, rmcnew? Is not the INTJ the master of uncovering these things, these intuitive forms? You're war against the concept of crosstype is not a war against me alone; it is an affront to every INTJ who demands a clear logical premise for their conclusions.
    What a funny unfounded statement. I was just talking with an INTj today who thinks that crosstyping is totally nuts, unnecessary, and agreed with my own conclusions about it. He also has read what you wrote in thread and thinks the whole thing is bizaare. If anything, I would more readily assume that anyone with atleast half a brain would logically conclude that as well.

    INTJs, I have discovered this system on behalf of all of us. But not us alone: I also intend to broadly question society's existing interpretations of social institutions with it. This mastermind isn't about to take a threat to his plans lying down. Crosstype is a new avenue of opportunity for everyone.
    Maybe, but I have already stated that it offers absolutly nothing above standard socionics theory and even contradicts socionics theory. It is not even that great of an alternative, in fact it backtracks. I seriously doubt that it has the potential to impact socionics the way that is claimed here.

    Am I affiliated with Socionics? No, I'm not. But I realize that they have the right idea on a lot of things. They're stopping at the water's edge though... and it is stupid for me to be suspicious of the reason why. When people can't see where a new idea will take them, they get afraid. They run. I'll bet there is a sect of socionics professionals that believes in crosstype--but they're being silenced by something.
    Pbbbbt ... Black Helicopters My Ass! So is the secret police coming to come out with a can of whoopass if one of theses "secret socionic professionals" suddenly spoke out about the crosstype theory? I doubt it ... more like socionic professionals are not making a big deal about it or are indiffrent because they know it conflicts with standard socionics theory and even blatently contradicts it. People know better ...

    As for people like rmcnew who appear to have 1) values that differ from my own and 2) feel they have a definite stake in seeing these ideas stopped at the "water's edge", I know from experience that I can't hold back against them nor should I try to reason with them to any verifyable extent. Although, if you are really an ENxP rmcnew, (and I don't have a picture with which to make that conclusion) then perhaps you are making these charges in service of the unconscious fear that naturally extends from any encounter with a revelation this profound. Einstein had the Antirelativity Co., a group of antisemetics who were deeply disturbed by the discoveries he uncovered through his determination to understand the world. I may not be an archetypal thinker by nature, but I know what made him what he was....
    If the theory gets stopped, it would not be on account of me. It would be because it offers no greater alternative above socionics theory.

    I've seen this phenomenon--reasonless disapproval of my ideas without adequate explanation--happen before. Well, I've learned my lesson and this time I'm not going to hold back. I will cast down the existing system that troubles people so, and even if the one I set up in its place proves to have flaws of its own I will at least be able to say I tried. And to me, that's all that matters.
    My explanation for disapproval is that not only does it contradict everything that socionics stands for, it offers no greater alternative over socionics theory. I have already given an explanation as to why, and I suppose that if the fact that I disagree makes that explanation inadequate, so be it ... I am not going to agree so it will suddenly become adequet.

    Yes rmcnew, you are an ENxP. An ENFP wouldn't be fighting me so hard. An ENTP would have an interesting new perspective. But what I'm seeing from you is quite bizzare.
    I wanted to help adapt the theory to my own knowledge of socionics thking that I found it to have an advantage over socionics theory, but I found myself dissapointed and feeling like the whole thing backtracks away from socionics. I do not see how that is so bizaare ...

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [quote="rmcnew"]
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    I don't think cross-types are something that should be debunked because of "lack of substantive evidence". I think cross-types are a natural deduction from the consideration of only being able to have one bias in a specific area. Cross-types should be analyzed for flaws in its theoretical base and whether it is valid to assume that possibilities exist in this realm.
    I am not really disageeing against crosstyping because of "lack of substantive evidence," there are lots of theories that I have accepted and studied in the past that had lack of evidence, but I only accepted them because they were all better alternatives. In this regards,"Crosstyping theory is not a better alternative above standard socionics theory and actually backtracks unnecessarily away from the theory without solid reason to do so" and therefore I can not accept the theory ahead of standard socionics theory.

    I hate to offend people, but it is the truth!
    Well I've made my case clear. By God with all the will in me I will sustain my analyses against those who would question the validity of intuition. You are arguing against the reality of my conclusions!? Who is going against socionics now, rmcnew? Is not the INTJ the master of uncovering these things, these intuitive forms? You're war against the concept of crosstype is not a war against me alone; it is an affront to every INTJ who demands a clear logical premise for their conclusions.
    What a funny unfounded statement. I was just talking with an INTj today who thinks that crosstyping is totally nuts, unnecessary, and agreed with my own conclusions about it. He also has read what you wrote in thread and thinks the whole thing is nuts. If anything, I would more readily assume that anyone with a brain would logically concluded that

    INTJs, I have discovered this system on behalf of all of us. But not us alone: I also intend to broadly question society's existing interpretations of social institutions with it. This mastermind isn't about to take a threat to his plans lying down. Crosstype is a new avenue of opportunity for everyone.
    Maybe, but I have already stated that it offers absolutly nothing above standard socionics theory and even contradicts socionics theory. It is not even that great of an alternative, in fact it backtracks. I seriously doubt that it has the potential to impact socionics the way that is claimed here.

    Am I affiliated with Socionics? No, I'm not. But I realize that they have the right idea on a lot of things. They're stopping at the water's edge though... and it is stupid for me to be suspicious of the reason why. When people can't see where a new idea will take them, they get afraid. They run. I'll bet there is a sect of socionics professionals that believes in crosstype--but they're being silenced by something.
    Pbbbbt ... Black Helicopters My Ass! So is the secret police coming to come out with a can of whoopass if one of theses "secret socionic professionals" suddenly spoke out about the crosstype theory? I doubt it ... more like socionic professionals are not making a big deal about it or are indiffrent because they know it conflicts with standard socionics theory and even blatently contradicts it. People know better ...

    As for people like rmcnew who appear to have 1) values that differ from my own and 2) feel they have a definite stake in seeing these ideas stopped at the "water's edge", I know from experience that I can't hold back against them nor should I try to reason with them to any verifyable extent. Although, if you are really an ENxP rmcnew, (and I don't have a picture with which to make that conclusion) then perhaps you are making these charges in service of the unconscious fear that naturally extends from any encounter with a revelation this profound. Einstein had the Antirelativity Co., a group of antisemetics who were deeply disturbed by the discoveries he uncovered through his determination to understand the world. I may not be an archetypal thinker by nature, but I know what made him what he was....
    If the theory gets stopped, it would not be on account of me. It would be because it offers no greater alternative above socionics theory.

    I've seen this phenomenon--reasonless disapproval of my ideas without adequate explanation--happen before. Well, I've learned my lesson and this time I'm not going to hold back. I will cast down the existing system that troubles people so, and even if the one I set up in its place proves to have flaws of its own I will at least be able to say I tried. And to me, that's all that matters.
    My explanation for disapproval is that not only does it contradict everything that socionics stands for, it offers no greater alternative over socionics theory. I have already given an explanation as to why, and I suppose that if the fact that I disagree makes that explanation inadequate, so be it ... I am not going to agree so it will suddenly become adequet.

    Yes rmcnew, you are an ENxP. An ENFP wouldn't be fighting me so hard. An ENTP would have an interesting new perspective. But what I'm seeing from you is quite bizzare.
    I wanted to help adapt the theory to my own knowledge of socionics thking that I found it to have an advantage over socionics theory, but I found myself dissapointed and feeling like the whole thing backtracks away from socionics. I do not see how that is so bizaare ...
    Deceiver. I've already stated that it builds on socionics. Anyone can see that it explicitly uses the following: VI, type relations, and the eight functions. It only adds a third option to each function--a cross between the two. You say that crosstype is backtracking, but just because you said it doesn't mean it's true.

    I've already made clear that I derived the crosstype relations by imagining situations when more than one relation was active at once.

    That INTJ was probably lying to you, BTW. Some INTJs are apt to do that when they don't have a good opinion of their partner in conversation. Any INTJ who had seriously considered the possibility would immediately see the values of crosstyping.

    I don't mean to offer an alternative. I mean to offer an improvement. Socionics isn't wrong; it's completely right. But it doesn't go far enough.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, my apologizes if you are of the opinion that this theory is actually improving socionics, it is not.It is ignoring the primary foundations and structure of Model-A and contradicts the model heavily. The only functions that need to be strengthened in order to gain a functional balance are the Super-Id functions, yet the Super-EGO functions must not be highlighted specifically in that process or it may cause a weakening of specific functions. That is why dualization was emphasized so much by early socionist, because they were forming a method and a model to achieve a function balance by being within the presence of one who will minimize your functional weakness and strengthen your strengths. But! That still does not mean that things are going to change just because some functions are shoved into the Id and Super-Ego blocks, that ordering would stay the same regardless of the balancing of the functions; type preservation will be preserved regardless.

    Honestly, crosstyping just comes acrost to me as a cheap shoddy way of typing people who are otherwise difficult to type, while ignoring the structure of Model-A. That just seems pointless to me.

  26. #26
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Honestly, crosstyping just comes acrost to me as a cheap shoddy way of typing people who are otherwise difficult to type, while ignoring the structure of Model-A. That just seems pointless to me.
    I think there is something to cross types because it can explain my apparent signs of a weak and a weak while normal socionics can't. I always imagine the worst possible outcome when concerning possibilities. Like if for instance my mother or father are late coming home. I tend to thing that the most gruesome unrealistic things have happened to them. Also, I often do not notice people in the street and this has cause people to not even great me anymore. I even once walked right pass my mother without noticing her. Very often people later tell me of me "ignoring " them.

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Well, my apologizes if you are of the opinion that this theory is actually improving socionics, it is not.It is ignoring the primary foundations and structure of Model-A and contradicts the model heavily. The only functions that need to be strengthened in order to gain a functional balance are the Super-Id functions, yet the Super-EGO functions must not be highlighted specifically in that process or it may cause a weakening of specific functions.
    That's exactly right. And how is it that weakened functions may not appear in humans? Let's look at the chart.

    Block Pairs
    Socionics uses psychological groupings of blocks that most people are already understand with a minimal knowledge of psychology. The ego, superego, and id are used, as well as the superid.

    Ego
    This is your "I". Your most conscious and used block of personality. This is your most active and conscious part of your personality.

    Superego
    This is your zone of social uncertainty and doubt.

    Superid
    This block is the origin of your childishness and suggestability. You follow others in this area, you have no confidence but you feel this is not your fault.

    Id
    Your aggressive, instinctive, self.
    Several points of precise correlation to be made here. I'm only going to make a few though; there is such a thing as "assumption" that something will happen the way you expect when everything else does. And I'm only going to tolerate this debate so far: you're draining on my Ni....

    Your first postulate: "The only functions that need to be strengthened in order to gain a functional balance are the Super-Id functions, yet the Super-EGO functions must not be highlighted specifically in that process or it may cause a weakening of specific functions."

    I never said they were balanced. I said they were either crossed or non-existent. I'm saying they DON'T APPEAR IN THE PERSONALITY. They are in EQUAL POLARITY. It's like two waves of the same frequency going at each other: they completely interfere with each other. They cancel each other out.

    But what are you really talking about when you say "functional balance"? I don't see that in Model-A at all.

    I don't think you're in step with socionics yourself.

  28. #28
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I never said they were balanced. I said they were either crossed or non-existent. I'm saying they DON'T APPEAR IN THE PERSONALITY. They are in EQUAL POLARITY. It's like two waves of the same frequency going at each other: they completely interfere with each other. They cancel each other out.
    I am very willing to agree with you, but as I see it, a cross-type can only have crossed functions as non-existant, not as equal-polarity. Two equal, yet opposing functions is like choosing to go both north and south at the same time. Now choosing to go nowhere is a logical statement, or perhaps seeing north and south as the same thing, although I'm not sure how that would pan out...
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Honestly, crosstyping just comes acrost to me as a cheap shoddy way of typing people who are otherwise difficult to type, while ignoring the structure of Model-A. That just seems pointless to me.
    I think there is something to cross types because it can explain my apparent signs of a weak and a weak while normal socionics can't. I always imagine the worst possible outcome when concerning possibilities. Like if for instance my mother or father are late coming home. I tend to thing that the most gruesome unrealistic things have happened to them. Also, I often do not notice people in the street and this has cause people to not even great me anymore. I even once walked right pass my mother without noticing her. Very often people later tell me of me "ignoring " them.
    That's because you're an ISFp. :wink:
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  30. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I never said they were balanced. I said they were either crossed or non-existent. I'm saying they DON'T APPEAR IN THE PERSONALITY. They are in EQUAL POLARITY. It's like two waves of the same frequency going at each other: they completely interfere with each other. They cancel each other out.
    I am very willing to agree with you, but as I see it, a cross-type can only have crossed functions as non-existant, not as equal-polarity. Two equal, yet opposing functions is like choosing to go both north and south at the same time. Now choosing to go nowhere is a logical statement, or perhaps seeing north and south as the same thing, although I'm not sure how that would pan out...
    That's a good point. The question is, how do you decide what another type is relating to you as? ...*sigh* I'm going to do my best to explain this to you, Cone, but trying to act like a P will probably give me a stroke.... (so I'm not going to try anymore)

    How does one see a crosstyped person? I see Einstein's work as drawing conclusions from systems and systems from conclusions. If I were to be able to perceive the knowledge that created a system from watching it in action, I would think my perception and judgement crossed relative to the normal type. But only relative to the type, because I am attempting to reconcile my disparate existence with the normal expectation. I function according to the rules of common sense as everyone else does, but my sense of "common sense" is reversed from theirs. They appear to have rushed to judgement or to have taken too long to make their decisions.

    A personality that cannot feel is non-the-less tasked with feeling. Is this information ignored? Not necessarily. The interpretation of the information is profoundly different from what a feeler would feel, but like the colorblind person who believes they are seeing the entire world of color, the world seems complete to them and they perceive themselves as feeling even as everyone else does. (indeed, it is the "feelers" who are not feeling, not them) Does the colorblind person see less color, or simply more of the same color than everyone else? Which is better, to see more green, blue, and red, or 50% more green and blue; indeed, perhaps even richer green and blue than the red can see?

    The important thing to emphasize about crosstype is that the perceptions are completely relative. Crossed/nonexistent, it doesn't matter. Either way the distribution of information is disparate from the norm. (itself, of course, a relative concept) Very likely, the crosstypes see ourselves as being "crossed".

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I function according to the rules of common sense as everyone else does, but my sense of "common sense" is reversed from theirs. They appear to have rushed to judgement or to have taken too long to make their decisions.
    !!!!

    That's related to crossed J/P? Those thoughts go through my mind all the time. :/
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  32. #32
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,692
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Tcaudtillg: I think your on to something with these cross-types. I have several questions. What percentage of people are cross-types? Are they able to use two dominant functions that are equally strong.

    For example, could an EXFp be able to use and equally, but has to use a switch to flip between them. Or maybe, instead they are used simultaneously if that is possible.

    Does the ordering change completely for cross-types or follows the same rules as socionics or MBTI would?
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  33. #33
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    That's because you're an ISFp. :wink:
    How can you tell from that? I am intrigued.

  34. #34
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew

    Honestly, crosstyping just comes acrost to me as a cheap shoddy way of typing people who are otherwise difficult to type, while ignoring the structure of Model-A. That just seems pointless to me.

    Youre not biased for a specific theoretical model I hope? If something that was superior came along, would you still prefer the older model?

  35. #35
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's what happened to Te Socionics.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  36. #36
    Creepy-

    Default Cross-types again

    Rather than take over someone else's thread, I decided I'd start a new one. I like fresh starts...

    Anyway, I don't know what to think of the reality of cross-types but the theory intrigues me.

    @Tcaudilllg: I think to be taken seriously, you need to do an un-LII thing and explain everything, particularly the hows and whys. Your explanations have obviously been unsatisfactory to the majority of vocal readers but I'd like you to try again, if it doesn't stretch your patience or anything. In particular, I'd like to hear more about how it works in terms of Model A.

    It would also be good if you could details of how they are crossed in terms of functions, particularly the xNFj or ISTx type of crosses which aren't so obvious simply by stating them.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, and in addition to further explanation, perhaps some sort of physical model would serve to facilitate understanding of the cross-type theory.
    Lyricist

    "Supposing the entity of the poet to be represented by the number 10, it is certain that a chemist, on analyzing it, would find it to be composed of one part interest and nine parts vanity." (Victor Hugo)

  38. #38
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg


    Well I've made my case clear. By God with all the will in me I will sustain my analyses against those who would question the validity of intuition. You are arguing against the reality of my conclusions!? Who is going against socionics now, rmcnew? Is not the INTJ the master of uncovering these things, these intuitive forms? You're war against the concept of crosstype is not a war against me alone; it is an affront to every INTJ who demands a clear logical premise for their conclusions.

    INTJs, I have discovered this system on behalf of all of us. But not us alone: I also intend to broadly question society's existing interpretations of social institutions with it. This mastermind isn't about to take a threat to his plans lying down. Crosstype is a new avenue of opportunity for everyone.

    Am I affiliated with Socionics? No, I'm not. But I realize that they have the right idea on a lot of things. They're stopping at the water's edge though... and it is stupid for me to be suspicious of the reason why. When people can't see where a new idea will take them, they get afraid. They run. I'll bet there is a sect of socionics professionals that believes in crosstype--but they're being silenced by something. As for people like rmcnew who appear to have 1) values that differ from my own and 2) feel they have a definite stake in seeing these ideas stopped at the "water's edge", I know from experience that I can't hold back against them nor should I try to reason with them to any verifyable extent. Although, if you are really an ENxP rmcnew, (and I don't have a picture with which to make that conclusion) then perhaps you are making these charges in service of the unconscious fear that naturally extends from any encounter with a revelation this profound. Einstein had the Antirelativity Co., a group of antisemetics who were deeply disturbed by the discoveries he uncovered through his determination to understand the world. I may not be an archetypal thinker by nature, but I know what made him what he was....

    I've seen this phenomenon--reasonless disapproval of my ideas without adequate explanation--happen before. Well, I've learned my lesson and this time I'm not going to hold back. I will cast down the existing system that troubles people so, and even if the one I set up in its place proves to have flaws of its own I will at least be able to say I tried. And to me, that's all that matters.

    Mine is not my fight alone. It's the fight of every INTJ who holds similar values. Because INTJs, what works against me--will work against you. We need to stick together on this one.

    Yes rmcnew, you are an ENxP. An ENFP wouldn't be fighting me so hard. An ENTP would have an interesting new perspective. But what I'm seeing from you is quite bizzare.
    I have no idea whether crosstypes exist or not, but I rarely enjoyed reading a post so much.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  39. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew

    Honestly, crosstyping just comes acrost to me as a cheap shoddy way of typing people who are otherwise difficult to type, while ignoring the structure of Model-A. That just seems pointless to me.

    Youre not biased for a specific theoretical model I hope? If something that was superior came along, would you still prefer the older model?
    Yes, if it offered me something above the current model I would accept it ... the only things I have seen crosstyping do is place Xs in places were functions are suppose to be equal strength and totally contradict model-A.

    For example, it is impossible according to Model-A to use the Ego and Id functions at the same time in the same way as each other. In order for that to work at all, the introverted and extroverted functions must flip themselves between behaving like an EGO and Id function.

    Say an ENTp uses as a main function, and as a second function. An ENTp can not use without first flipping to act like an Id function. However, a block can not function with just two introverted functions or two extroverted functions, it needs an extroverted and introverted function. This means that an ENTp can not function using and together and must eventually flip back to in order to effectually process information. It just is not something that is possible.

    This is one of the reasons I think that crosstyping is an invalid theory. Model-A really does not have to do so much with weak and strong functions alone, it has more to do with functions interacting with each other and that functions have diffrent behaviours within diffrent blocks, and that having functions in certain blocks means that you should expect certain behaviours from those functions. Crosstyping appears to totally avoid dealing with this crucial aspect of the socionic psyche model.

    On the other hand, I see that crosstyping might have some validity in dealing with individuals who have encountered forms of dualization, meaning that they have received some degree of functional balance and do not display the extremes found characteristic of their own specific type. But [do not quote the above paragraph except within the context of what I am going to say next!], I think that it fails in itself to consider the bavioural tendencies of functions and that those tendencies will still remain to a certain degree once someone has been dualized, and that is where crosstype theory is utterly flawed and should be disregarded, or atleast reconsidered and redrawn with that that in mind.

  40. #40
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,692
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew

    Honestly, crosstyping just comes acrost to me as a cheap shoddy way of typing people who are otherwise difficult to type, while ignoring the structure of Model-A. That just seems pointless to me.

    Youre not biased for a specific theoretical model I hope? If something that was superior came along, would you still prefer the older model?
    Yes, if it offered me something above the current model I would accept it ... the only things I have seen crosstyping do is place Xs in places were functions are suppose to be equal strength and totally contradict model-A.

    For example, it is impossible according to Model-A to use the Ego and Id functions at the same time in the same way as each other. In order for that to work at all, the introverted and extroverted functions must flip themselves between behaving like an EGO and Id function.

    Say an ENTp uses as a main function, and as a second function. An ENTp can not use without first flipping to act like an Id function. However, a block can not function with just two introverted functions or two extroverted functions, it needs an extroverted and introverted function. This means that an ENTp can not function using and together and must eventually flip back to in order to effectually process information. It just is not something that is possible.

    This is one of the reasons I think that crosstyping is an invalid theory. Model-A really does not have to do so much with weak and strong functions alone, it has more to do with functions interacting with each other and that functions have diffrent behaviours within diffrent blocks, and that having functions in certain blocks means that you should expect certain behaviours from those functions. Crosstyping appears to totally avoid dealing with this crucial aspect of the socionic psyche model.

    On the other hand, I see that crosstyping might have some validity in dealing with individuals who have encountered forms of dualization, meaning that they have received some degree of functional balance and do not display the extremes found characteristic of their own specific type. But [do not quote the above paragraph except within the context of what I am going to say next!], I think that it fails in itself to consider the bavioural tendencies of functions and that those tendencies will still remain to a certain degree once someone has been dualized, and that is where crosstype theory is utterly flawed and should be disregarded, or atleast reconsidered and redrawn with that that in mind.
    Yes, but I would have to assume that the cross-type would be able to switch when he switches with . So, an ENTx cross type can at any time switch from using his and his and then all of a sudden switch to a dominance and . It probably is possible considering that the and of an ENTp still remains strong, but lacking. Maybe, a cross-type has the power to actually balance both extraverted and introverted aspects of intuition and thinking. That is if the judging and perceiving function is balanced enough. Of course an EXTp, would have to be able to switch and , so that means that would be third plance and would take over as first, if that is possible.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •