My thoughts on cross-types

[Creepy-]

Ok, I've been doing a lot of research and experimenting.

I decided the first thing I would do would be crosses "between" Mirrors. (I don't know whether it has anything to do with tcaudillg's theory, though).

The main problem I've found is that these crosses are kind of redundant. It looks to be more of an expression of the variation inherent within any one type... (assuming Mirrors are at either end of the spectrum) and could probably be better accounted for by Gulenko's subtype theory.

What do you think?

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

(Nomenclature of the crosses is fairly arbitrary for the moment)

Mirror Crosses

• All functions are both accepting and producing.
• Functions are better identified by their blocks, i.e. Ne and Ti are better described as Ego functions than as distinctly Base and Creative functions.

ENTp / ILE (Intuitive-Logical Extratim)
Ne Ti | Se Fi // Si Fe | Ni Te
Alpha Quadra

INTj / LII (Logical-Intuitive Intratim)
Ti Ne | Fi Se // Fe Si | Te Ni
Alpha Quadra

ENTx / I=L(E)α (Intuitive-Logical (Extratim) Alpha)
Ne=Ti | Se=Fi // Si=Fe | Ni=Te
Alpha Quadra
• No significant tendency towards either rationality or irrationality
• Predominantly extroverted

INTx / L=I(I)α (Logical-Intuitive (Intratim) Alpha)
Ti=Ne | Fi=Se // Fe=Si | Te=Ni
Alpha Quadra
• No significant tendency towards either rationality or irrationality
• Predominantly introverted

xNTp / I=L(E)α (Intuitive-Logical (Irrational) Alpha)
Ne=Ti | Se=Fi // Si=Fe | Ni=Te
Alpha Quadra
• No significant tendency towards either extroversion or introversion
• Predominantly irrational

xNTj / L=Iα (Logical-Intuitive (Rational) Alpha)
Ti=Ne | Fi=Se // Fe=Si | Te=Ni
Alpha Quadra
• No significant tendency towards either extroversion or introversion
• Predominantly rational

xNTx / (I=L)α (Intuitive-Logical Alpha)
Ne=Ti | Se=Fi // Si=Fe | Ni=Te
Alpha Quadra
• No significant tendency towards either extroversion or introversion
• No significant tendency towards either rationality or irrationality

[Creepy-]

Some of tcaudillg's cross-types seem kind of arbitrary, as if the creator got over-excited, i.e.

xNFp etc.
xNTx etc.
ESTx etc.

Regardless of how you twist them, they seem illogical and I can't make them fit Model A. J/P crosses don't really make sense anyway because J and P aren't functions... neither is the I/E for that matter. If you took xNTx to mean something like INTj crossed with ENTp it might work although such a cross seems redundant.

Unless there is a special interpretation I'm not aware of? Otherwise we get crazy version of Model A like

INFx --- Ni/Fi Fe/Ne Si/Ti Te/Se

and that really doesn't work...

For the moment, crosses like INxp, ExFj etc. still seem plausible (in my mind).

[Creepy-]

That being said, types like xNFp might work somehow.

xNFp --- Nx Fx Sx Tx // Sx Tx Nx Fx

I can imagine such a type would be a very sensitive and very confused individual who found it hard to separate the objective from the subjective.

[Expat]

. If you took xNTx to mean something like INTj crossed with ENTp it might work although such a cross seems redundant.

Not redundant, it would be the kind of mirror crossing that you described in the first post and that would be indeed related to Gulenko's subtypes.

I think that would be at most a small part of tcaudillg's full theory, and one that seems at least more plausible to me and at more consistent with socionics.

[Creepy-]

It just seems more complete to say "ENTp logical subtype" or "INTj intuitive subtype". Unless their functions were neither accepting nor producing, and that would be one extremely confused Alpha.

The nomenclature doesn't suit it, either. How does one differentiate between an Alpha xNTx and a Gamma xNTx?

[discojoe]

*brain explodes*

Ignore me.

[tcaudilllg]

It just seems more complete to say "ENTp logical subtype" or "INTj intuitive subtype". Unless their functions were neither accepting nor producing, and that would be one extremely confused Alpha.

The nomenclature doesn't suit it, either. How does one differentiate between an Alpha xNTx and a Gamma xNTx?

But I'm an INTj intuitive subtype. Trying to understand Einstein is hard for me. I manage it, but only after carefully training myself over many hours.

I've gotten better at it, but I still can't skim his work. I can skim any INTJ's work though.

Maybe confusion is relative.

I think you're piecing the puzzle together. (acts carefully to avoid trying to help ishysquishy) But didn't couldn't a person use their sensing as feeling if they did it very, very quickly in conjunction with thinking? Like a simulation that comes close, but never quite gets there.

[Creepy-]

But I'm an INTj intuitive subtype. Trying to understand Einstein is hard for me. I manage it, but only after carefully training myself over many hours.

I've gotten better at it, but I still can't skim his work. I can skim any INTJ's work though.

Is Einstein an INTx in the spirit of INTj/INTp or INTj/ENTp?

I think you're piecing the puzzle together. (acts carefully to avoid trying to help ishysquishy)

Meanie

But didn't couldn't a person use their sensing as feeling if they did it very, very quickly in conjunction with thinking? Like a simulation that comes close, but never quite gets there.

What context are we in here? And feeling meaning Ethics, right?

I think I can see what you mean, but wouldn't it be more of a perception of emotions than Ethics itself?

(edit: typo)

[tcaudilllg]

But I'm an INTj intuitive subtype. Trying to understand Einstein is hard for me. I manage it, but only after carefully training myself over many hours.

I've gotten better at it, but I still can't skim his work. I can skim any INTJ's work though.

Is Einstein an INTx in the spirit of INTj/INTp or INTj/ENTp?

INTj/INTp.

I think you're piecing the puzzle together. (acts carefully to avoid trying to help ishysquishy)

Meanie

Don't the relations say I can't help you? Perhaps if someone restates what I'm saying. Will you do that for me, Herzblut?

But didn't couldn't a person use their sensing as feeling if they did it very, very quickly in conjunction with thinking? Like a simulation that comes close, but never quite gets there.

What context are we in here? And feeling meaning Ethics, right?

I think I can see what you mean, but wouldn't it be more of a perception of emotions than Ethics itself?t[/quote]

Yes, it would. The archetypal view is so... seemingly dispassionate and lifeless at the level perceivers and judges operate at. The archetypal view finds passion in extreme scale. Think Einstein and the theory of relativity: vast scale compared to Newton's works. Ethics as judges and perceivers reckon it becomes lost in the sense of scale. The scale transcends ethics.

But of course, an INFx would have a vast scale of ethics....

Take Jesus for example. Ixxx: inner appreciation of the world, and focus on the nature of the unconscious in man and his relationship to God, at a scale unlike that previously known. He found his "passion" (like the movie!) in his love for man, which reached so endlessly far.

[Rocky]

I think you're piecing the puzzle together. (acts carefully to avoid trying to help ishysquishy)

Meanie

Don't the relations say I can't help you? Perhaps if someone restates what I'm saying. Will you do that for me, Herzblut?

lol, Ti.

Are you always prisonor to the "systems"?

... vast scale compared to Newton's works.

... with Newton being the INTp? That's what I always thought.

[Creepy-]

Is Einstein an INTx in the spirit of INTj/INTp or INTj/ENTp?

INTj/INTp.

How is it that a type can have Ti/Ni Ne/Te for base/creative functions? How does the order of functions go for such a type? I have trouble comprehending this cross.

Or is it Ti/Te Ni/Ne

I think you're piecing the puzzle together. (acts carefully to avoid trying to help ishysquishy)

Meanie

Don't the relations say I can't help you? Perhaps if someone restates what I'm saying. Will you do that for me, Herzblut?[/quote]

You're allowed to help me, I don't mind

And if it turns out that I do mind, I've just thrown away my right to complain about it

Yes, it would. The archetypal view is so... seemingly dispassionate and lifeless at the level perceivers and judges operate at. The archetypal view finds passion in extreme scale. Think Einstein and the theory of relativity: vast scale compared to Newton's works. Ethics as judges and perceivers reckon it becomes lost in the sense of scale. The scale transcends ethics.

But of course, an INFx would have a vast scale of ethics....

Take Jesus for example. Ixxx: inner appreciation of the world, and focus on the nature of the unconscious in man and his relationship to God, at a scale unlike that previously known. He found his "passion" (like the movie!) in his love for man, which reached so endlessly far.

I will have to contemplate this before I make my response.

[Creepy-pokeball]

"How is it that a type can have Ti/Ni Ne/Te for base/creative functions? How does the order of functions go for such a type? I have trouble comprehending this cross. "

Who says they all work at once Life is not static 100%.

[Creepy-]

"How is it that a type can have Ti/Ni Ne/Te for base/creative functions? How does the order of functions go for such a type? I have trouble comprehending this cross. "

Who says they all work at once Life is not static 100%.

Oh, it's not that. More like it defies Model A. If you double up on all the functions you're going to end up with all of them used before you hit the 5th function. I'm sure this isn't the case, but I can't figure out how the functions are meant to be ordered in this case.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Because not everything under the sun, especially inter-social, is going to fit under a single model. If there is a single God, it has to be laughing at us for trying to do so.

[Creepy-]

If it doesn't fit with model A then I'd like to see the model it fits under. I'm interested purely for the theory, so this is important to me.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Yeah, I know. I wish I could help you. I just promise not to throw any , , or at you.

[Creepy-]

Yeah, I know. I wish I could help you. I just promise not to throw any , , or at you.

[Rocky]

Ishy, funcitons like Ti and Te and Ne and Ni are connected together. They can be called the same thing, only that you turn your energy in a different way. So, while you're using Te, you're actually collecting facts and information from outside sources. Ti is simply cutting off from those facts to reflect on, play around with them. Being a Ti type you can use Te, but you try to limit it as much as possible so you can revert back to your comfort zone of Ti. Being Te is the opposite, where you can synthesize and systemize things, but you'd more prefer to collect more and more information, with less reflection.

Being crossed between J/P is a bit odd. Perceivers always find comfort in falling back on their perception when they feel lost. Judgers trust more their judgement. Crossed J/P doesn't feel comfortable in either. Whenever they are using their perceiving functions, they feel like they should in some way be judging something, and when they are using their judging function, they feel uncomfortable because want to use their perceiving functions again. Also, they see pure judging types as too rigid, coming to conclusions to quickly, and lacking human quality, but at the same time, view pure perceptive types as flaky, wishywashy, and with the inability to reason.

[Angel von Himmel]

Ishy, funcitons like Ti and Te and Ne and Ni are connected together. They can be called the same thing, only that you turn your energy in a different way. So, while you're using Te, you're actually collecting facts and information from outside sources. Ti is simply cutting off from those facts to reflect on, play around with them. Being a Ti type you can use Te, but you try to limit it as much as possible so you can revert back to your comfort zone of Ti. Being Te is the opposite, where you can synthesize and systemize things, but you'd more prefer to collect more and more information, with less reflection.

Actually, that is a pretty good example of the way the 1st and 7th functions work together. Te having the ability to collect sources and Ti having the ability to refine them. It works diffrently with the 2nd and 8th functions though. A person typically uses the 8th function in order to avoid using what they have guaged from it with their 2nd function. In other words, the 2nd will usually do the opposite with contradiction. Hopefully that makes sense.

[Creepy-]

Ishy, funcitons like Ti and Te and Ne and Ni are connected together. They can be called the same thing, only that you turn your energy in a different way. So, while you're using Te, you're actually collecting facts and information from outside sources. Ti is simply cutting off from those facts to reflect on, play around with them. Being a Ti type you can use Te, but you try to limit it as much as possible so you can revert back to your comfort zone of Ti. Being Te is the opposite, where you can synthesize and systemize things, but you'd more prefer to collect more and more information, with less reflection.

Being crossed between J/P is a bit odd. Perceivers always find comfort in falling back on their perception when they feel lost. Judgers trust more their judgement. Crossed J/P doesn't feel comfortable in either. Whenever they are using their perceiving functions, they feel like they should in some way be judging something, and when they are using their judging function, they feel uncomfortable because want to use their perceiving functions again. Also, they see pure judging types as too rigid, coming to conclusions to quickly, and lacking human quality, but at the same time, view pure perceptive types as flaky, wishywashy, and with the inability to reason.

I totally see your point, but that doesn't really help

If someone can tell me or explain to me the order of functions for INTx (or something else, whatever), I might rest on this point. In the meantime, it still seems arbitrary.

[Rocky]

Would it be asking too much to not put so much weight in "models"?

[Creepy-]

Would it be asking too much to not put so much weight in "models"?

I need a context. I don't know anyone who I would definately call a cross-type, which is kind of restricting. If the model isn't Model A, I don't really mind. But no one is explaining it in a way I understand. Order of functions would help greatly.

Please all keep in mind that this is entirely in my head, so I need to work from inside to outside, not outside to inside. Right now I'm finding it hard to make inferences based on anecdotes and examples.

Can you see where I'm coming from?