Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Compound Types

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Compound Types

    I know this is long, but I thought I'd see what people think of this idea....Do you know people like this?.....

    In considering the differences between Alpha and Gamma and Phaedrus's very insightful explanation of the corresponding beliefs involved, it occurred to me that some people may operate very much in both worlds...that is:
    + formation and expansion of systems;
    + evaluation according to some external standard (be it a conception of ideal states, empirical testing, etc.)

    Obviously, a serious intellectual effort requires both, which is why people learn (or at least get to practice) both ways of thinking in school.

    Since functions 7 and 8 in Model A can be fairly highly developed, I wonder if sometimes they may be used to the extent that it becomes hard for others, or even the individual, to tell which is really the ego block.

    Hence, I propose the idea of a "compound type" which would be different from tc's crosstype idea. A compound type would involve the development of functions to the extent that it's no longer clear which ones are in the "ego block"...especially when the result is that the person ends up in two quadras, which would be the case with significant use of 7&8.

    The idea of a compound type would clear away the need to try to define functions in a non-standard way so as to explain the fact that someone's using functions that don't seem to fit his/her type. As a counterexample, one way of resolving the issue of someone thinking that they use a lot of Ni, Ne, Ti, and Te is by considering that the definitions may be deceptive. Maybe what seems like Ti is really Ni, and so on.

    The problem there is that the definition of these functions gets so far away from what people think they mean, so that it all gets hopelessly confused. Earlier on, I thought that swapping definitions is the key, but it's clear that most people on these forums think that Ti means what you'd think it would mean, and so forth, and I'm starting to agree that that's really the way it is. Hence, when one thinks one is using Ti, one probably is using Ti, and so forth; but that doesn't make it's part of one's ego block. However, with the compound type, the functions can be so active that one can no longer say for sure which is the ego block.

    In such a case, the functions are no longer organized by a straight "Model A"; instead, they're organized by processes that are you unique to the individual; for example, the person may use certain functions for certain activities. The person may use a process that looks like INTp to dissect a theory so that the person can then have a better understanding for creating his own theory, which then may take on the quality of ENTp or INTj.

    A consequence of a "compound type" is that such a person would experience multiple conflict-duality. That is, for example, someone who's a little bit INTj and and a little bit INTp would have aspects of both duality and conflict with both ESFj and ESFp. Being around one dual would stimulate one side of the person, and being around the other dual would stimulate another side.

  2. #2
    Creepy-

    Default

    I think this is missing the point - it seems to assume that any function can act like an ego function, which is not the case else there would be no point in us even being here talking about Socionics.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this is missing the point - it seems to assume that any function can act like an ego function, which is not the case else there would be no point in us even being here talking about Socionics.
    Well I understand it goes against the way the theory's supposed to work. But I don't think it throws everything out. The way I see it, different functions may "take over" and become the ego functions at different times. Why don't you think that's possible?

  4. #4
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    I think this is missing the point - it seems to assume that any function can act like an ego function, which is not the case else there would be no point in us even being here talking about Socionics.
    Well I understand it goes against the way the theory's supposed to work. But I don't think it throws everything out. The way I see it, different functions may "take over" and become the ego functions at different times. Why don't you think that's possible?
    I think it's possible for them to take over - however I don't think they're going to act like ego functions. When you provide another with what they need using a superego or unconscious function, it's likely to be lacking somehow (and you can probably see this, especially if you've seen someone under "extreme stress". The extremely stressed INTj does not actually act like an ESFp, more like a crazed or hysterical person with dominating Se and Fi).

  5. #5
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, as discussed in the other thread, I think that under conditions of extreme stress, the super-ego functions can take over temporarily.

    But what you seem to be implying is that someone could shift, for instance, the ego and id functions at will. Like, perhaps according to whoever you're talking to, as in your thread on "non-standard" relationships - so I'm an ENTj, but I'm now with an ESFj, so I'll "become" an INTj, no problem.

    Although that sounds plausible from an point of view, it doesn't seem to be confirmed by observations of real relationships, which led to socionics theory in the first place; and which show that you will always have a stressful relationship with your conflictor, you can't just shift your function ordering at will.

    For the sake of argument, perhaps there are individuals like that, or like tcaudillg's crosstypes; but they seem to be exceptions; freaks; not how most people seem to function.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  6. #6
    Creepy-

    Default

    Tcaudilllg himself says that crosstypes are extremely rare. I don't remember what percent of the population he quoted, but it was hardly significant.

  7. #7
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol and yet I am one? even if cross types existed and if I was a cross type, I wouldn't be an ExTp (I do think I would be a cross type if they did exist)
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  8. #8
    Creepy-

    Default

    Joy, you're always a rarity :wink:

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    lol and yet I am one? even if cross types existed and if I was a cross type, I wouldn't be an ExTp (I do think I would be a cross type if they did exist)
    Someday a description of a person that's just like you--to a T--will suddenly appear at psychorelativity forum.

Posting Permissions

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