Cross-type theory, INTx???

[drd252]

As my study of socionics has progressed, I've realized the necessity of cross-type theory. Expat had pinned me as an INTp some months ago, although I was convinced I was an INTj. Since then, I've been attempting to type my friends and acquaintances in order to gain greater insight into my own type through the dynamics of intertype relations. My interactions are typically manifested as that of an INTp, while my internal states are more closely correlated to an INTj mindset. Does this make sense? I've only just started reading about cross-type theory, but I'm inclined to call myself an INTx; what do y'all think?!?!

[UDP]

My issue with 'usual' cross type theory is that....

people think "INTx" means something

just because you put an x in the 4 letter name doesn't mean that has anything to do with the order of the functions
I really am not sure you can differentiate between a rational and irrational mindset, in terms of real socionics mindsets
There are so many other factors involved as well.

So I wonder if you really just don't know the types well enough. Socionics won't make sense until you understand your type.
And the whole point of socionics is that there are 8 generalizations of functions, and then 16 possibilities based off of them. It is very broad, and not something you should hair split

I am not saying anything about Tcaus new theory as it seems to be worked much better than other cross theories I've seen before.

But the general implication of throwing an x into the four letter description seems foolish: you are not going throw away your base, and every person I meet clearly has a base setting.

what do y'all think?!?!

I think you should study socionics more.
I have been at it for over a year now, and only recently have I really been able to see things, to really see the functions in other people.
I think there may be variations of types, but I do not think there are "cross-types". I would speculate that it appears that way, but it is an illusion based on perspective.

[drd252]

what do y'all think?!?!

I think you should study socionics more.
I have been at it for over a year now, and only recently have I really been able to see things, to really see the functions in other people.
I think there may be variations of types, but I do not think there are "cross-types". I would speculate that it appears that way, but it is an illusion based on perspective.

I had a feeling it was going to boil down to something like this. I'm still mostly in the dark when it comes to recognizing the functions in people, but it is becoming easier. Still, the uncertainty/subjectivity/variation of socionics pisses me off. However, it is still a quite useful theory for managing/manipulating my social interactions.

[tcaudilllg]

The x means that j implies p, rationality implies irrationality. If your are INTx, then you are either INTj-INTp or INTp-INTj. The first type is the information metabolism type, the second is your exertion type. The metabolism type defines how you process the information, the exertion type determines what you do with it. The INTj-INTp analyzes information, and creates an architecture from what it analyzes. The INTp-INTj architecturalizes the information, and then analyzes the architecture.

INTj-INTp would take the results of an experiment they did and create a mathematical equation from them. INTp-INTj would use the mathematical equation as a means of recreating an experiment's conditions. One creates the schematic for a circuit, the other recreates the circuit from the schematic.

[UDP]

What would an INTj-ENTj and INTj-ESTj do?

[Phaedrus]

The INTj-INTp analyzes information, and creates an architecture from what it analyzes. The INTp-INTj architecturalizes the information, and then analyzes the architecture.

INTj-INTp would take the results of an experiment they did and create a mathematical equation from them. INTp-INTj would use the mathematical equation as a means of recreating an experiment's conditions. One creates the schematic for a circuit, the other recreates the circuit from the schematic.

I'm not sure how to understand it. I guess that you and I are some sort of quasi-identicals in relation to how we process information and express it, but if you think otherwise, please say so. By your description I don't think that I can be an INTj-INTp, but maybe you think that I am an INTp-INTj or some other crosstype? Or do you think that I am one of the more normal types -- INTj or INTp? I am curious, but I don't know how to understand your theory, nor what to do with it.

[Expat]

I think you should study socionics more.
I have been at it for over a year now, and only recently have I really been able to see things, to really see the functions in other people.

Exactly.

That's the reason why, I think, Socionics will never become popular. Socionics doesn't provide quick and easy ways to understand the types. It has to be a sort of "obsession" for you to really get it.

[Rocky]

The problem with crosstype thoery is that even tcaud doesn't understand it himself, even though he pulled it out of his ass. See, he is so sure that crosstyping is necessary, and has always said that, yet his own system never stays the same. At first it was something totally different, a bunch of types with Xs (and he was of course a pure INTJ, and Einstein was INTx, and Jung was INFx or something) then he changed it into having two types, instead of types with simple Xs, and suddenly everyone had to have a crosstype (he went from a pure INTJ, to an INTJ-ENFP then an INTJ-ENFJ or something, and Einstein was suddenly an ENTP-INTJ after tcaud used him as the prime example of INTx, and Jung became an INFJ-ENFP). So, he always forces it down our throats, even though "it" isn't even anything he can be sure of. He would do better to, at least, understand people and functions on some level before getting to far ahead of himself.

Tcaud is like a Mac; rediculusly stupid and contradictory.

[tcaudilllg]

The problem with crosstype thoery is that even tcaud doesn't understand it himself, even though he pulled it out of his ass. See, he is so sure that crosstyping is necessary, and has always said that, yet his own system never stays the same. At first it was something totally different, a bunch of types with Xs (and he was of course a pure INTJ, and Einstein was INTx, and Jung was INFx or something) then he changed it into having two types, instead of types with simple Xs, and suddenly everyone had to have a crosstype (he went from a pure INTJ, to an INTJ-ENFP then an INTJ-ENFJ or something, and Einstein was suddenly an ENTP-INTJ after tcaud used him as the prime example of INTx, and Jung became an INFJ-ENFP). So, he always forces it down our throats, even though "it" isn't even anything he can be sure of. He would do better to, at least, understand people and functions on some level before getting to far ahead of himself.

Tcaud is like a Mac; rediculusly stupid and contradictory.

I took another look at Jung's type after you raised objections to the INFj-ENFp typing. I concluded ENFp-INTj to be a much better match after improving my perspectives on the manifestations of the functions.

The original theory is pretty much dead. The providentiaries as I originally defined them do exist but they are appear to be certifiably insane. Certainly normal indentical-conflictor dual types are not possessed by a need to hate people who disagree with them.

I developed the original crosstype theory as a form of "super-MBTI", drawing on Jung's work and trying to find empirical justification for it. The dual type model integrates socionics Model-A while delimmiting Model-A's reach. (for example, use of to observe evolutionary patterns, as opposed to intervals in time, is not accounted for in Model-A.)

[Phaedrus]

What would you consider to be a possible falsification of your theory, tcaudillg? How can we test it?

[UDP]

.....

You don't really get it, do you.

[tcaudilllg]

What would you consider to be a possible falsification of your theory, tcaudillg? How can we test it?

We're working on this.

Try this algebraic expression of the theory:
The IM functions can be considered x, or the domain functions. The IE (information exertion functions) can be considered y or f(x), the range of the domain.

The theory should not be falsifiable because it is in its current form, rather perfect. The only question is the ability of the tester to correctly match expressions of information with the correct function ordering, and therefore the correct type. All logic, all analysis, all thought and structure of feeling, all comprehension of the irrational stems from it. On the other hand, I may not be the most suitable person to derive a falsification mechanism.

To test the theory, you would need to find a statement in which a person does not consider the use of information exertion B as the means of attaining the information element C that information element A desires. You deny means-end theory altogether. ...It's just not possible.

One thing I recently tested the dual type model on were the papers of professional super string theorists. Indeed, in every case these exceptionally "brilliant" people find themselves compelled to metaphorize their analyses with various incarnations of the eight socionics information elements. The eight elements are the basis of absolutely all thought.

[Phaedrus]

Try this algebraic expression of the theory:
The IM functions can be considered x, or the domain functions. The IE (information exertion functions) can be considered y or f(x), the range of the domain.

The theory should not be falsifiable because it is in its current form, rather perfect. The only question is the ability of the tester to correctly match expressions of information with the correct function ordering, and therefore the correct type. All logic, all analysis, all thought and structure of feeling, all comprehension of the irrational stems from it. On the other hand, I may not be the most suitable person to derive a falsification mechanism.

To test the theory, you would need to find a statement in which a person does not consider the use of information exertion B as the means of attaining the information element C that information element A desires. You deny means-end theory altogether. ...It's just not possible.

The only relevant question is whether any of your theoretical statements can be compared with empirical observations that can be agreed upon regardless of whether your theory is true or false. How do you know that there are more than the 16 basic socionic types? How do you know that any of your types is nothing but a theoretical construct that does not exist outside of your theoretical system? If your theory is to be any better than Socionics, you have to show that there exist some persons that cannot be explained equally well by normal socionic standards but can better be explained by your theory.

To me it seems rather obvious that we are quasi-identicals. Your theory seems impossible to understand for me when you explain it. It looks monstruous. Maybe some other type that is not INTj can explain it so that I can understand it, but as it now stands it just hangs in the air -- I have nothing to relate to, I don't know where to start. I must have an overall view of it to get it, but you don't offer one, at least not one that I am satisfied with. You don't explain in a satisfying way how your theory corresponds with reality; you only talk about the theoretical constructs. Socionics is a branch of neuro-biology. In what way is your theory scientific (= a part of the natural sciences)?

EDIT: I checked some of the parts you have written about your theory in the Articles section, and it seems as though you deliberately want to make your theory less scientific. Your view of science is obviously different from mine, but on the other hand that is just what we might expect considering the fact that we are on different sides in Reinin's Objectivist/Subjectivist dichotomy.

[Rocky]

.....

You don't really get it, do you.

No, you don't get it. Why should we trust tcaud NOW, when before he's like "Oh yes, I'm so sure my theory's all perfect and wonderful and everyone must listen to me otherwise you're at a great disadvantage", and then he says, "Oops, sorry, I was wrong then, now I'm sure my theory's super cool, everyone listen to me now!" What makes you think he won't realize this crosstype theeory is as retarded as his last one and grab hold to a new one? He probably will eventually. The POINT, the very point that you don't get, is that tcaud is an egomaniac who needs something for him to claim to be the boss of, in which he just pulled out an unjustified "crosstype theory" and then another theory, but the only real point is for him to feal better about himself, it has nothing to do with understanding other people since 1) crosstyping doesn't help understand people better, and 2) his theory descibes more different types then people he's probably spoken to in his entire life, so it's all just bullshit.

[UDP]

If everyone thought the way you do, people would still think the Earth is flat.
We'd certainly never have gotten into space.

You don't understand the process of experimentation. Tcau's work is not final, foo'. (even if you think it is, Tcau, it's not!). Edit - so while your criticisms may have some value, I think it would be foolish to shoot down all of tcau's work at this point, and write him off as an egomaniac.

It is too earlier for a real judgment, like it is too early for tcau to say "he's done" understanding socionics, or human nature, etc.


In some ways you both are very similar - trying to to

help (us all) understand people better

.....

The POINT, the very point that you don't get, is that tcaud is an egomaniac who needs something for him to claim to be the boss of

And what does that make you?



PS: but on the other hand you are serving your purpose as someone who will be valuable in that if you are eventually convinced of a crosstype theory, you're change of heart may be of significance.

[krieger]

[Rocky]

If everyone thought the way you do, people would still think the Earth is flat.
We'd certainly never have gotten into space.

Bullshit. His theory isn't the equvilance of realizing the world is round. Its the the equivalence of string theory. Just because someone takes a hit of crack and pretends they know how the world works, doesn't mean they truely know. You can't believe every stupid theory you hear.

You don't understand the process of experimentation. Tcau's work is not final, foo'. (even if you think it is, Tcau, it's not!). Edit - so while your criticisms may have some value, I think it would be foolish to shoot down all of tcau's work at this point, and write him off as an egomaniac.

But he pretends it is- big problem.

It is too earlier for a real judgment, like it is too early for tcau to say "he's done" understanding socionics, or human nature, etc.

Then why aren't you criticizing him in the same way? Because that's how he's acting.

PS: but on the other hand you are serving your purpose as someone who will be valuable in that if you are eventually convinced of a crosstype theory, you're change of heart may be of significance.

I did, I *tried* to at the beggining, I really did, ask him. I took his test and I sent him PMs and the like to here what he had to say. But in the end I realized it all stunk. There's really no substance in his theory. I mean, how can you have a theory about psychology and people when you never interact with people?

[tcaudilllg]

But I do interact with people, Rocky. I'm a student on a college campus and I have lots of opportunities to informally inquire to people about what their hidden agenda are, what they feel most confident about, etc. People are usually piqued (if not flattered) by the interest because they naturally want people to understand their strengths and agendas. (if not their weaknesses)

I agree that this theory is not complete... Even after I get the basics down, there will room enough for exploration by many, many people over an... indefinite span of time. I still need to understand not only how the functions appear to work, but how they actually work. This is a matter of much concern to me now.

Why should we trust tcaud NOW, when before he's like "Oh yes, I'm so sure my theory's all perfect and wonderful and everyone must listen to me otherwise you're at a great disadvantage", and then he says, "Oops, sorry, I was wrong then, now I'm sure my theory's super cool, everyone listen to me now!"

This was never my intention. My intent was to create an acceptance in people that crosstypes do exist. There have been many here who, from what I could deduce, have tried to discourage further analysis of the functions beyond what socionics is now, saying instead that it is a model and that no model can perfectly capture reality. The implication is you should avoid looking that much further at socionics in general, and instead use your own ad hoc judgement independent of socionics themes. This mentality inhibits the evolution of thought.

[Rocky]

I agree that this theory is not complete... Even after I get the basics down, there will room enough for exploration by many, many people over an... indefinite span of time. I still need to understand not only how the functions appear to work, but how they actually work. This is a matter of much concern to me now.

Then can you explain your posts that sound like this;

"George W. Bush said () today about the war on Iraq () after eating a chicken sandwhich () that there is no possibilty () that America will withdraw its troops () until the war is over ()."

Because those make no sense.

[tcaudilllg]

No that doesn't make any sense. What does eating a chicken sandwich have to do with ?

...I put that in Anything Goes for a reason. When I feel serious about something, or want someone to consider a possibility seriously, I put it in General Discussion.

[Rocky]

No that doesn't make any sense. What does eating a chicken sandwich have to do with ?

...I put that in Anything Goes for a reason. When I feel serious about something, or want someone to consider a possibility seriously, I put it in General Discussion.

I was making that up (adding the chiken sandwhich thing in there is called 'humor'), but I have seen you make posts where you put a funtion after everything said then you say, "See this person is obviously blahblahblahblah crossed with blahblahblahblah" but it just doesn't really add up. I made that sentence because I didn't feel like looking up an exacat quote.

[tcaudilllg]

I try to scrutenize the order in which the functions appear, assuming that the functions pretty well take turns accessing the brain's linguistic processing functions. (I got most of this idea from Traveler.)

BTW: I usually don't get ISTp humor.

[Exodus]

I try to scrutenize the order in which the functions appear, assuming that the functions pretty well take turns accessing the brain's linguistic processing functions.

Then it seems the technique would only work for spoken language. One generally doesn't write start-to-finish, after all.