The idea of the crosstype phenomenon was originally conceived of by me as beign a sort of "black hole" of personality. It seemed no coincidence that the person who designed the theory of relativity (Einstein) talked of energy being transformed into matter and vice versa. Thinking of matter as J and energy as P, I crossed the two to create an explanation for Einstein's world view. If J could be transformed to P, then why not T to F, N to S, and I to E? Although reluctant to admit these conclusions, I eventually consented to their existence and created from them the first crosstype theory. This theory, owing to its existence the premise of transformation of energies, was christianed "psychorelativity" to reflect its basis on that premise, which itself stemmed from Einstein's relativity principle.
Further applying this principle, "for every system k, k'", I inferred the existence of the contextual lines, with one line contrasting the observing line, and two corresponding lines existing as per system k to the original k, k' contrasting system. Thus to every persistent worldview ( made it clear that these exisited) there existed a counterpart, and to that system of contrasts another counterpart. The counterpart to the counterpart was the original, thus completing the archetype of "wholeness" as stipulated by Jung.
Using socionics as a base, I began trying to see the transformations of energy as relationships between functions. Thus inevitably it became obvious that the transformations of energy could be thought of as alternating between matter into energy and then energy into matter, and thus the information metabolism-exertion theory began to become apparent.
At this point, the theory can explain the derival of relativity itself. It need not rely on "for k, k'" as its justification for existence, because it infers the existence of " for k, k'" of its own accord by correctly modeling Einstein's thought process. The theory is no longer "psychorelativistic" because relativity is merely one case of it, and not the premise for its validity.
The question remains then, what to call it? Is this the "super-socion" as opposed to Augusta's "socion" of 16 types?