Cross-Dominance System (Update)

[Raver]

EDIT: The system has been edited to include socionics rather than MBTI

For example,

What if someone cross-typed themselves as an ENXJ. How is this possible? An ENTJ is supposed to have very developed thinking and the ENFJ has very developed feeling. Obviously if your thinking is highly developed, your feeling will suffer and vice versa. Now, let's just say somebody actually was equal in both thinking and feeling. This person becomes what exactly? Their extraverted thinking and extraverted feeling must of been developed equally. How could someone express their thoughts and feelings in the same way simultaneously? That would mean that they have a switch that switches between them. Now, the best way to label this person would be this:

ENFJ(Te)

It simply entails that for an ENFJ this person has developed their extraverted thinking just as much as their extraverted feeling.

Now, this person displays ENFJ behaviour and fits the description perfectly, but has their thinking more developed then it should be.

I have a feeling that what I'm talking about is getting too far-fetched though so I will stop, in my opinon cross-types are basically the flaws of the personality types theory. Even though, it is a very excellent theory, there are a few things about it, especially cross-types that drives me nuts.

[niveK]

This more speaks of the development of functions than their location in the model of the psyche. Though I wonder about some of this stuff that expands upon how the functions could be ordered.

For a supposed LII/INTj, I test with high Se and Ni. This keeps me tossing around the possibility that maybe I'm an ILE/ENTp who's just rather introspective, withdrawn, and uninterested in the spotlight. Or maybe I'm some kind of freak version of an ILI/INTp with Ti instead of Te. Or (as I'm considering most likely, at the moment) I'm just an INTj who, because of necessity, has developed his Ni and Se. Or maybe tests just aren't what they're cracked up to be. Maybe socionics isn't all it's cracked up to be.

On the topic of cross-dominance: I've tossed around the idea in my head of ego functions (base and creative) being equally dominant, both being equally used in each position, which would likely make a person have tendencies towards appearing like two types that form a mirror pair (INTj/ENTp, INTp/ENTj), but so far it's just an idea I'm tossing around, and not any kind of theory I'd yet espouse.

[Megan]

This more speaks of the development of functions than their location in the model of the psyche. Though I wonder about some of this stuff that expands upon how the functions could be ordered.

For a supposed LII/INTj, I test with high Se and Ni. This keeps me tossing around the possibility that maybe I'm an ILE/ENTp who's just rather introspective, withdrawn, and uninterested in the spotlight. Or maybe I'm some kind of freak version of an ILI/INTp with Ti instead of Te. Or (as I'm considering most likely, at the moment) I'm just an INTj who, because of necessity, has developed his Ni and Se. Or maybe tests just aren't what they're cracked up to be. Maybe socionics isn't all it's cracked up to be.

On the topic of cross-dominance: I've tossed around the idea in my head of ego functions (base and creative) being equally dominant, both being equally used in each position, which would likely make a person have tendencies towards appearing like two types that form a mirror pair (INTj/ENTp, INTp/ENTj), but so far it's just an idea I'm tossing around, and not any kind of theory I'd yet espouse.

niveK, my intuition tells me that you have something there.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I dont know what to think of this so Im not going to vote.

[Expat]

@Young_and_Confused

I agree with Herzblut. An ESFp has as suggestive function, and I have no problem with the concept that an ESFp may have a reasonably developed .

The real issue is whether his is stronger than . Now, if it could be shown that he can shift between strong and at will, then that would pretty much be a blow to socionics.

@nivek

On the topic of cross-dominance: I've tossed around the idea in my head of ego functions (base and creative) being equally dominant, both being equally used in each position, which would likely make a person have tendencies towards appearing like two types that form a mirror pair (INTj/ENTp, INTp/ENTj), but so far it's just an idea I'm tossing around, and not any kind of theory I'd yet espouse.

Some people may disagree but I think this is explained by subtype theory.

[Kirana]

if there were a fourth option of, 'can possibly work' i'd vote that.

in theory, i don't see anything seriously wrong with it. i can see how i'd still retain my order of preferences, and so behave basically the way my type dictates, but display traits that aren't typical because i've also developed weaker functions. certainly i've had to juggle my dominant functions and my other pair of strong functions (the 7th, especially) due to workplace necessities, on top of dealing with some of the weak functions that keep trying to take over when i'm stressed a lot at work (which is often, as my job doesn't quite suit me - requires me to use a lot of Fi and Te actively).

the thing that interests me in such a case is whether the weaker functions can actually be developed to such an extent that it is stronger than dominant functions, and whether the initial personality is preserved in such a case, or will the order of preferences flip naturally, or something else happens.

[niveK]

Some people may disagree but I think this is explained by subtype theory.

I was under the impression that subtype theory had to do with people having a tendency towards their base function or creative function, not the possibility of both functions being used in both places. Of course, I've barely seen any information on subtype theory.

@Kirana: Even if you developed weak functions to be stronger than your base functions (which I'm not sure would be possible, at least not without developing some issues), I don't think they would move around in the model of the psyche. Your PoLR is your PoLR because it's a point of unconfidence in your psyche, and is somewhat unnatural to use. I think the PoLR measuring as "weak" is more of the fact that it's unnatural to make use of than it being unnatural to use because it measures weakly. I, myself, test with strong Se, but I'm still not very confident in Se matters. I can do Se related things, but I'm still not sure if I'm doing it right.

In short, the order of functions is more than just how strong they are.

[Expat]

Some people may disagree but I think this is explained by subtype theory.

I was under the impression that subtype theory had to do with people having a tendency towards their base function or creative function, not the possibility of both functions being used in both places. Of course, I've barely seen any information on subtype theory.
.

You're quite right -- actually what I meant was that subtype theory would "explain" those "mirror persons" like INTp/ENTj as being actually either an INTp logical subtype with very strong or an ENTj intuitive subtype with very strong . But since it still follows "classical" socionics in stating that there are 16 types, somewhere there would be a dividing line between E(N)Tj and IN(T)p.

Your "mirror person" would exist if there was a continuum between ENTj and INTp. But I think that goes against socionics conventional wisdom. It would be interesting to find such cases.

[niveK]

Some people may disagree but I think this is explained by subtype theory.

I was under the impression that subtype theory had to do with people having a tendency towards their base function or creative function, not the possibility of both functions being used in both places. Of course, I've barely seen any information on subtype theory.
.

You're quite right -- actually what I meant was that subtype theory would "explain" those "mirror persons" like INTp/ENTj as being actually either an INTp logical subtype with very strong :Te: or an ENTj intuitive subtype with very strong :Ne: . But since it still follows "classical" socionics in stating that there are 16 types, somewhere there would be a dividing line between E(N)Tj and IN(T)p.

Your "mirror person" would exist if there was a continuum between ENTj and INTp. But I think that goes against socionics conventional wisdom. It would be interesting to find such cases.

Like I said, it's just an idea I'm tossing around in my head.

[Raver]

Well, the thing is I hate it when people start calling eachother esxp or infx. So, I thought this would be a good way to try to figure out a new way to categorize people rather than just say put an x.

someone who is an ENTfP, all it's really saying is that it's an ENTP with an extraverted feeling equivalent to that of the introverted feeling of an ENFP.
An ENFtP means that it's an ENFP with an extraverted thinking equivalent to the introverted thinking of an ENTP.

Now, the weird thing is, an ESFP is supposed to not have their intuition stronger than their sensing. What if it does happen, does that make them an ENFP?, but their intuition is introverted and their sensing is still strong and extraverted. What do you do, do you say oh let's just call the person EXFP. That's just trying to cheat yourself from actually solving the problem.

There are flaws with the MBTI. It's very good, but personalities are much too complicated and a lot of people tend to defy the supposed rules of the order.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Why do you hate it if they are not labeled on an absolute level? It doesnt bother me one bit. I figure that if they care enough, they'll deal with it themselves when they feel like it. It is not my job to conclude someone on something life-defining like that.

[Raver]

@Young_and_Confused

I agree with Herzblut. An ESFp has as suggestive function, and I have no problem with the concept that an ESFp may have a reasonably developed .

The real issue is whether his is stronger than . Now, if it could be shown that he can shift between strong and at will, then that would pretty much be a blow to socionics.

Your right, my friend who is an ESFP has a reasonably developed Ni, but it doesn't overlap that of his very strong Se. I just get confused, because if Ni is supposed to be his 4th function, why does it perform a lot better than it should. He acts very much like an ESFP, but he can be creative at times. So, I tend to get confused when this happens.

[Raver]

Ni is actually his 5th function, so therefore, it doesn't bother him at all when people use it.

uh isn't ESFP:

1. Se
2. Fi
3. Te
4. Ni

Or am I just an incredibly lost and confused child?

[Expat]

Your right, my friend who is an ESFP has a reasonably developed Ni, but it doesn't overlap that of his very strong Se. I just get confused, because if Ni is supposed to be his 4th function, why does it perform a lot better than it should. He acts very much like an ESFP, but he can be creative at times. So, I tend to get confused when this happens.

No, the ESFp's 4th function - the weakest, the PoLR - is , not .

is the ESFp's 5th function, not particularly strong but not as weak as the 4th.

And being creative is perhaps better associated with , the ESFp's 3rd, or role function - weak, but not as much as .

Just remember that everyone is able to use all their functions to some extent. My 5th function is , and yet I'm neither an emotionless robot or without any ethics.

[Expat]

uh isn't ESFP:

1. Se
2. Fi
3. Te
4. Ni

No it's Se, Fi, Ne, Ti.

[Creepy-]

No, the ESFp's 4th function - the weakest, the PoLR - is , not .

is the ESFp's 5th function, not particularly strong but not as weak as the 4th.

And being creative is perhaps better associated with , the ESFp's 3rd, or role function - weak, but not as much as .

Just remember that everyone is able to use all their functions to some extent. My 5th function is , and yet I'm neither an emotionless robot or without any ethics.

Oh ok that makes sense, but how come it labels an ESFP in this order for its functions in this site:

www.typelogic.com/ESFP.

I must of interpreted the description at the bottom wrong or is the site wrong? Is the ordering of functions entirely different and not in the same context as the ordering you were discussing?

Ordering of functions I think is different for a lot of people. It may tend to switch and some may get higher then it should.

[Raver]

I did the above post.

[niveK]

No, the ESFp's 4th function - the weakest, the PoLR - is :Ti: , not :Ni: .

:Ni: is the ESFp's 5th function, not particularly strong but not as weak as the 4th.

And being creative is perhaps better associated with :Ne: , the ESFp's 3rd, or role function - weak, but not as much as :Ti: .

Just remember that everyone is able to use all their functions to some extent. My 5th function is :Fi: , and yet I'm neither an emotionless robot or without any ethics.

Oh ok that makes sense, but how come it labels an ESFP in this order for its functions in this site:

www.typelogic.com/ESFP.

I must of interpreted the description at the bottom wrong or is the site wrong? Is the ordering of functions entirely different and not in the same context as the ordering you were discussing?

Ordering of functions I think is different for a lot of people. It may tend to switch and some may get higher then it should.

Typelogic is an MBT site, and unrelated to socionics.

[Expat]

Aha, you're thinking of MBTI. We're talking about socionics here.

Take a look at the socionics ESFp function description here:

http://the16types.info/types-ESFP.php

Or here:

http://socion.info/cgi-bin/descriptions.cgi

To make it very short -- socionics and MBTI both developed from Jung's theories independently. MBTI is not concerned with intertype relationships as such. Socionics got developed from observations of intertype relationships. Hence the importance of things like the "painful" function, the PoLR, or Place of Least Resistance, the 4th function, where criticisms are most strongly painful.

Also, MBTI has different definitions for the functions.

[Expat]

Ordering of functions I think is different for a lot of people. It may tend to switch and some may get higher then it should.

That is precisely where socionics works better than MBTI.

[Creepy-]

Thanks for clearing up everything Expat . I'm not as confused anymore, I will look more into socionics. I always found MBTI to be far too simple and straight forward.

[Raver]

I did the above post.

I really got to break that habit.

[Expat]

Thanks for clearing up everything Expat . I'm not as confused anymore, I will look more into socionics. I always found MBTI to be far too simple and straight forward.

If you look at the different MBTI sites, you will see that each has a different theory as to relationships.

The type descriptions are misleadingly similar. But MBTI gives far too much importance to a person's personality in determining the E/I distinction, and its criteria for J/P takes too much for granted and is also misleading. There is no simple way to convert a MBTI type into a socionics type.

However, people who are NF, NT, ST and SF types in MBTI are probably also xNFx, xNTx, xSTx and xSFx in socionics.

[Megan]

edit.

[Creepy-]

Thanks for clearing up everything Expat . I'm not as confused anymore, I will look more into socionics. I always found MBTI to be far too simple and straight forward.

If you look at the different MBTI sites, you will see that each has a different theory as to relationships.

The type descriptions are misleadingly similar. But MBTI gives far too much importance to a person's personality in determining the E/I distinction, and its criteria for J/P takes too much for granted and is also misleading. There is no simple way to convert a MBTI type into a socionics type.

However, people who are NF, NT, ST and SF types in MBTI are probably also xNFx, xNTx, xSTx and xSFx in socionics.

Yeah, I read the description for ENFP and it seemed to make more sense than the one from MBTI and related to me more. I think the socionics photos for celebrities is bogus, they just look they were randomly placed to me.

The ordering for ENFP

1. Ne
2. Fi
3. Se
4. Ti

It makes a lot more sense then the one given by MBTI, because I always found that I did some introverted thinking and extraverted sensing though they've always tended to be pretty distorted and don't perform nearly as well or as often as my Ne and Fi, which occur very frequently and perform very well.

[niveK]

Ordering of functions I think is different for a lot of people. It may tend to switch and some may get higher then it should.

That is precisely where socionics works better than MBTI.

@Expat
I am not sure exactly why you think socionics works better than MBTI. In response to Young and Confused post above about the ordering of functions and the the higher amount of a particular function in a type than it should be, you seem to imply that socionics works better to address these inconsistencies than MBTI. In my mind socionics still holds particular types rigid to a particular ordering of the functions.
I am just not seeing how socionics takes into account how for example a person can have exceptionally good development of the fourth function.
I am not the only one that sees that socionics functions ordering is just not working in the way it apperently should for many people.

Because the PoLR doesn't suddenly stop being the PoLR because it's been developed. There's more to the ordering of the functions than how strong each one is. One can develop any function, but they'll still have some characteristics associated with that function being in a "weak" part of the psyche.

[Expat]

@Megan: I'll have to re-read into the MBTI function ordering.

Yeah, I read the description for ENFP and it seemed to make more sense than the one from MBTI and related to me more. I think the socionics photos for celebrities is bogus, they just look they were randomly placed to me.

If you refer to socionics.com, those photos usually refer to V.I. - visual identification - which is another story. Also, I think everyone agrees that typing celebrities and historical figures is tricky at best. Just remember that typelogic also claimed to type Homer, about whom virtually nothing is known as an individual.

[Megan]

edit.

[niveK]

Because the PoLR doesn't suddenly stop being the PoLR because it's been developed. There's more to the ordering of the functions than how strong each one is. One can develop any function, but they'll still have some characteristics associated with that function being in a "weak" part of the psyche.

Sorry niveK, I am not sure what your assumptions are based on.

Please explain particularly:

One can develop any function, but they'll still have some characteristics associated with that function being in a "weak" part of the psyche.

I agree that it is unlikely that the fourth function would be completely developed. However I am not certain if I can make a definate statement about this with no evidence. Please tell me how you can be so confident about your above statement.

I'm basing it on my understanding of the model of the psyche used to illustrate the organization of functions in a particular type. It makes more sense to me that a function would normally appear weak as a result of it's location in a "weak" part of the psyche (which would make it more unnatural and difficult to develop) than a function manifests itself as a certain place in the psyche because it is measurably weak.

I myself am something of an example. I test strong for Se, as it was developed out of necessity and nuture, but it still manifests itself as my PoLR, as I find it unnatural and somewhat uncomfortable to use, even though I have developed it (or so the tests say).

[Megan]

edit.

[Expat]

@Expat
I am not sure exactly why you think socionics works better than MBTI. In response to Young and Confused post above about the ordering of functions and the the higher amount of a particular function in a type than it should be, you seem to imply that socionics works better to address these inconsistencies than MBTI. In my mind socionics still hold particular types rigid to a particular ordering of the functions even if socionics ordering is different to MBTI.

Basically I agree with what nivek is saying, but I'd like to add that I think socionics' function ordering works better than MBTI's, not necessarily perfectly. Socionics just seems to have thought things through better and I can fully identity with the socionics ordering for ENTj, but not MBTI's.

Of course, if someone identifies better with the MBTI ordering, that probably means that his/her type in socionics is different.

[Expat]

The ordering for ENFP

1. Ne
2. Fi
3. Se
4. Ti

It makes a lot more sense then the one given by MBTI, because I always found that I did some introverted thinking and extraverted sensing though they've always tended to be pretty distorted and don't perform nearly as well or as often as my Ne and Fi, which occur very frequently and perform very well.

Actually according to socionics function ordering, the 4th function is the weakest and the 3rd, the second weakest.

If you feel that can't possibly be your very weakest function, in socionics you might be another xNFx type.

[Creepy-]

I'm totally with niveK here. From what I understand, each function has its role to play in the psyche regardless of how well-developed it is. After all, a hand is a hand regardless of how good or bad your fine motor skills are.

[Tepa]

I think "pure" mbti is divided on whether the model should be (using ESFP as an example) Se Fi, Se Fi Te Ni, or Se Fi Ti Ni, basically saying that the rest of the functions don't exist (read this a long time ago and I have no idea where).

There are a few mbti-related models from people or groups who don't belong to the mbti "core". The one most people seem to have heard of and use is the Se Fi Te Ni / Si Fe Ti Ne, where the functions before the / are supposed to feel "normal" to use, and the ones after would make you feel awkward and "not yourself". Si and Fe would often be quite strong and Ti and Ne would be the weakest according to the model.

If you look at the roles the different functions are supposed to fulfill in that last model and in the socionics model a, they actually seem remarkable similar.

I don't see the models as being the main problem with understanding between the systems, but the fact that mbti tries work all its theory around the supposition that you will only use, display, and interact with your extraverted function(s?) in the "external" world and that you will only use your introverted functions in the internal world. (Which is where the j/p confusion comes from.) It creates paradoxes and strange special cases and confuses the theory.

[Megan]

edit.

[Gilly]

Megan, the biggest reason that people here regard socionics as "superior" is because it adheres more closely to Jung's work.

[tcaudilllg]

Megan, the biggest reason that people here regard socionics as "superior" is because it adheres more closely to Jung's work.

Which is, superior.

[Expat]

@Expat,
I have no strong opinions on this myself but please tell me in greater details and possible with some examples why exactly do you think socionics is superior to MBTI. It seems that some people here keep repeating that without explaining why they think so or they actually use socionics theories to support/justify other socionics theories. I think I would appreciate some objective evidence here and not the typical "it describes me very well" answers. My MBTI type description describes me very well, I cannot strongly say the same for any socionics type.

Megan,

First, I don't totally agree with tcaudillg and gilligan87's apparent reasoning that socionics is superior simply because it's closer to Jung's work, as such. After all, either socionics or MBTI - or both - could have been an improvement on Jung. To say that what Jung wrote is necessarily superior - by definition - sounds to me like circular thinking, just like what you seem to be describing in your question.

I think that there is no way, at present, to scientifically prove beyond doubt that socionics, MBTI or Jung's theories are correct.

My own reasons for stating that socionics is superior to MBTI are empirical only, based on my own observations and those of other people here. Others may well conclude that MBTI is superior.

In a nutshell, I think that socionics is superior because:

- it is a theory based on relationships, which provide a way of multiple cross-checking of typing. MBTI does not have anything like that, its attempts to use relationships are inconsistent and poorly developed. In MBTI you may easily mistype yourself by self-perception; in socionics you need to type not only yourself but others and how you relate to them.

- socionics emphasises the PoLR and role function, also as keys to explain how relationships work, in a very consistent way.

- the E/I and above all J/P criteria of MBTI seem to me very misleading. For instance, it seems to say that Judging will be equally visible in all types in terms of things like organizing one's own physical surroundings, which to me does not apply at all but socionics explains since is my PoLR.

- I can perfectly see how some MBTI profile descriptions would fit individuals better than some socionics ones - profile descriptions are only as good as the people writing them. Personally I don't think that the profiles in the16types.info or socionics.com are very good, they may be inferior to some good MBTI profiles, for some types. Personally I prefer the 15-page, function-specific descriptions in socionics.org; I think they work perfectly.

As for examples, I can give my own. In MBTI I test as INTJ with borderline J/P preference and identify the best with the INTJ profile. But as I said, it never made sense to me that for J, things like tyding up your desk or your car should be given the same weight as planning your actions and life. The typing by I or E, N or S, T or F, and J or P in isolation seems to be much less exact than the socionics typing by functions.

Also, since MBTI gives no check in terms of relationships, after you type - or mistype - yourself, you pretty much reach a dead-end.

In socionics, not only the typing by functional preference as ENTj fits me - including the PoLR and role function - but all my relationships fit perfectly (of people whom I had typed before I concluded I was ENTj). So, again, the relationships serve to check the typing, which does not happen with MBTI.

Since I discovered socionics, I have typed people I know personally, then asked about people with whom they could not get along or figure out at all (but whom I did not know personally), assumed they were their conflictors, and described them. So far it has worked very well. That is not possible with MBTI.

Also, I am not sure if you explained why it would be impossible to develop a weaker function fully regardless of the difficulties involved.

I don't think I explained it. I don't know that it's impossible. I don't know that there is empirical evidence for those psyche locations that nivek described.

Perhaps it is possible.

My opinion, though, is this. I'm pretty sure that I could develop the use of my by an conscious effort. However, I think it would always remain a conscious effort, because if my mind naturally and effortlessly started to concentrate on those sensorial perceptions, I don't see how I could continue to have the same naturality and efforlessness to concentrate on possibilities and scenarios .

So I think that regardless of how I trained myself to use , would remain more natural - otherwise I would cease to be who I am.

I have no proof of this, I don't think any of this can be proved in a scientific way, but that is the case for the whole of psychology.

I hope this answer was satisfactory.

[niveK]

The problem faced in psychology is we're trying to understand a black box system. All we can really do is input various data and see what gets spit back out. Mostly (to me, at least) it's about analyzing the patterns and making the connections. The whole bit's rather intuitive, and prone to mistakes. Unfortunately, it's hard to debug a brain.

[Creepy-]

A lot of people said that my system doesn't work, however when I was talking about my system, I was discussing it with MBTI in mind, my bad I will implement a socionics theory, instead and remove the MBTI based theory.