The Crosstype Principle: Theory and Information Elements

[Angel von Himmel]

Yes, but I would have to assume that the cross-type would be able to switch when he switches with . So, an ENTx cross type can at any time switch from using his and his and then all of a sudden switch to a dominance and . It probably is possible considering that the and of an ENTp still remains strong, but lacking. Maybe, a cross-type has the power to actually balance both extraverted and introverted aspects of intuition and thinking. That is if the judging and perceiving function is balanced enough. Of course an EXTp, would have to be able to switch and , so that means that would be third plance and would take over as first, if that is possible.

It sounds good, but it still conflicts with Model-A ... If what you said is true and a person can switch between the EGO and ID blocks on command, that also means that he or she must simultaneously switch the Super-Id and Super-EGO block at the same time in order to keep a balance, hence disregarding his or her own type and taking on every single attribute related to his or her contrary partner, and shocking everyone with a complete and utter change in personality and values that might as well be permanent.

Basically what I am saying, that is not possible without some major reshaping of a persons psyche that not even dualization can do to a person. It is an impossibility if you go strictly with Model-A.

[Raver]

It sounds good, but it still conflicts with Model-A ... If what you said is true and a person can switch between the EGO and ID blocks on command, that also means that he or she must simultaneously switch the Super-Id and Super-EGO block at the same time in order to keep a balance, hence disregarding his or her own type and taking on every single attribute related to his or her contrary partner, and shocking everyone with a complete and utter change in personality and values that might as well be permanent.

Basically what I am saying, that is not possible without some major reshaping of a persons psyche that not even dualization can do to a person. It is an impossibility if you go strictly with Model-A.

Thanks, I think that if a person is able to switch it will probably be involuntary if it does occur. Maybe, the way it works is that the changes occur where it is need in a situation. If there is a situation where an ENTx needs , he/she would make the switch that is required. If someone likes this makes a complete switch and it shocks people then it could be multiple personality disorder.

I think there are two types of cross-types. Blended types and switching types. Blended types have their opposite functions molded into one that they always act the same way. A blended INXP, would be able to think and feel at the same amount the entire time. Now, the switching INXP, would be a pure thinking person at one moment and then all of a sudden turn into a feeling person and this person could appear as having multiple personality disorder. Though, multiple personality disorder may be someone doing an extreme change like from ESTj to INFp, so this is where the confusion begins.

Well for me I don't have trouble believing there are people who are cross-types of one function, like an XNTP. I have trouble believing that an XXXX or other cross-types exist that have multiple X's, I think it is almost impossible for these people to exist unless they are disciplined and have reached some level that is beyond what any human being can imagine.

[Rocky]

That's because you're an ISFp. :wink:

How can you tell from that? I am intrigued.

Because you said that you, "imagine the worst possible outcome when concerning possibilities", which is poor . Did you see Jung's description of this that I posted? He mentioned it in the Introverted Sensing type.

Also, having doesn't mean that you are in tune with the outside world of objects, not at all; that's . is about turning away from outside objects, and reflecting on them instead. Being dominant is like being able to use , but you try and limit it as much as possible so you can use your most of the time.

[Rocky]

From my understanding, someone who is "crossed" on one of the funcitons has little, or contradictory use of those functions. One is telling them one thing, while they other says something else; so they barely funciton on any level. For someone crossed on J/P, tcaudilllig already explained it. It's like the person balances out their Judging and Perceiving funcitons to the point where the person is seemingly both (and can use both sets of funcitons well).

[Cone]

How does one see a crosstyped person? I see Einstein's work as drawing conclusions from systems and systems from conclusions. If I were to be able to perceive the knowledge that created a system from watching it in action, I would think my perception and judgement crossed relative to the normal type. But only relative to the type, because I am attempting to reconcile my disparate existence with the normal expectation. I function according to the rules of common sense as everyone else does, but my sense of "common sense" is reversed from theirs. They appear to have rushed to judgement or to have taken too long to make their decisions.

So the Genius's cross is a transcendence of non-biased thinking? This makes sense, but to what degree should one attach this phenomenon to a specific type? I know that I sometimes see things from a non-biased perspective where I have transcended my previous biases and also the ones of my opponent/colleague, and I am sure we all have experienced this before, as it is the ultimate achievement in thought. However, perhaps the Genius cross-type has figured out a system early in life that allows him to transcend the common-sense of everyday man. Maybe not. I'm not exactly sure on this point. Are you implying that the Genius is an unbiased thinker, or are you implying that the Genius just has a different sense of bias?

A personality that cannot feel is none-the-less tasked with feeling. Is this information ignored? Not necessarily. The interpretation of the information is profoundly different from what a feeler would feel, but like the colorblind person who believes they are seeing the entire world of color, the world seems complete to them and they perceive themselves as feeling even as everyone else does. (indeed, it is the "feelers" who are not feeling, not them) Does the colorblind person see less color, or simply more of the same color than everyone else? Which is better, to see more green, blue, and red, or 50% more green and blue; indeed, perhaps even richer green and blue than the red can see?

I suppose the simile of colorblindness would imply that some information is not processed in any way, but rather just accepted as either useless or incomprehensible data. But the rest of the story implies that cross-types are lacking in certain fields only to be even more biased in others. So maybe I was wrong in my initial conclusions about cross-types. In the case of a harmonic type, it is not just that both N and S are severely weakened, but that either T or F is also highly strengthened. But couldn't you also have a type that has only one weakened function and one strengthened function?

The important thing to emphasize about crosstype is that the perceptions are completely relative. Crossed/nonexistent, it doesn't matter. Either way the distribution of information is disparate from the norm. (itself, of course, a relative concept) Very likely, the crosstypes see ourselves as being "crossed".

Perhaps "crossed" isn't the best word to use? Maybe combinations of "emphasized", "weakened", and "crossed" are better? That is assuming I am seeing this correctly.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I'd use intermittent-- which is how I feel.

[Creepy-]

It sounds good, but it still conflicts with Model-A ... If what you said is true and a person can switch between the EGO and ID blocks on command, that also means that he or she must simultaneously switch the Super-Id and Super-EGO block at the same time in order to keep a balance, hence disregarding his or her own type and taking on every single attribute related to his or her contrary partner, and shocking everyone with a complete and utter change in personality and values that might as well be permanent.

A normal INFp working from their ID block would likely be far more aggressive than your regular ENFp. I don't see a reason why you couldn't use the 7th and 8th functions together but because they have different roles to the Ego, you wouldn't necessarily end up looking much like your Contrary.

[tcaudilllg]

Everyone here has made some good points.

So the Genius's cross is a transcendence of non-biased thinking? This makes sense, but to what degree should one attach this phenomenon to a specific type? I know that I sometimes see things from a non-biased perspective where I have transcended my previous biases and also the ones of my opponent/colleague, and I am sure we all have experienced this before, as it is the ultimate achievement in thought. However, perhaps the Genius cross-type has figured out a system early in life that allows him to transcend the common-sense of everyday man. Maybe not. I'm not exactly sure on this point. Are you implying that the Genius is an unbiased thinker, or are you implying that the Genius just has a different sense of bias?

If you're non-biased in your thinking, don't you see similar things as indistinguishable from each other? Otherwise you have an obvious bias toward the one that is better for you. Jung talks a lot about this, specifically about the archetypes. He breaks down cultural movements into manifestations of archetypal images. Naturally he shows no bias toward any of them in his work, so that he can accurately appraise how the archetypes commuicate with each other to create the larger cultural image. I think it's a circular effect, like a word in a dictionary: you can't define it without eventually defining it with itself. To see things archetypally he had to be unbiased; to see things unbiased he had to see them archetypally. He acts like the independent in the general election: he goes with the option that will benefit him the most relative to the situation, without preferring one over the other on any specific grounds.

Just as you can't predict the outcome of an election, you can't predict which function will be chosen. It's a macro effect that is mirrored by the micro, like the theory of general relativity: the pathway of least resistance, but taking all existence into consideration in determining the pathway. Any one of us types are guided towards who we are not only by our dispositions, but also by the influence of the outside world. Even trying to change our own dispositions will be met with disaster by external forces, so we can't change our types even if we try. We can do it in theory, but never succeed for more than a brief period.

Although you have acheived transcendent thought before, Cone, hasn't something brought you back to your basic level? Something environmental, perhaps? An INTx wouldn't experience the environmental change that made you revert back to perception over judgement. Instead, the INTx would be punished for choosing one over the other.

Remember Heimdallr's troubles acclimating to either judgement or perception? Now he's finding he can't find a place in either, and that's the environmental impetus at work. I didn't mean to consciously do that to him, but that's what it turned out to be from his PoV. I acted as the environmental force boxing him in, and the relation held. By trying to act with preference towards one or the other, the other took conscious vengence on him through perceived social ostracism and forced him back to the center.

If there is a situation where an ENTx needs , he/she would make the switch that is required. If someone likes this makes a complete switch and it shocks people then it could be multiple personality disorder.

That's a good point Young_and_Confused. We can easily put this appraisal to the test. Watch our Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. She's an ENTx. Careful observation should reveal a mixture of perceptive and judging traits. In addition, we can look to feelings of "self-identity" with her in the ENTJs and ENTPs here. These rapports would be further evidence.

From my understanding, someone who is "crossed" on one of the funcitons has little, or contradictory use of those functions. One is telling them one thing, while they other says something else; so they barely funciton on any level. For someone crossed on J/P, tcaudilllig already explained it. It's like the person balances out their Judging and Perceiving funcitons to the point where the person is seemingly both (and can use both sets of funcitons well).

That's right. We expect--unconsciously--to see either of the pair in use. We see neither. But our unconscious demands that we see the pair even though they aren't there, so we interpret what we see as a cross between the two.

[Gilly]

So why am I ENxx again?

[tcaudilllg]

So why am I ENxx again?

Are you? I've not seen a picture where your face is clearly visible. ...It's more a matter of perception: do you get continuous feedback in the vein of "move carefully around social environments without emphasizing either judgement over perception or vice versa, nor feeling over thinking or vice versa"?

If you feel punished for not observing balance between two functions of the same pair, then that function pair does not exist in you relative to the rest of us. We perceive your functions as crossed.

That reminds me of another test we can make. We can create crosstype VI samples by averaging the features between two persons with opposing conscious functions (one T and the other F, for exampe) and the same subtype. For example, an INTP and an INTJ's faces averaged together with facial composition software should produce a face strikingly similar to Einstein. Similarly, averaging an ESTP's face with an ESTJ should produce a face like that of Donald Trump.

[Gilly]

You're the one who said it, not me.

Here are some pics of me:

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=2...r=asc&start=45

[tcaudilllg]

Rather than take over someone else's thread, I decided I'd start a new one. I like fresh starts...

Anyway, I don't know what to think of the reality of cross-types but the theory intrigues me.

@Tcaudilllg: I think to be taken seriously, you need to do an un-LII thing and explain everything, particularly the hows and whys. Your explanations have obviously been unsatisfactory to the majority of vocal readers but I'd like you to try again, if it doesn't stretch your patience or anything. In particular, I'd like to hear more about how it works in terms of Model A.

It would also be good if you could details of how they are crossed in terms of functions, particularly the xNFj or ISTx type of crosses which aren't so obvious simply by stating them.

It's more of a moral qualm than a matter of patience. I just feel that someone else should do that work. I like what you've done so far, if it helps.

[Creepy-]

Thanks.

I have a problem though in that I'm dealing purely with theory. I could come up with anything and have no way to tell whether it was reasonable or not.

[tcaudilllg]

You're the one who said it, not me.

Here are some pics of me:

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=2...r=asc&start=45

I'm certain now. Yes, you are.

Point of reference, this man:
http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=...52594780447311

He's your contrary. Notice the resemblance? The very long face, especially.

Yeah, I'll never forget when a friend of that guy from H.S. said, "Look at that cranium!" in front of everybody! A room full of people. He was only half joking: Evan Smith was one of the best mathematicians in the KY academic league. One of the top mathematicians in the East KY division, at least. He could crunch numbers with amazing speed.... I remember feeling inferior to him.

You've definitely got that cranium, gilligan87.

[tcaudilllg]

Thanks.

I have a problem though in that I'm dealing purely with theory. I could come up with anything and have no way to tell whether it was reasonable or not.

Look for evidence. Crosstypes are all around you. The more I think about the way the 81 types (Socionics "basic" and non-Socionics "crossed") interrelate, the more I'm able to distinguish how each of us are guiding each other into our respective types. It's in everything we say, everything we do. The perceptions always hold.

Ask yourself: "can my intuitive grasp of how to relate to people be linked to a logical basis?" You're using crosstype analysis unconsciously and you don't even know it.

[Creepy-]

I can see the psyche as a dynamic system with alternatively emphasised and de-emphasised functions. That's about as close to cross-types as I've gotten, I think. Everything in a state of flux and I don't see static types, so if I've noticed a cross-type I might have put it down to fluctuation instead of type.

What should I look for to identify a cross-type IRL?

[Gilly]

It's more a matter of perception: do you get continuous feedback in the vein of "move carefully around social environments without emphasizing either judgement over perception or vice versa, nor feeling over thinking or vice versa"?

If you feel punished for not observing balance between two functions of the same pair, then that function pair does not exist in you relative to the rest of us. We perceive your functions as crossed.

Here's my take on it. My views as far as judgement/perception go are that I attempt to avoid judgement in any and all situations: I think that, ideally, I would never judge anyone or anything without complete confidence in my knowlege. I think I am, by nature, a very non-judgemental person, so I strive to maintain that objectivity/neutrality concerning others even in my conscious thought. When concerned with ideas or principles, as opposed to people, I reserve judgement on anything until I know that an over-reaching premise has been faulted, at which point I feel I can dismiss a theory without sacrificing true objectivity. As far as accepting a principle or idea as ultimately true, well, I never really do it, because I feel that, in order to accept one idea, I must reject all others and acknowledge one truth as an absolute, which would involve a personal choice to do so since, without gaining all possible knowledge on any given viewpoint, any choice to do such would compromise ultimate objectivity. Deep down, I may "believe" in one thing more than another, but as far as conscious thought goes, I try to hold everything in balance.

As for logical and feeling judgement, well, as I've said, I tend to avoid judgement altogether, so as far as my conscious thought is concerned, I place equal value into both of these. Where my subconscious is concerned, I'm highly unsure as to which one I value more, which is why I've had so much trouble typing myself.

[Gilly]

I recognize the difference, but I'm talking about conscious thought. Obviously, I do exercise judgement in day-to-day matters; everyone does. However, what I'm focusing on has more to do with my conscious thought process, which is where the discrepency arises in this case.

[FDG]

Yeah, I'm not saying you're a j, just that some of the arguments you used in your post were not valid. "I think I am, by nature, a very non-judgemental person" is an example of this.

Concluding that you are not judgemental is a form of judging.

Yeah, I had the same objection

[Gilly]

*sigh*

I know what you mean. I know what the definition of judging is in terms of socionics. I'm just trying to explain my thought process to tc for verification, because he asked. I'm not saying that I never exercise judgement, I'm just saying that, consciously, and concerning certain things, I choose to not exercise judgement (which, yes, I know, is a form of judgement in itself).

Yeah, I had the same objection

Well thanks for contributing.

[FDG]

You're welcome.

[Creepy-aurora_faerie]

<--------------still doesn't fully understand the cross-type thing. or the IEI thing...>_>


eh don't bother trying to explain I still won't get it...=/

[Raver]

lol I have discovered a new typing system>

It goes like this:

<<FIRST NAME HERE>> <<LAST NAME HERE>>

And this is your type. It is very simple and accurate.

Subtypes are:

<<MIDDLE NAME>>

and

<<NUMBER>>

and some times

<<TIME OF BIRTH>>

I win!

Those who deny my system are small minded and evil. Einstien was ignored until he was proven. I will be proven too. Those who oppose me are just jealous.

I think this system is definitely the best.

[Raver]

That's a good point Young_and_Confused. We can easily put this appraisal to the test. Watch our Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. She's an ENTx. Careful observation should reveal a mixture of perceptive and judging traits. In addition, we can look to feelings of "self-identity" with her in the ENTJs and ENTPs here. These rapports would be further evidence.

Thanks. I heard that she was an ENTJ or an INTj, I'm not really sure. Maybe she tries to hide her perceptive behaviour considering her position. I have a question for you, how many cross-types are there population wise? If they are over 10%, then that would be quite fascinating and shocking. I hate to make biased comments like I tend to do, though are cross-types supposed to be better or more developed people as a result of having developed both sides of a function? Do I appear as a cross-type to you? When I took the tests, I would score ENFP most of the time. However, I scored close on the I/E scale and the F/T scale. Even though the extraversion would always dominate and so would the feeling function as well.

[Rocky]

I hate to make biased comments like I tend to do, though are cross-types supposed to be better or more developed people as a result of having developed both sides of a function?

No, they are less capable (if it is crossed between a function). A few people have already mentioned this (me, Cone, tcaudlllig, and maybe someone else). Jung talked about these people and how they funciton on no level. It's pretty impossible to use, say, both Thinking and Feeling well to reason things at the same time. You can use one, or use neither.

[Gilly]

One of the things that cross type implies is that, when judging functions are crossed, they are used at inappropriate times. I've seen myself do this kind of thing before: trying to "feel" my way through a math problem, or trying to employ logic as a way to deal with emotions. It's not fun, and I end up going ape-shit if I forget to sit down and try to get a perspective on what it is I'm trying to do.

[Raver]

I hate to make biased comments like I tend to do, though are cross-types supposed to be better or more developed people as a result of having developed both sides of a function?

No, they are less capable (if it is crossed between a function). A few people have already mentioned this (me, Cone, tcaudlllig, and maybe someone else). Jung talked about these people and how they funciton on no level. It's pretty impossible to use, say, both Thinking and Feeling well to reason things at the same time. You can use one, or use neither.

Interesting, so that would mean someone who is an ESTX would switch from using and as a first function and would also switch and as a second function. However, do perceptive functions switch with eachother and the same with judgement functions? I guess that would mean that an IXTP, is both an ISTP and INTP depending on the situation?

[Creepy-pokeball]

I hate to make biased comments like I tend to do, though are cross-types supposed to be better or more developed people as a result of having developed both sides of a function?

No, they are less capable (if it is crossed between a function). A few people have already mentioned this (me, Cone, tcaudlllig, and maybe someone else). Jung talked about these people and how they funciton on no level. It's pretty impossible to use, say, both Thinking and Feeling well to reason things at the same time. You can use one, or use neither.

--->At the Same Time<--- this does not mean that they do not function at all, this could also mean that they function intermittently when required to do so.

[Rocky]

@Jadae: I guess that's possible, but I think it would work out more along the lines of what Gilligan said. At least that's what Jung thought.

...so...

@Y&C: I don't think so. I don't think it's really possible to use both Si and Ni with great control and confidence. The "crossed" types seem to have little confidence in either one of them.

[Creepy-pokeball]

lol I usually skip his posts. I read it though. Ive never encountered the issue spoken of.

[Gilly]

So I don't say anything intelligent enough to be worth your while? Ahh, I see how it is. Not sure what I did to merit that kind of treatment, but do what you will.

[tcaudilllg]

So I don't say anything intelligent enough to be worth your while? Ahh, I see how it is. Not sure what I did to merit that kind of treatment, but do what you will.

Do you think that might be an unconscious suggestion that blocks her from reading your content? I admit that I tended to "skip" your posts, too, until you began criticizing my conclusions.

Don't take it personally. Remember she has your agenda and you have yours.

[Gilly]

I honestly don't have the foggiest idea. Am I really that hard to take seriously? That's another thing I notice: people take me seriously when I'm joking, and visa versa. Happens all the time. Pisses the hell out of me.

I'm not necessarily taking it personally, but I'm curious as to what exactly it is that I do to repel people so effectively.

[Creepy-]

So I don't say anything intelligent enough to be worth your while? Ahh, I see how it is. Not sure what I did to merit that kind of treatment, but do what you will.

Do you think that might be an unconscious suggestion that blocks her from reading your content? I admit that I tended to "skip" your posts, too, until you began criticizing my conclusions.

Don't take it personally. Remember she has your agenda and you have yours.

Jadae is a he :wink:

[tcaudilllg]

So I don't say anything intelligent enough to be worth your while? Ahh, I see how it is. Not sure what I did to merit that kind of treatment, but do what you will.

Do you think that might be an unconscious suggestion that blocks her from reading your content? I admit that I tended to "skip" your posts, too, until you began criticizing my conclusions.

Don't take it personally. Remember she has your agenda and you have yours.

Jadae is a he :wink:

LOL... OK. Sorry.

Thanks for the save, INFP.

[Rocky]

The unconcious is thinking without using words or language in your head. You observe things, visualize, and take things in via "pictures", etc... It's like you don't follow any ethical or logical path or system, but just change with things as you see fit.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I honestly don't have the foggiest idea. Am I really that hard to take seriously? That's another thing I notice: people take me seriously when I'm joking, and visa versa. Happens all the time. Pisses the hell out of me.

I'm not necessarily taking it personally, but I'm curious as to what exactly it is that I do to repel people so effectively.

Im sorry if I hurt you in some way. I conditioned myself to ignore you because I resented your cruel humor. All I ask is that you consideration for the majority when you post and I promise that I will take you seriously from now on. It is not about xenophbia or new ideas at all.

[Gilly]

The unconcious is thinking without using words or language in your head. You observe things, visualize, and take things in via "pictures", etc... It's like you don't follow any ethical or logical path or system, but just change with things as you see fit.

Rocky: Were you describing me, or a cross-type? Because I think you've done both.

Jadae: I've been trying to be less scathing lately, so I hope perhaps you can take me more seriously. I'm not hurt; more confused. But I think I understand now.

[Rocky]

I was describing perception. Perception= subconcious thinking. tcaudlllig is a judger, so he was unsure of what thinking with the subconcious was like.

[tcaudilllg]

I honestly don't have the foggiest idea. Am I really that hard to take seriously? That's another thing I notice: people take me seriously when I'm joking, and visa versa. Happens all the time. Pisses the hell out of me.

I'm not necessarily taking it personally, but I'm curious as to what exactly it is that I do to repel people so effectively.

The situation will resolve itself in... a few years. It's a part of the archetypal life cycle Jung described. Once you understand how to think more about yourself, without questioning your own identity. ...It's not something you can force. It's a biological issue and it takes time.

In the mean time, you might want to make this point clear to people (that you might be misunderstood) when you suspect they aren't reacting as you intended. You'll eventually be able to determine the time/place issues for yourself (once you learn to focus your energy inward), but until then using extra energy is probably the way to go... but not too much.

I'll try to devote double the effort into determining what it is you're saying.... Doesn't mean I'll get your jokes, though. :\

EDIT: I've got a curious suspicion that you interpreted that last paragraph as implying I have control over what you say...?

Rocky:
Good point about the unconscious. That describes pretty well how I act in a social situation with close friends and family. ...I had an insight a few hours ago; and although I don't really understand the experience of not consciously having faith in either of the functions of a crossed pair (yet), it seems empirical enough.

Diana, do you question relying on either intuition or sensing, and feeling or thinking? Joy and aurora_faerie: do either of you guys question your reliance on either intuition or sensing?

...I suppose if we basic types always prefer one function over the other, then naturally a person who has no clear preference will see a world that was never apparent to us. Unconscious, indeed. ...They think we are the ones who are unconscious.

Right gilligan87?