[quote="tcaudilllg"]
Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
Quote Originally Posted by Cone
I don't think cross-types are something that should be debunked because of "lack of substantive evidence". I think cross-types are a natural deduction from the consideration of only being able to have one bias in a specific area. Cross-types should be analyzed for flaws in its theoretical base and whether it is valid to assume that possibilities exist in this realm.
I am not really disageeing against crosstyping because of "lack of substantive evidence," there are lots of theories that I have accepted and studied in the past that had lack of evidence, but I only accepted them because they were all better alternatives. In this regards,"Crosstyping theory is not a better alternative above standard socionics theory and actually backtracks unnecessarily away from the theory without solid reason to do so" and therefore I can not accept the theory ahead of standard socionics theory.

I hate to offend people, but it is the truth!
Well I've made my case clear. By God with all the will in me I will sustain my analyses against those who would question the validity of intuition. You are arguing against the reality of my conclusions!? Who is going against socionics now, rmcnew? Is not the INTJ the master of uncovering these things, these intuitive forms? You're war against the concept of crosstype is not a war against me alone; it is an affront to every INTJ who demands a clear logical premise for their conclusions.
What a funny unfounded statement. I was just talking with an INTj today who thinks that crosstyping is totally nuts, unnecessary, and agreed with my own conclusions about it. He also has read what you wrote in thread and thinks the whole thing is bizaare. If anything, I would more readily assume that anyone with atleast half a brain would logically conclude that as well.

INTJs, I have discovered this system on behalf of all of us. But not us alone: I also intend to broadly question society's existing interpretations of social institutions with it. This mastermind isn't about to take a threat to his plans lying down. Crosstype is a new avenue of opportunity for everyone.
Maybe, but I have already stated that it offers absolutly nothing above standard socionics theory and even contradicts socionics theory. It is not even that great of an alternative, in fact it backtracks. I seriously doubt that it has the potential to impact socionics the way that is claimed here.

Am I affiliated with Socionics? No, I'm not. But I realize that they have the right idea on a lot of things. They're stopping at the water's edge though... and it is stupid for me to be suspicious of the reason why. When people can't see where a new idea will take them, they get afraid. They run. I'll bet there is a sect of socionics professionals that believes in crosstype--but they're being silenced by something.
Pbbbbt ... Black Helicopters My Ass! So is the secret police coming to come out with a can of whoopass if one of theses "secret socionic professionals" suddenly spoke out about the crosstype theory? I doubt it ... more like socionic professionals are not making a big deal about it or are indiffrent because they know it conflicts with standard socionics theory and even blatently contradicts it. People know better ...

As for people like rmcnew who appear to have 1) values that differ from my own and 2) feel they have a definite stake in seeing these ideas stopped at the "water's edge", I know from experience that I can't hold back against them nor should I try to reason with them to any verifyable extent. Although, if you are really an ENxP rmcnew, (and I don't have a picture with which to make that conclusion) then perhaps you are making these charges in service of the unconscious fear that naturally extends from any encounter with a revelation this profound. Einstein had the Antirelativity Co., a group of antisemetics who were deeply disturbed by the discoveries he uncovered through his determination to understand the world. I may not be an archetypal thinker by nature, but I know what made him what he was....
If the theory gets stopped, it would not be on account of me. It would be because it offers no greater alternative above socionics theory.

I've seen this phenomenon--reasonless disapproval of my ideas without adequate explanation--happen before. Well, I've learned my lesson and this time I'm not going to hold back. I will cast down the existing system that troubles people so, and even if the one I set up in its place proves to have flaws of its own I will at least be able to say I tried. And to me, that's all that matters.
My explanation for disapproval is that not only does it contradict everything that socionics stands for, it offers no greater alternative over socionics theory. I have already given an explanation as to why, and I suppose that if the fact that I disagree makes that explanation inadequate, so be it ... I am not going to agree so it will suddenly become adequet.

Yes rmcnew, you are an ENxP. An ENFP wouldn't be fighting me so hard. An ENTP would have an interesting new perspective. But what I'm seeing from you is quite bizzare.
I wanted to help adapt the theory to my own knowledge of socionics thking that I found it to have an advantage over socionics theory, but I found myself dissapointed and feeling like the whole thing backtracks away from socionics. I do not see how that is so bizaare ...