Cross typed individuals, as people who experience personality functions that exist in even polarity to each other, are witness to what Carl Jung, the psychology of depth pioneer, called "the collective unconscious".
Ohhh really? Hmmm, sounds to me like someone has been "reading inbetween the lines." I would like to see a reference where Jung said this exactly the way that this is presented here and in this context. Not that I am disagreeing with you, but I have never read an instance where Jung referred to the functions themselves as has been written here. It appears to me that there are some heavy implications here that may not have the proper founding or in the worst cases an utter lack of proper study using exogetical methods. Eisegesis is not the way to go!

Also, I have read the entire things ... thanks for writting this whole thing out, but this whole crosstyping theory is not origional socionics. It is something else or a convuluted form of socionics that has deviated from the main theory. I think it should be made clear that this is a seperate theory so others newer to the concept will not mistake one for the other.

Also, I really do not see any evidence or proof in any of this that would make the origional theory or "Model-A" seem defunct. Unless I have horribly misunderstood the reasoning behind this, which should propmt someone to make a follow-up if that is the case, not even with Jung's theories of Archetypes and the collective unconscious is there any conflict with socionics theory.

First of all, "Gestalt" is a german word which means "form" or "type". Jung adopted the term from classic Catholicism, which took various images of Christ, Jesus, Mary, and other Saints and considered them to be "manifestations" of that that are in the "spiritual word". Probably the most widely used example of "Gestalt" as it is used in the Catholic church and also similarly in Jungian psychology is the tradition of "Transubstination," which involves the communion ceremony and is the belief that the bread and wine literally turn into Christ body and blood. It is a "physical manifestation" of a "spiritual manifestation." It was with this very aspect and conext that Jung intended his Archetypical theories. That people have to make themselves "physical examples" in order to understand "spiritual matters." Hence, the means to an end from that of intuition to that of sensing and the full and utter manifestation of the unseen to the seen. Therefore, to "bring the secret hidden things to light."

In fact, the whole purpose of "Model-A" and the socionic Intertype Relationship theory is actually based specifically and exactly on the Jungian model of the collective unconscious, which is in itself an illustration of the "things that are hidden" as opposed to the "things that are seen."


http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/synchronicity

The socionic's model follows the "collective unconscious" wholeheartedly. It follows in Jung's example and is a means to help "bring the dark shadow side to light" and self-actualizing by finding the support of those who have awareness where we our selves are not aware.

But, I look at this "cross-type" theory and how it actually shits all over Jung and socionics theory, and makes a complete mess of things.

Tchaullldig, I wish you luck ... but I see no evidence to suggest that "cross typing" offers anything above standard socionics theory and I believe that it is backtracking into bad territory that should not be explored by anyone. It actually appears more to me that this crosstyping theory was origionally devised to make socionics seem more like MBTI, but is really a bad substitute for it.

I will leave with a final warning - proceed with caucion! Cause some people are not going to be fooled! You might!