INTjs and the Cross-type theory

[tcaudilllg]

I just want you guys to know that I really do plan to introduce this stuff professionally someday. ...Um, cross-type outlines the types so clearly that well... heh, uh there are a whole lot of possibilties made feasible by it that it really seems kinda scary.

Is all of this stuff as scary to you guys as it is to me? I mean, it seems to me that this is what we've always wanted: real explanations for why people are different from us... why they've not liked us, etc.

It seems to me that we as INTJs could work together a bit more closely now? ...I dunno... I like conducting experiments... but not when I'm the guinea pig....

What is your take, everybody?

[Gilly]

How do you plan to introduce it professionally if you can't qualify it to online pundits? What screw in your head is so loose that you don't realize how flawed and unsubstantiated your theories are?

[tcaudilllg]

How do you plan to introduce it professionally if you can't qualify it to online pundits? What screw in your head is so loose that you don't realize how flawed and unsubstantiated your theories are?

Gilligan, get out of here... before you get mawed? Oh wait, you're classifying yourself ENTP, aren't you....

Gilligan, you're a lifesaver in the real world, but in the introvert's realm you're a plague. :\ Don't worry, someday you'll see the light, and then you can give to us like mad!

[Gilly]

I'm serious. You've been touting this shit left and right, and you have yet to back up ANYTHING you've said. Now, I'd like to see some proof, because I think cross-type could bring a whole new demension to socionics (which is beginning to bore me, so a new demension would be welcomed). But I refuse to believe anything until it's been backed up Stop dismissing me, and show some proof.

I beg you to try and "maw" me. Give it your best shot.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm serious. You've been touting this shit left and right, and you have yet to back up ANYTHING you've said. Now, I'd like to see some proof, because I think cross-type could bring a whole new demension to socionics (which is beginning to bore me, so a new demension would be welcomed). But I refuse to believe anything until it's been backed up Stop dismissing me, and show some proof.

OK. But how do I show you proof of something so near to the fundamental nature of everything? The only way I could approach showing you is through statistics, which I could provide with a better test. Alternatively, perhaps I can show you my estimation of your thought processes. (In private, of course)

[ILENTp]

edit

[tcaudilllg]

God, I hate it when people justify things by saying they are self-evident.

What is your take, everybody?

Ummm.. tcaudilllg is schizophrenic?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men...

Or are you not saying that all men are created equal?

[Raver]

I just want you guys to know that I really do plan to introduce this stuff professionally someday. ...Um, cross-type outlines the types so clearly that well... heh, uh there are a whole lot of possibilties made feasible by it that it really seems kinda scary.

Is all of this stuff as scary to you guys as it is to me? I mean, it seems to me that this is what we've always wanted: real explanations for why people are different from us... why they've not liked us, etc.

It seems to me that we as INTJs could work together a bit more closely now? ...I dunno... I like conducting experiments... but not when I'm the guinea pig....

What is your take, everybody?

Cross-types don't exist, their just a certain personality type that has developed a weak function of theirs. Even if they did exist, you have to look at it a different angle, you know what I mean? Instead of pointing out who is a cross-type because they have balanced functions. You may be on to something, but your going about it in the wrong way, try to open all the windows in your house and you'll be able to breathe easier.

[tcaudilllg]

I just want you guys to know that I really do plan to introduce this stuff professionally someday. ...Um, cross-type outlines the types so clearly that well... heh, uh there are a whole lot of possibilties made feasible by it that it really seems kinda scary.

Is all of this stuff as scary to you guys as it is to me? I mean, it seems to me that this is what we've always wanted: real explanations for why people are different from us... why they've not liked us, etc.

It seems to me that we as INTJs could work together a bit more closely now? ...I dunno... I like conducting experiments... but not when I'm the guinea pig....

What is your take, everybody?

Cross-types don't exist, their just a certain personality type that has developed a weak function of theirs. Even if they did exist, you have to look at it a different angle, you know what I mean? Instead of pointing out who is a cross-type because they have balanced functions. You may be on to something, but your going about it in the wrong way, try to open all the windows in your house and you'll be able to breathe easier.

The functions are definitely crossed relative to the basic types. There's no question about that. But as to how the crosstypes see the world themselves? That's something a bit more complicated... the cross is effected on their side by simply deferring to society's collective judgement on that function pair. I only realized that a few days ago though... it's not exactly obvious. (at least not to me)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Raver]

I just want you guys to know that I really do plan to introduce this stuff professionally someday. ...Um, cross-type outlines the types so clearly that well... heh, uh there are a whole lot of possibilties made feasible by it that it really seems kinda scary.

Is all of this stuff as scary to you guys as it is to me? I mean, it seems to me that this is what we've always wanted: real explanations for why people are different from us... why they've not liked us, etc.

It seems to me that we as INTJs could work together a bit more closely now? ...I dunno... I like conducting experiments... but not when I'm the guinea pig....

What is your take, everybody?

Cross-types don't exist, their just a certain personality type that has developed a weak function of theirs. Even if they did exist, you have to look at it a different angle, you know what I mean? Instead of pointing out who is a cross-type because they have balanced functions. You may be on to something, but your going about it in the wrong way, try to open all the windows in your house and you'll be able to breathe easier.

The functions are definitely crossed relative to the basic types. There's no question about that. But as to how the crosstypes see the world themselves? That's something a bit more complicated... the cross is effected on their side by simply deferring to society's collective judgement on that function pair. I only realized that a few days ago though... it's not exactly obvious. (at least not to me)

I would have to assume they see the world on what their main perceiving function is. However if an INTJ is a cross-type between his intuition and his sensing, would mean that he has a switch that switches between his and his . I highly doubt that the would overpower the , if it did then that would royally fuck up Jung's theory/socionics/MBTI. Let's see an INTJ with introverted thinking as a first function and then followed by extraverted sensing would make him an ISTJ. Though, that is not true, because extraverted sensing could never become the second function without seriously detetriorating extraverted intuition, then that person would become an ISTJ.

[tcaudilllg]

I would have to assume they see the world on what their main perceiving function is. However if an INTJ is a cross-type between his intuition and his sensing, would mean that he has a switch that switches between his and his . I highly doubt that the would overpower the , if it did then that would royally fuck up Jung's theory/socionics/MBTI. Let's see an INTJ with introverted thinking as a first function and then followed by extraverted sensing would make him an ISTJ. Though, that is not true, because extraverted sensing could never become the second function without seriously detetriorating extraverted intuition, then that person would become an ISTJ.

That's because they function circularly. One function does not supplant another, because all have to share the weight of the permantently sublimated function(s).

Let's take Einstein, for example. (he's easiest because he's close to my type, and well known) From my perspective as an INTJ, he experienced a cross between perceiving and judgement when making decisions. He didn't really make decisions though: he let society make them for him, by closely following the rules. These rules naturally led him to do the things he did given his situation. But does an INTJ or an INTP follow the rules to the letter? No, they don't. And why not? Because they have role functions that conflict with those rules, because their feeling plays a role from within. Am I going to follow the rule of an establishment that I have been raised to believe is evil? No. But Einstein did. He tried very, very hard, and condemned people for going against the trends of his time. His absolute deference to the thought patterns of his time ("conscientious scientific principles", he called them) sublimated his ability to feel. He lived a life of absolute principle, to the point that he "was" principle alone.

So thinking took over the role function, but so did intuition, and so did introversion. There was no ordering of the functions, because there was no foundation on which they could be built. The "foundation" was unconsciousness itself.

It's like comparing a PC to the internet; or even better, a thin client. The PC has everything with which to operate with on almost anything, but needs help accessing the outside world. A thin client, on the other hand, has what it needs to access the entire world at any given moment, but without that link to the world it is completely useless.

In this analogy the PC is a basic typed person, and the thin client is a crosstyped individual.

[xiuxiu]

there is no such a thing as a "cross-type". people may act differently than their type, but that is just them throwing one or more of their lesser functions in overdrive to stay afloat, figuratively speaking. social survival.

[Kirana]

Let's take Einstein, for example. (he's easiest because he's close to my type, and well known) From my perspective as an INTJ, he experienced a cross between perceiving and judgement when making decisions. He didn't really make decisions though: he let society make them for him, by closely following the rules. These rules naturally led him to do the things he did given his situation. But does an INTJ or an INTP follow the rules to the letter? No, they don't. And why not? Because they have role functions that conflict with those rules, because their feeling plays a role from within. Am I going to follow the rule of an establishment that I have been raised to believe is evil? No. But Einstein did. He tried very, very hard, and condemned people for going against the trends of his time. His absolute deference to the thought patterns of his time ("conscientious scientific principles", he called them) sublimated his ability to feel. He lived a life of absolute principle, to the point that he "was" principle alone.

or, for whatever reason related to his life experiences, he could have simply suppressed his ability to feel by forcing more dominant functions to stifle his 'ability to feel'. in this instance, his state is not a natural 'cross-type' state, is it?

if people able to develop weak functions, it should be equally possible for people to inhibit development of their functions.

[tcaudilllg]

or, for whatever reason related to his life experiences, he could have simply suppressed his ability to feel by forcing more dominant functions to stifle his 'ability to feel'. in this instance, his state is not a natural 'cross-type' state, is it?

In which case the ego is completely subjugated. Remember that the psyche is not restrained to the subjective experience alone. The external object plays as strong a role in your psyche as does the subjective "internal" perspective. Both are equally important in the formation of type.

Are you confusing feeling with emotion? Feeling is analysis of relationships, not emotion.

if people able to develop weak functions, it should be equally possible for people to inhibit development of their functions.

That's a myth. People cannot "develop" their functions willingly. Functioning is determined by biology. You can try "developing" your functions, but it is simply an illusion sustained by your conscious functions until a biological change brings that "developing" function to life.

INTJs, you're not going to be able to "feel" consciously until you're past your midlife crisis. That's a definite. Nor will young INTJs be capable of truely interfacing with the outside world until their early 20s. There is research going on now about how the brain chemically changes in the period between adolescence and young adulthood. The onset of young adulthood (which physiologists label as age 22) is the completion of this cycle.

[tcaudilllg]

there is no such a thing as a "cross-type". people may act differently than their type, but that is just them throwing one or more of their lesser functions in overdrive to stay afloat, figuratively speaking. social survival.

You say "people can act differently than their type"? Go ahead, show us. Act "differently".

[Kirana]

Are you confusing feeling with emotion? Feeling is analysis of relationships, not emotion.
...

That's a myth. People cannot "develop" their functions willingly. Functioning is determined by biology. You can try "developing" your functions, but it is simply an illusion sustained by your conscious functions until a biological change brings that "developing" function to life.

INTJs, you're not going to be able to "feel" consciously until you're past your midlife crisis. That's a definite. Nor will young INTJs be capable of truely interfacing with the outside world until their early 20s. There is research going on now about how the brain chemically changes in the period between adolescence and young adulthood. The onset of young adulthood (which physiologists label as age 22) is the completion of this cycle.

on the first paragraph, i was only re-using your own phrase.

on the second, i disagree. being biological beings, there is considerable variation between individuals. not to mention that willpower and external pressures may encourage development or inhibition of functions - i don't see how this is impossible. you'd be at the mercy of biology if you didn't know yourself well. however, self-knowledge gives a person power over himself.

i would think that the giveaway of an 'enforced' personality is that even though the ego is masked or subjugated, the rest of the blocks remain the same. [/quote]

[xiuxiu]

there is no such a thing as a "cross-type". people may act differently than their type, but that is just them throwing one or more of their lesser functions in overdrive to stay afloat, figuratively speaking. social survival.

You say "people can act differently than their type"? Go ahead, show us. Act "differently".

are you kidding me? unplug your keyboard for a few weeks.

[Cone]

I love how you guys constantly deride cross-type theory, yet the best argument you have is "cross-type theory is wrong." (No offense to those who have good arguments.)

[xiuxiu]

the burden of proof is on the believer. that said, i personally don't put any stock into it simply because i have not seen it within myself, or in other people whose types i am certain of.

[Cone]

That's a weak refutation, mainly because one can never know enough people to be able to reasonably disprove the theory, and also because the theory makes logical sense (in my opinion), so even if you could never find a representative of a cross-type, that still doesn't exclude the possibility of them existing.

[xiuxiu]

with that reasoning, we should just throw everything we know about sonionics out the window then, i suppose?

to me it seems that cross-type theory is just a lazy way to explain away certain anomalies that arise within the order of functions in types that are socially stressed externally, and sometimes internally, as in tcaldillg whatever's example of einstein (which, if such is the case, sounds more like a physiological 'rift' in the brain so to speak, as opposed to mental, that being function scrambling/cross-type, etc). but i don't think it's that simple. yeah, i don't know anything about any of you here as you stated (but again, that is not a cue to discount my own thoughts, or anyone elses and in turn, the whole of socionics theory, do you not agree?), so i am obviously only gauging this cross-type business with my own experiences, and in my life i can tell you that social exhaustion is no foreign thing, but i am not permanently changed or anything, functionally speaking.. i think if i had been, it would fall more along the lines of a mental disorder and could, in all likelihood, be defined in the DSM-IV. no, on the contrary. i find that social stress is a grand thing indeed, in moderation of course as all things should be. you learn about yourself and others, and realize your full potential. there is a lot more i'd like to say but i don't want to be winded.

you always have to keep in mind that 8 theoretical definitions do not always serve as the best summary or even model for the most advanced machine/organism/miracle known to man, the human brain.

[tcaudilllg]

with that reasoning, we should just throw everything we know about sonionics out the window then, i suppose?

to me it seems that cross-type theory is just a lazy way to explain away certain anomalies that arise within the order of functions in types that are socially stressed externally, and sometimes internally, as in tcaldillg whatever's example of einstein (which, if such is the case, sounds more like a physiological 'rift' in the brain so to speak, as opposed to mental, that being function scrambling/cross-type, etc). but i don't think it's that simple. yeah, i don't know anything about any of you here as you stated (but again, that is not a cue to discount my own thoughts, or anyone elses and in turn, the whole of socionics theory, do you not agree?), so i am obviously only gauging this cross-type business with my own experiences, and in my life i can tell you that social exhaustion is no foreign thing, but i am not permanently changed or anything, functionally speaking.. i think if i had been, it would fall more along the lines of a mental disorder and could, in all likelihood, be defined in the DSM-IV. no, on the contrary. i find that social stress is a grand thing indeed, in moderation of course as all things should be. you learn about yourself and others, and realize your full potential. there is a lot more i'd like to say but i don't want to be winded.

you always have to keep in mind that 8 theoretical definitions do not always serve as the best summary or even model for the most advanced machine/organism/miracle known to man, the human brain.

I always love to hear somebody talk about "the amazing, indescribable human brain." Wow, I don't know what else to say except that my estimation of their reasoning ability falls some oh, 50%?

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[tcaudilllg]

the burden of proof is on the believer. that said, i personally don't put any stock into it simply because i have not seen it within myself, or in other people whose types i am certain of.

That's a lie. An outright lie.

You should be ashamed of yourself for poluting knowledge.

[Raver]

I would have to assume they see the world on what their main perceiving function is. However if an INTJ is a cross-type between his intuition and his sensing, would mean that he has a switch that switches between his and his . I highly doubt that the would overpower the , if it did then that would royally fuck up Jung's theory/socionics/MBTI. Let's see an INTJ with introverted thinking as a first function and then followed by extraverted sensing would make him an ISTJ. Though, that is not true, because extraverted sensing could never become the second function without seriously detetriorating extraverted intuition, then that person would become an ISTJ.

That's because they function circularly. One function does not supplant another, because all have to share the weight of the permantently sublimated function(s).

Let's take Einstein, for example. (he's easiest because he's close to my type, and well known) From my perspective as an INTJ, he experienced a cross between perceiving and judgement when making decisions. He didn't really make decisions though: he let society make them for him, by closely following the rules. These rules naturally led him to do the things he did given his situation. But does an INTJ or an INTP follow the rules to the letter? No, they don't. And why not? Because they have role functions that conflict with those rules, because their feeling plays a role from within. Am I going to follow the rule of an establishment that I have been raised to believe is evil? No. But Einstein did. He tried very, very hard, and condemned people for going against the trends of his time. His absolute deference to the thought patterns of his time ("conscientious scientific principles", he called them) sublimated his ability to feel. He lived a life of absolute principle, to the point that he "was" principle alone.

So thinking took over the role function, but so did intuition, and so did introversion. There was no ordering of the functions, because there was no foundation on which they could be built. The "foundation" was unconsciousness itself.

It's like comparing a PC to the internet; or even better, a thin client. The PC has everything with which to operate with on almost anything, but needs help accessing the outside world. A thin client, on the other hand, has what it needs to access the entire world at any given moment, but without that link to the world it is completely useless.

In this analogy the PC is a basic typed person, and the thin client is a crosstyped individual.

Well, maybe he was an INTP that exhibited J behaviours. He was probably sick of being so irresponsible and lazy that he tried to control himself, which was being J-like. He was probably middle-brained, so I'm guessing he switched between left and right brain quite frequently. I've always had a problem with the ordering of both socionics and MBTI due to the fact that they may not be particularly true due to the complexity of human beings. That is why cross-types exist and their not really personalities crossing over, but just a mis-understanding of Jung's theory.

[xiuxiu]

I always love to hear somebody talk about "the amazing, indescribable human brain." Wow, I don't know what else to say except that my estimation of their reasoning ability falls some oh, 50%?

i suppose i was in error when i spoke so highly of a thing that is clearly not worthy of such exaltation.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

but certainly don't disaffirm or oppose, right?

That's a lie. An outright lie.

You should be ashamed of yourself for poluting knowledge

they are observations within myself, and of others i know. so far you haven't really attacked my points, you have just gone after irrelevant details to the nature of the discussion and (falsely) accused me of lying?

I just want you guys to know that I really do plan to introduce this stuff professionally someday.

now is as good a time as any. maybe better.

[Creepy-]

if people able to develop weak functions, it should be equally possible for people to inhibit development of their functions.

That's a myth. People cannot "develop" their functions willingly. Functioning is determined by biology. You can try "developing" your functions, but it is simply an illusion sustained by your conscious functions until a biological change brings that "developing" function to life.

INTJs, you're not going to be able to "feel" consciously until you're past your midlife crisis. That's a definite. Nor will young INTJs be capable of truely interfacing with the outside world until their early 20s. There is research going on now about how the brain chemically changes in the period between adolescence and young adulthood. The onset of young adulthood (which physiologists label as age 22) is the completion of this cycle.

hmm...

[tcaudilllg]

if people able to develop weak functions, it should be equally possible for people to inhibit development of their functions.

That's a myth. People cannot "develop" their functions willingly. Functioning is determined by biology. You can try "developing" your functions, but it is simply an illusion sustained by your conscious functions until a biological change brings that "developing" function to life.

INTJs, you're not going to be able to "feel" consciously until you're past your midlife crisis. That's a definite. Nor will young INTJs be capable of truely interfacing with the outside world until their early 20s. There is research going on now about how the brain chemically changes in the period between adolescence and young adulthood. The onset of young adulthood (which physiologists label as age 22) is the completion of this cycle.

hmm...

Right, this is a concept from Jung. One must conquer one's unconscious functions in a definite order, kind of like defeating the "four elemental fiends" in Final Fantasy. (Jung used the analogy of the dragon vs. the hero, and the conflict between what one wants to be and what one doesn't want to be) The end of this conflict is called the "transcendental" function. This is why kids get so into GI Joe, Transformers, etc: they are acting out their internal battle with the unconscious by projecting their personality onto the characters, with the ego as the good guys and the shadow as the badguy. Because functions are biological in nature, this change must be effected by a transition between nervous system cycles.

[Creepy-]

In one light, that puts things in a very interesting perspective.

I'llprobably have more questions in the near future.