The impact of socionics

[Rocky]

Crossed J/P don't overcompensate by using mostly their perception... they are constantaly bouncing back and forth between conscious (judgeing), and subconcious (perceiving) thought. They don't feel comfortable only using perception, because when they are using perception, they feel uncomfortable in not using conscientious, rational, judgement.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Gilly]

Gilligan is so ENFj it is insane.

...care to explain?

And...do you really think I'm your supervisor?

[Gilly]

Crossed J/P don't overcompensate by using mostly their perception... they are constantaly bouncing back and forth between conscious (judgeing), and subconcious (perceiving) thought. They don't feel comfortable only using perception, because when they are using perception, they feel uncomfortable in not using conscientious, rational, judgement.

They do when the only confident function (in this case, Extraverted Intuition) is a perceiving function. If we were talking about ExTx, then the dominant function would be Te, Se for ESxx, etc.

If you disagree, what do you propose as an alternative?

[Gilly]

You know, I'm actually not going to totally discount the ENFj thing. It's possible, I guess. I dunno, the more I think about this cross-type stuff, the more it makes a really strange kind of sense. I can see some of all of the ENxx's in myself, except maybe ENTj; I'm somewhat holding out for a perceiving type, but I think I express more :fe: sometimes than I may notice.

Also, I have alot of different frames of mind/personas, so it's always hard to tell who you're typing when you're dealing with me. I might test INFp one day and ENTp the next.

Speaking of which, how would a cross-typed xNxP behave? In what ways is it distinct?

[Rick]

Let me explain what this crosstyping thoery might not take into account.

The difference between socionics and Jung is that A.A. related psychic functions to facets of reality in the outside world, allowing us to speak of information in the external world and not just of functions in the psyche. Jung distinguished only four functions, but once you take the step of saying that there are facets of reality that different types perceive with different degrees of clarity and precision, you see that all 8 facets of reality (i.e. information elements) must somehow register in each psyche. Otherwise, the individual's functioning would break down in certain areas, sort of like walking off a cliff or dying of hunger because you do not see the precipice or don't register hunger. How one uses a certain aspect of reality, or information element, is largely explained by his type of information metabolism.

In addition, look at the 'mental' and 'vital' loops (or tracks). A static type, for example, has only static elements in his active/mental track and actively perceives and works with static elements of sensing, intuition, logic, and ethics. Meanwhile, as he uses each static function, he is also 'passively' reflecting its pair in the vital track. Something is happening with him through the dynamic element that he is not fully aware or in control of.

As Hugo pointed out in a different thread, all the dichotomies come from how functions are arranged in the model. If we say that someone "can't choose" between irrationality and rationality, what are we saying? Perhaps that he comes to contradictory conclusions depending on whether his 1st or 2nd function is activated?

We can't say that someone does not have a certain function and that another function somehow "takes over," because functions reflect aspects of reality. That is tantamount to saying that someone does not register, for example, emotional dynamics in any way whatsoever. How can, for example, extraverted logic take over extraverted ethics? That's like saying that the extraverted logic function has "learned to" perceive extraverted ethics in the outside world. But then that's no longer extraverted logic anymore! If someone truly did not perceive any extraverted ethics at all, he would not even know that there was something there to perceive.

Someone can have a very weak perception of a certain aspect of reality, but it cannot be nonexistent, unless the person has an inborn psychological disorder -- for example, severe autism, which might be like a near complete negation of the ethics channel (in both mental and vital tracks).

[Rocky]

Gilligan, I guess I was thinking of someone who would be either ENTx, or ENFx.

But then, what the hell is ENxx? How is it different from ENxp? How could you be "crossed" with your judgement if you don't trust it?

[Gilly]

Gilligan, I guess I was thinking of someone who would be either ENTx, or ENFx.

But then, what the hell is ENxx? How is it different from ENxp? How could you be "crossed" with your judgement if you don't trust it?

I think it means that you don't place complete trust in either perception or judgement, but since the strongest function available is a perceiving one, it takes over the responsibilities of the others, to a degree. I think I express Ti, Fe, Te, and Fi, but I experience them all very much consciously, and thus I express none of them in a way such that they have the capacity to override the positions favored by my Ne ego.

[tcaudilllg]

Let me explain what this crosstyping thoery might not take into account.

The difference between socionics and Jung is that A.A. related psychic functions to facets of reality in the outside world, allowing us to speak of information in the external world and not just of functions in the psyche. Jung distinguished only four functions, but once you take the step of saying that there are facets of reality that different types perceive with different degrees of clarity and precision, you see that all 8 facets of reality (i.e. information elements) must somehow register in each psyche. Otherwise, the individual's functioning would break down in certain areas, sort of like walking off a cliff or dying of hunger because you do not see the precipice or don't register hunger. How one uses a certain aspect of reality, or information element, is largely explained by his type of information metabolism.

In addition, look at the 'mental' and 'vital' loops (or tracks). A static type, for example, has only static elements in his active/mental track and actively perceives and works with static elements of sensing, intuition, logic, and ethics. Meanwhile, as he uses each static function, he is also 'passively' reflecting its pair in the vital track. Something is happening with him through the dynamic element that he is not fully aware or in control of.

As Hugo pointed out in a different thread, all the dichotomies come from how functions are arranged in the model. If we say that someone "can't choose" between irrationality and rationality, what are we saying? Perhaps that he comes to contradictory conclusions depending on whether his 1st or 2nd function is activated?

We can't say that someone does not have a certain function and that another function somehow "takes over," because functions reflect aspects of reality. That is tantamount to saying that someone does not register, for example, emotional dynamics in any way whatsoever. How can, for example, extraverted logic take over extraverted ethics? That's like saying that the extraverted logic function has "learned to" perceive extraverted ethics in the outside world. But then that's no longer extraverted logic anymore! If someone truly did not perceive any extraverted ethics at all, he would not even know that there was something there to perceive.

Someone can have a very weak perception of a certain aspect of reality, but it cannot be nonexistent, unless the person has an inborn psychological disorder -- for example, severe autism, which might be like a near complete negation of the ethics channel (in both mental and vital tracks).

This is the point where you reach "the summit" of public discourse. From here, there is no clear road but forward.

We are entering a region of understanding that may not make sense in a normal way. It would not even be "socionics" anymore, if not for the ideas like VI and the function orderings that still apply. What we're talking about is more like "the socionics of tomorrow" in contrast to the socionics of today.

From what I can perceive, socionics, being a cybernetic system, scales directly into the psychology of depth, because socionics attempts to explain the cybernetic underlines of the psychology. So I feel comfortable talking about interrelations between socionics and psychology here. If you assert that socionics stands on its own, then it becomes little more than a person's opinion, with no contextual link to the unconscious revelation.

In this thread, Cone asked a similar question, Rick: how can we assert that a psyche cannot perceive a part of reality? I answered him with an analogy to the colorblind person who cannot see red, but instead sees deeper hues of blue and green. It's not that they don't see reality; it's simply that they see reality through a different lense than the control group (the 16 types; or as you call them "static types") does. Like the material particle that ever approaches lightspeed c but fails to ever attain it in full, a person who does not possess a typological dimension tries to compensate with their existing dimensions for the part of reality that they cannot perceive, but never quite succeed. (gilligan87 using his extroverted intuition to "feel" his way through a problem, for example) They are compensated thus by the sheer depth with which they perceive their existing dimensions.

As for autism, Einstein was suspected of having a form of Aspergers syndrome. But so has Steven Spielberg been diagnosed as such. Steven Spielburg is an INTJ though: a simple VI glance will make that apparent. For that matter, he and I have a very strong physical resemblance to each other. I don't think being INTJ makes you autistic. Nor do I think that being INTP makes you autistic. As for what autism is, I think that it has been used as a catchall for otherwise inexplicable psychological behaviors. It technically means to be "withdrawn" from the outside world. I actually know a person who is diagnosed with autism. He keeps to himself and has great interest in building things. He is very, very quiet. However, he is undeniably intelligent in the sense that we measure it. Physically he resembles an ISTJ crossed with an ISTP. He doesn't show any over tendencies towards intuition, prefering physical activity and "facts". When I knew him he was 15; he surprised his sister and I by spontaneously interjecting, when I mentioned Qusay Hussien, "was it him or Uday that made Saddam look like Mother Theresa?" For a 15 year old person to know that much about the two of them that soon after the war had began (this happened in summer 2003) is unusual.

In regards to Aspergers autism, I postulate this: that it refers to a state of relational unconsciousness. If that is the case, then I'm guilty as charged: I don't consider my relations with people at all except in a casual light. (no INTJ under 40 does) I don't let myself get moved by my feelings. If I do, then they are under close supervision by my thinking, and I reckon that they are making themselves known, but it is only that: a reckoning, or acknowledgement. I don't experience them consciously.

When I turn 40 (or close enough at least), then all that will change. I will learn to subjugate my desires to let my feelings free in return for their service to introverted intuition. But until then I don't have the mental capacity with which to "slay the dragon", a Jung put it. The psychological change that underlies the midlife crisis will allow me a new dimension of personal understanding and a new outlook on life. Until then, I and my unconscious shall explore the archetypal possibilities of extroverted thinking....

When Einstein turned 40, or indeed, when any (N/S)Tx turns 40, their feeling will not awaken. Instead, their dormant irrational function will become conscious. For an archetypally appraising thinker to experience feeling consciously, would be the experience of a thinking judge or a thinking perceiver to experience their creative art function consciously: it's simply impossible. That's not to say that they (the archetypally appraising thinkers) do not experience feeling at all. As MysticSonic alludes in his signature, there are times when "you can see it all." Jung describes these as moments of psychological oneness, when all the functions are in harmony with each other. Then all functions are conscious and it is possible to see how everything interrelates and corresponds to everything else. This is only for a very short period; however, in that moment, the unconscious provides the individual a glimmer of light, a seemingly transcendental and creative experience, that allows the dominant functions to work with each other in a way they never before imagined. The creative art function rises to consciousness, and provides the psyche the benefit of its conscious insight before dying away back into unconsciousness.

[Creepy-]

I think in the case that someone has Aspergers Syndrome (or any other PDD), your perception of their type needs to be flexible enough to accomodate the disorder as they might have some traits which contradict their psychological type. A good friend of mine with Aspergers is definately an ISTp but he doesn't have the same "vibe" as most other ISTps.

Just a thought, I don't know whether it will influence anyone's perspective but I wanted to share it anyway.

[tcaudilllg]

I think in the case that someone has Aspergers Syndrome (or any other PDD), your perception of their type needs to be flexible enough to accomodate the disorder as they might have some traits which contradict their psychological type. A good friend of mine with Aspergers is definately an ISTp but he doesn't have the same "vibe" as most other ISTps.

Just a thought, I don't know whether it will influence anyone's perspective but I wanted to share it anyway.

Can you show us a picture of him?

As for Soros, he's definitely a crosstype. (I've looked him up a bit... difficult to find any definitive info on his positions apart from the main stream) Here's something interesting: he abandoned a career in philosophy after realizing that his view had already been expressed by another philosopher. Why take that road, as opposed to trying to build on the views his predecessor had expressed? It reminds me of the situation with INTxs and physics: there are INTxs out there who could take over where he left off, but they aren't trying to....

[Creepy-]

Sorry, haven't got any pictures.

[Gilly]

What Rick is saying is true: the functions are designed not to be some sort of mental "mode," necessarily, but merely the neurological mechanisms that we use to take in different kinds of data; in this sense, each individual would absolutely have to experience every function in sorm form, regardless of how weak or strong it is: otherwise, important information that relates to minute every-day matters and conclusions about it would be forgone, and the person would not be able to function in society.

What cross typing implies in the case of the ENxp, or so I believe, is that the vastly preferred Extraverted Intuition consciously assumes the responsibilities of the judgement functions, making conscious decisions based on what seems to be right to the intuitor, and disregarding normal forms of what logic or ethics dictate the perceived courses of action to be. The person does not respond normally to ethical or logical discourse: he uses his intuition and the information he has to reach a conclusion that is not necessarily logically or ethically valid, but nonetheless makes sense to the individual. Throughout childhood, the individuals ideas would be refuted and evaluated based on normal standards of logic or ethics, forcing the individual into a permanent state of indecision.

Some people have expressed disbelief about cross typing because, in some cases, it implies that the individual doesn't exercise any sort of judgement; how could a person like this survive in every-day matters that require judgement on a basic level? Sometimes, they can't: the individual would find himself at an impass when trying to determine whether or not to move out of the way when someone else is walking towards them and a collision seems iminent. The person does not completely lack forms of judgement: they are present in the unconscious. They are, however, impaired when compared with those of a normally typed person, which results in incidents like the above.

[Gilly]

Gilligan, I guess I was thinking of someone who would be either ENTx, or ENFx.

But then, what the hell is ENxx? How is it different from ENxp? How could you be "crossed" with your judgement if you don't trust it?

An ENxp is what I described above: impaired judgement, compensated for by an over-active conscious manifestation of extraverted intuition. An ENxj, on the other hand, would be someone with comparable every-day handicaps concerning subconscious judgement, but, instead of experiencing a state of conscious need for a lack of judgement, they would experience a conscious need FOR it, while being unable to seperate which, logic or ethics, is appropriate for the decision at hand.

An ENxx would be a combination of the two: a person who both desires to take in information and suspend judgement on it, but also needs to have an opinion on tap in the case that he or she fails to retain an objective stance. This opinion would be based on societal standards that the ENxx views as important ways in that they help compensate for the individual's lack of preferential judgement. However, unlike the xxxx, which relies solely on these standards, the ENxx's dominant intuition shows a preference for those ideas or standards that help promote the ENxx as an important person in society, and that will be a mechanism for the ENxx's ideas to be expressed in that society.

This is, as usual, based solely on my intuitive understanding of the nature of cross-type theory, and has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of empirical and/or factual evidence.

[discojoe]

The impact of socionics

[Gilly]

Works well with your sig.

[discojoe]

Yeah it does.

[Gilly]

I knew you'd do something like that.

Probably because it's exactly what I'd do.