Talk:Crosstypes

I think Tcaud would have issue with it being called "crosstype theory" I believe he's changed it to "information exertion theory" Bionicgoat 04:58, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Shall we vote on which name makes more sense? --Admin 05:07, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

well I can't say I really understand or pay attention to it all but it seems to me that his focus is all on the exertion thing lately. I think in that it's "his" theory if we're going to be talking about it here we should call it by what he's currently calling it. So that's my vote... "exertion theory" :) Bionicgoat 05:16, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree that it should be called by what he calls it. But I'm not getting involved in it I'm afraid :) Expat 05:24, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Sure. My comment was a joke :-) --Admin 05:27, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

You guys are killin me :P Bionicgoat 05:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Then listen to this -- actually I saw some merit in the original crosstype theory; for instance, I found it plausible that something like EXXP could exist and that an example would the Emperor Caligula; if not "true", I thought it could be an useful approach in some cases. But the "exertion theory" -- I'm afraid I have no idea what my "slave" is supposed to be. Not a clue. Expat 05:54, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

The exertion theory was something else...I believe Tcaud calls it Dual-type theory. His Crosstype theory had a few different subtheories: 1) undifferentiated functions; 2) unusual combinations of functions in the ego block (e.g., two introverted functions in the ego block); 3) Hierarchy of types based on undifferentiation, with "XXXX" types seen as powerful and somewhat evil. --Jonathan 08:44, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

well fine, but who's going to explain it? Expat 09:05, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

errr it seems like people are dancing around the obvious... how about Tcaud? He seems like the natural person to write us a summery... jah?Bionicgoat 09:36, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

The crosstype theory evolved into the dual-type theory.

The crosstype theory, which is explained in-depth here (http://www.armleg.com/psychorelative/viewtopic.php?t=61), posited a dead union of two Jung/MBTI types, under the pretense that their functions would cancel out each other at every point whereat they did not overlap. (e.g., introversion would cancel extroversion, thinking would cancel feeling, etc.) Jung himself said he had experienced such cases, so it seemed like a reasonable hypothesis. Questions over striking similarities between celebrities and other individuals who seemed to have remarkable rapport with their environment were fuel for my considerations. Why do some people get attention and others none? Why are some people likable and charismatic, while others go unnoticed? Then came Barak Obama, who has been described as a human Roarach test who could reflect people's hopes and aspirations. Amidst all these mysterious factors (because there existed no coherent explanation that I could find) I assumed the existence of a "super-typology" an indisputable part of reality.

At first I knew little about Model-A, and contented myself with Jung's typology. As Rick's site grew, I learned more about Model-A and what Augusta's thinking was regarding it. I was impressed by the utility of Model-A's rigor, and I looked for a way to unite it with the crosstype theory. Studying the speech patterns of people (and characters) who I believed to be crosstypes, which I learned on the forums could be traced to one's progression through Model-A's function order, I analyzed the relationship of the elements to each other, and found they followed consistent patterns. Augusta's abstract descriptions of the information elements ("internal statics of objects, external dynamics of fields, etc.") made this intuitively easy. I began to postulate that there were two types at work, however this meant abandoning the original crosstype theory. ...I had typed Jesus using the same method and so figured that it would be "worth it" to have a better theory if it meant I could understand his message more clearly, even if I had to say Jung was wrong or even partially irrelevant. I noticed that people would always deliberate over the potential impact of a function's 2nd element on the next function's 1st element. The 1st element made the call, and so "mastered" the 2nd element of the function, which always was a function of activity. There were thus two elements to every function, and two types metabolism (the types understood up to that time) and energy/exertion to every person. Finally I had the range -- 256 (vs 81 for the crosstype theory) -- of personalities I had been looking for to explain the diversity of humanity, and the range of element interactions I needed to (eventually) apphrehend the entire spectrum of information. (not in my lifetime, unless a lot more people get involved)

At this time I am not the only one researching exertion/dual-type theory. labcoat devotes about as much of his thought as myself to it (from other angles), and Gulenko himself has recently announced his pursuit of a similar hypothesis that posits the existence of four types. (it's on the Humanitarian Socionics site, Dec 17, 2006) There are also discussions of "informational-energic levels" appearing in socionics journals by at least one established socionist.

The XXXX actually has more in common with a psychopath -- who I consider a person dominated by the whims of their subconscious functions (5 through 8). Consider your friendly cold-blooded drug dealer down the street for example, or Adolf Hitler in the extreme. Generic RPG supervillians will also do nicely. Actually, the XXXX was envisioned as a person who held the functions in perfect check with each other, not unlike a sort of mortal god with omnescient properties. (I long thought this to be the trait of prodigy; turns out it's a highly contrasting information metabolism I've only seen one such example of such a type, and that was a fictional character in a videogame (Fire Emblem's Bramin, the Dark Druid who's type changed to reflect that of his interlocutor. (and yes I traced the elements to affirm this) There was also a robot in a recent movie who was capable of adapting to the abilities of its opponent.)

Perhaps one day someone will program the "XXXX", or perhaps XXXX is the "type" of God. Or maybe it's the sum type of the "providential forces" that are collectively engaged by the 7th function's limiting properties. It's probably not the internal state of anyone alive today though, unless they're schizophrenic.... Tcaudilllg 10:25, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

thanks Tcaud... I'm sure this will help immensly Bionicgoat 11:04, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

When you say two elements to every function (or two elements to every IM element as per the terminology on this site), do you mean that in "internal statics of objects," that "internal" is the first element (the master) and "statics" is the second element (the slave)? And where would that leave "objects"? Or did you mean simply that the accepting function is the master and the creative function is the slave? Or something else?

And how does that relate to everyone having two types? Are all 256 combinations of two types possible, then? (I thought you posted somewhere that the exertion type has to be in a different temperament or something?)

Also, what is the theoretical basis for why the exertion type should be different from the information metabolism? (Presumably, the key hypothesis here is that they're different; classical Socionics would apparently consider that they would be the same; could you explain why they would be different?) Thanks. :) --Jonathan 12:51, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

:Fe: with exertion :Te: is "the external object dynamics of internal object statics". It describes a movement of information. Consider, experiences are intertwined: they can share between each other. In the context of a given experience, you will discuss some things and not others. Obviously something outside your experience will never be discussed. If someone from Red China experiences the freedom of living in another nation, then when they return home they will discuss it. Also significant, are the protocols of receipt and exchange that are conducted in the context of culture. The ties between China and the U.S. are weak because their internal dynamics clash. Such an observation is :Fe::Te: (not that the dynamics clash, but what the substances of those clashes are and how they limit the opportunities for business between the two nations.)

The theoretical basis is, like for socionics as regards apprehension of information, that individual humans may be comfortable engaging in some kinds of activity more than others. I for one am very content to sit and ponder how :Ti: structure influences :Fe: perception (of which socionics is the ultimate apprehension) all day long... it's not all I ever do, but it's always playing a strong (and dominant) role. Talents are universally a dimension of exertion: the EIE-SEI will possess greater artistic talent than the SEI-ILE, and will be motivated to pursue a career in the same. However, the art produced will differ greatly between SEI exertion types, although the emphases will be shared between all members of the same type combination.

I regret at this time that there is little that can be presented from an organized standpoint as regards the dual-type theory. It's basically a running discussion on the16types.info that you are welcome to participate in.

There are 256 possible type combinations, including the 16 "classic" combinations traditionally equated with the 16 socionics types. However it is worth noting that analysis of the energy dimension has been very carefully dodged by socionists in large part, so most existing socionics work carries over evenly into dual-type theory. Tcaudilllg 13:54, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

You mean "the external object dynamics of internal object dynamics," don't you? Fe is under dynamics, not statics. So anyhow, from what you're saying, when you say the ABC of DEF, the ABC part is the exertion part, and the DEF is the information metabolism part, right? So would you say then that you're taking Model A, except that for each function, you're using this 6-part formation rather than the 3-part formation? Also, what really do you mean by "energy" in this context? --Jonathan 15:08, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I say the opposite of what I mean like that all the time. Wonder if that's an LII thing?

As for the "ABC of DEF", that's it exactly. You've got it right on. By energy I mean "work". You apphrehend an element, and then you notice what it's doing. If it's just a statement of fact, then you will be wondering what to do with it, which you'll always try to describe in terms of the exertion element for the function used. It's not in human nature to think about inanimate objects for any length of time. We've always got to be doing something or other to keep our minds busy, or else we get bored. You might say exertion frames our activity schemas, especially how we approach problems. Also, consider human phraseology: we always associate an action with an object. The direct object: who's doing the action. Tcaudilllg 15:26, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, good, thanks. :) So then, for example, if you're LII-EIE, I think you're saying that when you're focusing on Ti, you'll express it in some Fe way, and to the extent that you focus on Ne, you take actions in an Ni way? And if so, what behaviors do you exhibit that are acc-Fe? And why do you think the divergence takes place; what leads a person to be LII-EIE as opposed to LII-LII?

Also, what causes this relationship to be "fixed"? Let's say, for example, a person's IM and exertion types are both static, or even, say, in the same temperament, such as LII-ESI. So that person is comfortable exerting energy in an ESI way. But given that the person is comfortable with both Ti and Fi in a leading position (albeit one IM and the other exertion), and both Ne and Se in the 2nd position, wouldn't it be a relatively easy thing for that person to exert energy in an LSI way, an EII way, and an LII way, whenever doing those things would suit that person's purpose in a given situation? And do you see this "pairing" of IM and exertion as working its way through all 8 functions of Model A? Or is the divergence between IM and exertion only "developed" in the strongest functions? --Jonathan 16:44, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

One other thing I'm thinking of...What methods might one use to "test" whether a particular element is playing an IM or exertion role? For example, if one is LII-EIE, then one's second function is Ne-Ni. So, presumably, one has a certain affinity for both Ne and Ni, but in different ways. How would a person be able to decide that his/her affinity for Ni is only in an "exertion" way, and that his/her affinity for Ne is only in an "IM" way? --Jonathan 08:41, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, basically :Ti::Fe: looks at the world as a bunch of experiences that cause each other. It witnesses an experience, and then says, "A experience is caused by B and C experience; C experience is caused by D and E, I don't know what causes B so I'll just leave it alone for now." That's how :Ti: works: heiarchies of cause/effect. :Ni: exertion is a kind of "cumulative progression". Mastered by :Ne:, it says that A becomes possible, which makes B possible, makes C possible, etc. So if this perception causes this perception, then I can create this perception, which will let me create this perception, etc. That's an entire LII-EIE ego block thought process. I actually think at a higher level than just "subjective perception", usually. "Internal dynamics of objects" is more like it: independent universes, intermingling of world views, etc. Structuring known mental states and making new mental states possible, yes that's LII-EIE ego.

Well the starting point for a test would be here: http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10844. Most people haven't understood the questions, which is not surprising because I've not provided solid definitions for the exertion functions just yet. (pictures are worth more than thousands of words, and I'm working on them now.) It would probably be best to conduct an MBTI-style test that uses percentages: split the test into two parts information-emphasis and exertion-emphasis, and test for each independently. Obviously there are many ways to approach the design of such a test.

Okay, that's the right kind of information, although I don't understand the questions either. :)

By the way, would you say that dual-type theory completely supplants your earlier crosstype theories (such as undifferentiation or different pairings in the ego block)? Or do you still hold those theories as valid too? --Jonathan 18:16, 16 July 2007 (BST)

The dual-type theory is the superior model. Anything not accounted for by the dual-type theory that is claimed by the crosstype theory is invalid. Tcaudilllg 00:37, 17 July 2007 (BST)