Originally Posted by
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).