# Thread: The DCNH subtype model

1. ## The DCNH subtype model

What do you think of this model? Is it necessary to go beyond two subtypes for a given type? Are there people you know for whom a D, C, N, or H subtype is clearly visible?

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=System_of_DCNH_Subtypes

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Compatibility_and_Duality

NOTE: The second article reverses the notation for D and H subtypes. D should be connecting and terminating and H should be connecting and initiating.

What I'm not clear about is if the DCNH is intended to be an extension of the more commonly known 2 subtype system (accepting/producing) or if this is some entirely different system of subtypes, not related to the other one.

From the top article:

 Strengthening the linear-energetic functions , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms dominant subtype (D).
 Strengthening of the pliable-deployment functions , leads to the appearance of creative subtype (C).
 Strengthening of the even-stable functions , gives normalizing subtype (N).
 Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions , - harmonizing subtype (H).

If creative subtype strengthens and normalizing subtype strengthens , then shouldn't LII-Ne correlate best with creative subtype and LII-Ti correlate best with normalizing subtype in the four subtype model? What about the dominant and harmonizing subtypes? I hypothesize that LII's with the dominant subtype are more like LII-Ti and harmonizing LII's are more like LII-Ne since in the first, thinking is strengthened and intuition strengthened in the second.

2. I've been using DCNH for some time, and I've found it much more helpful than the ordinary two-subtype model.

Since subtypes are all about the different ways in which type manifests as external behaviour, it will obviously affect typing, especially long-distance typing of celebrities and the like, which is based entirely on external behaviour. I think one reason that so many people on these boards disagree on so many typings is due to a lack of understanding of subtypes. For example, if all of the people belonging to a certain type that you know of are all one subtype, you may not recognize people of the same type but a different subtype. That happened to me; the only SLI I knew personally was Dominant subtype, and when I encountered other subtypes of SLI, I didn't recognize them as SLI, because their behaviour didn't really match the Dominant SLI guy I knew.

Some examples of subtype:

For SLI, I think Viggo Mortensen is a Harmonizing SLI, and Richard Dean Anderson is a Creative SLI. The character of Dr. House from "House" is either ILI or SLI, in my opinion, but either way he's clearly Dominant. I don't know of any famous Normalizing SLIs, though I do know one in person.

For ESE, I think Robin Williams is a Dominant ESE, the characters of Sam from "Garden State" and Turk from "Scrubs" I think are Creative, Daphne from "Frasier" may be Normalizing, and if Kaylee from "Firefly" is ESE, she's Harmonizing ESE.

For LII, Dr. Manhattan of "Watchmen" is clearly Normalizing, as is I suspect Mr. Darcy of "Pride and Prejudice". Andrew Largeman from "Garden State" is Harmonizing, and I'm pretty sure I'm Creative.

For ILE, Doc Brown from "Back to the Future" is clearly Creative, and I think Jim from "the Office" is Harmonizing.

I think Jim Carrey is Dominant EIE, which I suspect is partly why he gets confused with ESE.

Dwight Schrute from "the Office" is clearly Dominant, probably LIE.

3. Krig's post raises my main issue with DCNH subtypes: they can be used to support really bizarre typings. As I understand, Gulenko's school types most/a lot of actors as EIE. Having read about DCNH subtypes and this funky thing with a "nucleus/shell" model of a person's psyche, I understand how they can justify away any typing.

IMO, this is too divergent from socionics. At least, the way I understand it, socionics is about how information input and output influences how people interact. I also understand Gulenko's school as saying "Well actually, that matters very little". So why is it still called "socionics"?

I don't understand why socionics needs to be deconstructed (to the degree where "An SLI that looks like an ESE" can seriously be justified) just to explain things that happen outside of it--like your dual speaking Spanish, while you speak English.

</Fi>

4. Originally Posted by Coolanzon
Krig's post raises my main issue with DCNH subtypes: they can be used to support really bizarre typings. As I understand, Gulenko's school types most/a lot of actors as EIE. Having read about DCNH subtypes and this funky thing with a "nucleus/shell" model of a person's psyche, I understand how they can justify away any typing.

IMO, this is too divergent from socionics. At least, the way I understand it, socionics is about how information input and output influences how people interact. I also understand Gulenko's school as saying "Well actually, that matters very little". So why is it still called "socionics"?

I don't understand why socionics needs to be deconstructed (to the degree where "An SLI that looks like an ESE" can seriously be justified) just to explain things that happen outside of it--like your dual speaking Spanish, while you speak English.

</Fi>
I think you're misunderstanding Gulenko, somewhat. He's not saying "some SLIs behave like ESEs", he's saying "some SLIs behave more like ESEs than other SLIs".

That is to say, each type has a range of behaviour associated with that type. As far as I know, everyone agrees that if you get a whole bunch of people of the same type together, you will notice recurring differences in behaviour between them. All Gulenko's subtype system does is further quantify those differences in behaviour beyond the standard 2-subtype model.

So for example, a Dominant SLI (strengthened Te/Fe) will express emotion more readily than other subtypes of SLI. He's at the highest limit of Fe expression typical in SLIs. But the SLI's highest limit is nowhere near an Fe-Ego type like an ESE, meaning that the two are still distinguishable. [Edit: I should also point out that a Dominant SLI still has Fe in his super-ego, meaning he does not value or enjoy these expressions of Fe, leading to different behaviour again from an ESE or SEI.]

All types adapt their behaviour to their surroundings, using certain functions more than others in certain situations. For example, when in the company of Delta NFs, an LII will likely not lean too heavily on Ti, or risk a negative reaction; instead he will rely on his Ne. Over time, the more a person uses a function, the more skilled in its use they will become, and the more skilled in its use they become, the more they will be able to use it. Frequent use of a function also results in a habit of using that function. Subtype is simply a measurement of which functions you use most and are most skilled in/strongest in, i.e., the habitual behaviours you have developed to deal with your world.

This is also why subtypes can shift, albeit slowly and with great effort -- a person learns to use functions he previously did not rely on much, and as a consequence are underdeveloped. He learns to break old habits of behaviour.

All Gulenko is saying is that these learned habits of behaviour can be quantified into subtypes.

In my view, DCNH is a natural extension of classical socionics principles.

5. From the first article:

 contact, terminal, connecting - dominant subtype (D);
 contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C);
 distant, terminal, ignoring - normalizing subtype (N);
 distant, initial, connecting - harmonizing subtype (H).

What about these combinations, or are they not possible? And why not?

contact, initial, connecting
contact, terminal, ignoring
distant, initial, ignoring
distant, terminal, connecting

6. Originally Posted by warrior-librarian
From the first article:

 contact, terminal, connecting - dominant subtype (D);
 contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C);
 distant, terminal, ignoring - normalizing subtype (N);
 distant, initial, connecting - harmonizing subtype (H).

What about these combinations, or are they not possible? And why not?

contact, initial, connecting
contact, terminal, ignoring
distant, initial, ignoring
distant, terminal, connecting
Those terms correlate with more traditional socionics terms:

Contact/Distant = Extraverted/Introverted
Initial/Terminal = Irrational/Rational
Ignoring/Connecting = Static/Dynamic

So for example, Dominant subtype has Te/Fe strengthened. Te and Fe are both Extraverted, Rational, and Dynamic functions, so Dominant subtype is contacting, terminating, and connecting. Harmonizing subtype has Si/Ni strengthened, which are Introverted, Irrational, and Dynamic, so Harmonizing subtype is distant, initializing, and connecting.

Essentially each subtype represents a temperament. You could really call it a sub-temperament theory, rather than a sub-type theory.

7. Thanks, Krig, that clarifies things. I often think of myself as an IJ with a EP or IP subtemperament. So creative or harmonizing subtype. I'm least like the EJ temperament and also least like the dominiating subtype.

8. Originally Posted by warrior-librarian
Thanks, Krig, that clarifies things. I often think of myself as an IJ with a EP or IP subtemperament. So creative or harmonizing subtype. I'm least like the EJ temperament and also least like the dominiating subtype.
Isn't it great when two separate lines of reasoning lead independently to the same conclusion?

9. Those terms correlate with more traditional socionics terms:

Contact/Distant = Extraverted/Introverted
Initial/Terminal = Irrational/Rational
Ignoring/Connecting = Static/Dynamic
Exactly. This theory is about sub-temperaments. It goes half-way towards a "there are two types" model (which Gulenko later went all the way to).

I personally identify strongly with "initial" and "ignoring" and less strongly with "distant". There is no subtype combining these traits, but Creative is the closest thing to a match. I get the impression everybody "wants" to be the Creative subtype, though, as it is the one that is described in the most positive terms.

The interesting thing about the theory is that it provides two new perspectives on the types that perfectly mesh together: the first is that of every trait in socionics existing in 4 graduations, and the second is that of one type overlooking the other from a higher position in a hyrarchy. It's a powerful idea, but one that comes with a lot of practical difficulties.

Another criticism that I can come up with is: "why stop at 2?". There could be an infinite number of levels in this hyrarchy of types for all we know.

Edit: BTW - remember how I described the behavior of Statics as "discarding" data a lot. This is exactly what Gulenko means when he uses the word "ignoring". Mental paralellism right there.

10. yes its a good model. like viking says its a natural extention of classical socionics. but it shouldnt be confused with dual type theory, which states there are two simultaneous co-dependent processes.. different from one more elaborate process.

11. Originally Posted by Coolanzon
Krig's post raises my main issue with DCNH subtypes: they can be used to support really bizarre typings. As I understand, Gulenko's school types most/a lot of actors as EIE. Having read about DCNH subtypes and this funky thing with a "nucleus/shell" model of a person's psyche, I understand how they can justify away any typing.

IMO, this is too divergent from socionics. At least, the way I understand it, socionics is about how information input and output influences how people interact. I also understand Gulenko's school as saying "Well actually, that matters very little". So why is it still called "socionics"?

I don't understand why socionics needs to be deconstructed (to the degree where "An SLI that looks like an ESE" can seriously be justified) just to explain things that happen outside of it--like your dual speaking Spanish, while you speak English.

</Fi>

None of that is Fi. You're DEFINITELY NOT AN EII. You're an SEI. Accept it and move on.

12. Coolanzon, .. first of all, socionics is abstract. You will not escape that. And critiquing it for becoming more abstract is dumb. I agree this can make things complicated, and some people shouldn't try and play socionicist.. if that is your point. (that is the only one I can find) But that doesn't detract from the integrity of the model itself, it's only a statement on the stupidity of the everyday person.

I am H subtype .. H representing Ip temperament subtype. I would be interested to know what subtypes you folks are.
And as labcoat points out, gulenko extended this toward a second type altogether.. in that case I am INTp-INFp.. which IMO explains why people are constantly telling me I am INFp.

Under this model the typical subtype division; i.e. Ni vs. Te for INTp; is further understood. It is only considered an absolutist vs. relativist distinction; the thread which underlies Ip and Ej being relativist, and Ij and Ep being absolutist.

13. I'm probably D sub IEI.

14. that could explain why I see you as EIE

15. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
that could explain why I see you as EIE
I was thinking the same thing.

16. Works for me.

17. Theories of this kind seem too relativistic to be of any real merit. Besides, it's useless for beginners, therefore i do not find any use of it.

18. that doesn't account for the personal insight they can provide

19. Originally Posted by tuturututu
Theories of this kind seem too relativistic to be of any real merit. Besides, it's useless for beginners, therefore i do not find any use of it.
It's not relativistic, just more finely gradated.

But you're right, you need a solid base of understanding of the main types before you can really start to get into subtypes.

20. I think their application to others in the form of a diagnosis can become relativistic, but other than that yeah i agree. I actually really like this model. Krig what type are you in it?

21. The problem I have with this (for instance)
I think you're misunderstanding Gulenko, somewhat. He's not saying "some SLIs behave like ESEs", he's saying "some SLIs behave more like ESEs than other SLIs".
Is that you then have to define what an ESE acts like, but then there are many different variations of ESE within this sub type group too, so which one?

OK, I remember reading this DCNH subtype model, must have been about 6 months ago, and my thoughts were that it was overly complicating something which is really a general trend: that is, there's 16 types, some people have a comparatively extreme emphasis on an ego function which produces a sub-type. The general idea of for instance, an increased creative function making a decreased PoLR function in comparative strength does make sense for observing certain individuals.

However: comparative is the key, an individual can have function strengths which compared to others that are either stronger or weaker especially in the same type. You can say that some types have all the functions stronger or weaker compared to a socionic identical, and what happens then? It's, really a simple analogy; somewhat like comparing the tallest tree in a forest to another forest were the canopy is say 50 ft and the former canopy is 30 ft, it's not saying much. They're forrests, act like forrests, one is just bigger.

So I think that, on the face of it at least, that Gulenko is just trying too hard to classify based on what's a generalised model (socionics), it gets to the stage that it doesn't make sense and is extremely hard to observe and compare. ie how much can we really classify with a sociology type of model? There's still the human factor and other socionic factors.

Of course, I accept that I will perhaps need to read it again, I glanced over it before, but these are my objections for now. (basically, it just becomes unworkable theory) [not just in regards to what your saying Krig btw, more so in warrior librarions question about the system, my thoughts, but I kinda thought your quote was relevant though]!

I think that he's (Gulenko) approaching something to explain differences in types, perhaps it is better to remember that some people are simply more personality and socionically balanced than others, and only a comparative minority display an easier to spot extreme of behaviour.

22. I find the model solves some problems I've had in typing people.. earlier today I was convinced Gilly was EIE.. He says he is D subtype, which is associated with Ej temperament. Now I am considering that he is IEI as he says, with a further distinction within Ej temperament, and possibly being INFp-ENFj. The expanded model could clear up some false associations I've made while restricted to a simpler model. Really, I think peoples 'types' are much more plural than we want to believe.. out of instinct we gravitate toward something which is simple and has clear applications. But after doing socionics for such a long ass time .. (what, it's been like 2 years now on this board hasn't it?) Yeah, that's starting to fade off

23. H subtype works. There's your explanation for our similarities, crazed. lol

24. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
I think their application to others in the form of a diagnosis can become relativistic, but other than that yeah i agree. I actually really like this model. Krig what type are you in it?
I'm a Creative LII. Someone like Logos, on the other hand, seems like more of a Normalizing LII, and you can see the difference in behaviour even here on the Interwebs.

Originally Posted by Cyclops
The problem I have with this (for instance)
I think you're misunderstanding Gulenko, somewhat. He's not saying "some SLIs behave like ESEs", he's saying "some SLIs behave more like ESEs than other SLIs".
Is that you then have to define what an ESE acts like, but then there are many different variations of ESE within this sub type group too, so which one?
I was responding to Coolanzon's statement about "An SLI that looks like an ESE"; technically it would be more like "some SLIs use more Fe than other SLIs", etc.
Originally Posted by Cyclops
OK, I remember reading this DCNH subtype model, must have been about 6 months ago, and my thoughts were that it was overly complicating something which is really a general trend: that is, there's 16 types, some people have a comparatively extreme emphasis on an ego function which produces a sub-type. The general idea of for instance, an increased creative function making a decreased PoLR function in comparative strength does make sense for observing certain individuals.
In DCNH, strengthening the creative function also strengthens the PoLR function. A Creative LII is stronger in both Ne and Se, for example.

Originally Posted by Cyclops
However: comparative is the key, an individual can have function strengths which compared to others that are either stronger or weaker especially in the same type. You can say that some types have all the functions stronger or weaker compared to a socionic identical, and what happens then? It's, really a simple analogy; somewhat like comparing the tallest tree in a forest to another forest were the canopy is say 50 ft and the former canopy is 30 ft, it's not saying much. They're forrests, act like forrests, one is just bigger.
I think part of the key is that it's not just about the strength of the functions, but also habits of behaviour. If an LII habitually relies more on Ne than on Ti in his interactions with the world, he is a Creative subtype. If an ESI habitually relies more on Si than on Fe, he is a Harmonizing subtype, et cetera. Strength follows from that, just as habitually exercising a muscle causes it to grow stronger.

Gulenko does talk about a "zero" subtype that has no discernable preference of behaviour between the subtypes, but he talks about it more as a transitional state between one subtype and another.

Originally Posted by crazedratXII
I find the model solves some problems I've had in typing people..
That's the main reason I'm currently so interested in subtypes; it helps with typing tremendously.

25. Here's something I've found to be very helpful recently. The articles on DCNH subtypes aren't very clear when it comes to how the different subtypes will come across in real life. Using this page as source material, I came up with a few common descriptors for the impression each Information Element gives in real life, and then assembled it into a description of the impressions given by the subtypes. I suppose it could also be used as a description of the impressions given by the temperaments.

Dominant (Fe): Strong forceful emotions, dramatic
Dominant (Te): Action, movement, energy
Creative (Ne): Curious, light-hearted
Creative (Se): Physical, hands-on
Normalizing (Ti): Self-control
Normalizing (Fi): Proper behaviour, principles
Harmonizing (Si): Soft
Harmonizing (Ni): Inner life, goofy

So, for example, a Creative LII would come across as more curious, light-hearted, physical, and hands-on than other LIIs (i.e., more like an ILE). A dominant SLI would seem more energetic, action and movement-oriented, with stronger and more forceful emotions than other SLIs (i.e., more like an LSE). However, each would still be within the range of their type -- a Dominant SLI might conceivably be confused with an LSE at first glance, but a more thorough investigation would reveal the difference in the Model A structure.

26. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
Here's something I've found to be very helpful recently. The articles on DCNH subtypes aren't very clear when it comes to how the different subtypes will come across in real life. Using this page as source material, I came up with a few common descriptors for the impression each Information Element gives in real life, and then assembled it into a description of the impressions given by the subtypes. I suppose it could also be used as a description of the impressions given by the temperaments.

Dominant (Fe): Strong forceful emotions, dramatic
Dominant (Te): Action, movement, energy
Creative (Ne): Curious, light-hearted
Creative (Se): Physical, hands-on
Normalizing (Ti): Self-control
Normalizing (Fi): Proper behaviour, principles
Harmonizing (Si): Soft
Harmonizing (Ni): Inner life, goofy

So, for example, a Creative LII would come across as more curious, light-hearted, physical, and hands-on than other LIIs (i.e., more like an ILE). A dominant SLI would seem more energetic, action and movement-oriented, with stronger and more forceful emotions than other SLIs (i.e., more like an LSE). However, each would still be within the range of their type -- a Dominant SLI might conceivably be confused with an LSE at first glance, but a more thorough investigation would reveal the difference in the Model A structure.
Sorry, does this mean that dynamics can only be either dominant or harmonizing while statics can only be creative or normalizing? Or do they apply along with Resolute/Reasonable and Merry/Serious axes (that is, a creative ENTj will be Se-creative while an harmonizing ENTp will be Si-harmonizing?)?

27. Originally Posted by FDG
Sorry, does this mean that dynamics can only be either dominant or harmonizing while statics can only be creative or normalizing? Or do they apply along with Resolute/Reasonable and Merry/Serious axes (that is, a creative ENTj will be Se-creative while an harmonizing ENTp will be Si-harmonizing?)?
I wondered the same thing for a while when I was first studying DCNH, but no, any type can be any subtype. An ENTj can be either Se-Creative or Ne-Creative (one of my closest friends is actually ENTj Ne-Creative).

DCNH, from what I understand, is based on the idea that functions are like muscles -- the more you work them out, the stronger they get. Subtype is a product of your type + your environment -- it's the strategy of behaviour you develop in order to survive and prosper in your world. For example, an LII who lives in an Fi-heavy environment may start to use and rely on his Role Fi more and more until it becomes a habit. Over time, the Role Fi becomes stronger and better developed, and the LII becomes an Fi-Normalizing subtype.

Mind you, an Fi-Normalizing LII's Fi is still 2-dimensional Role Fi, however; he doesn't become INFj or anything. He's just strengthened his Fi within the limits of what a Role function is capable of.

Okay, now I'm just rambling, so I'll stop here.

28. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
DCNH, from what I understand, is based on the idea that functions are like muscles -- the more you work them out, the stronger they get. Subtype is a product of your type + your environment -- it's the strategy of behaviour you develop in order to survive and prosper in your world. For example, an LII who lives in an Fi-heavy environment may start to use and rely on his Role Fi more and more until it becomes a habit. Over time, the Role Fi becomes stronger and better developed, and the LII becomes an Fi-Normalizing subtype.
No, that is definitely wrong (at least in the ordinary 2-subtypes-system). I am able to type someone as Ni-INTP or Te-INTP by V.I. ! I also use V.I. to distinguish between Ti-INTj and Ne-INTj or Ne-ENFp and Fi-ENFP!

How could this be possible if subtypes changed over time?! Have you read the subtype-descriptions on wikisocion.org? There are VISUAL differences between the subtypes. It is NOT a product of your environment!

29. Originally Posted by CheGuevara
No, that is definitely wrong (at least in the ordinary 2-subtypes-system). I am able to type someone as Ni-INTP or Te-INTP by V.I. ! I also use V.I. to distinguish between Ti-INTj and Ne-INTj or Ne-ENFp and Fi-ENFP!

How could this be possible if subtypes changed over time?! Have you read the subtype-descriptions on wikisocion.org? There are VISUAL differences between the subtypes. It is NOT a product of your environment!
Do you believe that visual differences between types are based on actual physical features, as in physiognomy? Or are they based on behavioural differences, such as body language, clothing choice, and facial expression?

30. Originally Posted by CheGuevara
No, that is definitely wrong (at least in the ordinary 2-subtypes-system). I am able to type someone as Ni-INTP or Te-INTP by V.I. ! I also use V.I. to distinguish between Ti-INTj and Ne-INTj or Ne-ENFp and Fi-ENFP!

How could this be possible if subtypes changed over time?! Have you read the subtype-descriptions on wikisocion.org? There are VISUAL differences between the subtypes. It is NOT a product of your environment!
I would say you don't have the right to use the cool face until you can prove it.

31. Originally Posted by fear of sleep
I would say you don't have the right to use the cool face until you can prove it.
Like me, because I'm Cooooooolanzon.

32. Continued from here.

Originally Posted by warrior-librarian
Okay, you've convinced me. See my new SIG.
I can be very convincing when I'm right.

Originally Posted by warrior-librarian
It's been a few years since I've seen Garden State, but Andrew didn't strike me as an LII, but maybe it has to do with subtype like you said. If he is an LII, I doubt we're the same subtype.
I'd say I'm around 70% sure that Largeman is LII. I see that movie as a depiction of duality between a Harmonizing LII and a Creative ESE. From what I've seen so far, Harmonizing LIIs (and H-ILEs as well) come across as less geeky/"sciency" than we other subtypes of Alpha NT.

Regarding the correlation between DCNH and the ordinary 2-subtype system, I've found another instance where Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov seem to be describing two different subtypes: ILE Logical subtype.
Originally Posted by http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ILE_subtypes
(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The logical subtype tries to project the impression of a serious person. Can be sharp and, from time to time, even inconsiderate. They are self-assured and speak quickly, usually with a categorical tone. Are unduly categorical in their judgments and tend to impose their opinion on others. Sometimes appears energetic and self-confident; are impatient and cannot always wait for a speaker to finish before interrupting. Often take great new interests and try to find these a practical embodiment; will actively and vigorously defend their interests but after they flare up and offend someone they will consciously make note and try to correct their position. Very ambitious and prone to take offense to mere trifles, however, after a while will again return to an affable and benevolent state. Behaviors are unpredictable and full of contrast. Appear tenacious, gait and gestures seem confident but are poorly coordinated. Pose without restraint, capable of quickly closing a distance, may embrace or kiss the interlocutor.

(Victor Gulenko) Self-centred and pensive. Their ideas do not have direct connection with reality, for example philosophy, religion, bioenergetics etc. Their favourite occupation is comparing different logical systems. A type of office scientist. A very slim figure is characteristic for them. Angular in their movements, does not pay attention to external appearance, worry little about their health.
Meged/Ovcharov seem to be describing the Dominant subtype, while Gulenko seems to be describing the Normalizing subtype. Not all of the subtype descriptions display this quirk, so far it seems to be just ESE and ILE. I will have to continue my investigation into the other types' subtypes to see if there is a systematic trend to this.

33. Okay, I just completed a study of each type's subtype descriptions on Wikisocion, the ones by Viktor Gulenko as well as Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov. I was very surprised at what I found. While the subtype descriptions of Introverted types seemed to match up quite well between authors, subtype descriptions of Extraverted types did not match up well, and for the most part did so in a predictable pattern! In EJ types, Meged/Ovcharov seemed to describe the Creative and Normalizing subtypes, while Gulenko described the Harmonizing and Dominant subtypes. In EP types the pattern was reversed: Meged/Ovcharov seemed to describe the Harmonizing and Dominant types, while Gulenko described the Creative and Normalizing. The only possible exception was LSE, where I found it difficult to tell.

Here are my results:
LIE Intuitive Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Creative, Gulenko describes Harmonizing.
LIE Logical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Normalizing, Gulenko describes Dominant.

EIE Intuitive Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Creative, Gulenko describes Harmonizing.
EIE Ethical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Normalizing, Gulenko describes Dominant.

ESE Sensory Subtype: Difficult to tell, but does seem to follow previous pattern of Meged/Ovcharov Creative, Gulenko Harmonizing.
ESE Ethical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Normalizing, Gulenko describes Dominant.

LSE Sensory Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Creative, Gulenko describes Harmonizing. May be some Harmonizing in Meged/Ovcharov description as well.
LSE Logical Subtype: Difficult to tell. Meged/Ovcharov may be describing Dominant and Gulenko Normalizing, but that doesn't fit the pattern.

IEE Intuitive Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Harmonizing, Gulenko describes Creative.
IEE Ethical Subtype: Meged Ovcharov describe Dominant, Gulenko describes Normalizing.

SEE Sensory Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Harmonizing(?), Gulenko describes Creative.
SEE Ethical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Dominant, Gulenko describes Normalizing.

SLE Sensory Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Harmonizing(?), Gulenko describes Creative(?).
SLE Logical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Dominant (?), Gulenko describes Normalizing.

I honestly did not expect to find a pattern this clear. Entirely by accident on the part of the authors, we now have a short description of each of the DCNH subtypes for extravert types (except possibly LSE). This clears up some things, as I had previously regarded these subtype descriptions as confusing and self-contradictory. Knowing that Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov were describing different subtypes half the time makes a lot more sense.

34. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
Okay, I just completed a study of each type's subtype descriptions on Wikisocion, the ones by Viktor Gulenko as well as Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov. I was very surprised at what I found. While the subtype descriptions of Introverted types seemed to match up quite well between authors, subtype descriptions of Extraverted types did not match up well, and for the most part did so in a predictable pattern! In EJ types, Meged/Ovcharov seemed to describe the Creative and Normalizing subtypes, while Gulenko described the Harmonizing and Dominant subtypes. In EP types the pattern was reversed: Meged/Ovcharov seemed to describe the Harmonizing and Dominant types, while Gulenko described the Creative and Normalizing. The only possible exception was LSE, where I found it difficult to tell.

Here are my results:
LIE Intuitive Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Creative, Gulenko describes Harmonizing.
LIE Logical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Normalizing, Gulenko describes Dominant.

EIE Intuitive Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Creative, Gulenko describes Harmonizing.
EIE Ethical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Normalizing, Gulenko describes Dominant.

ESE Sensory Subtype: Difficult to tell, but does seem to follow previous pattern of Meged/Ovcharov Creative, Gulenko Harmonizing.
ESE Ethical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Normalizing, Gulenko describes Dominant.

LSE Sensory Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Creative, Gulenko describes Harmonizing. May be some Harmonizing in Meged/Ovcharov description as well.
LSE Logical Subtype: Difficult to tell. Meged/Ovcharov may be describing Dominant and Gulenko Normalizing, but that doesn't fit the pattern.

IEE Intuitive Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Harmonizing, Gulenko describes Creative.
IEE Ethical Subtype: Meged Ovcharov describe Dominant, Gulenko describes Normalizing.

SEE Sensory Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Harmonizing(?), Gulenko describes Creative.
SEE Ethical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Dominant, Gulenko describes Normalizing.

SLE Sensory Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Harmonizing(?), Gulenko describes Creative(?).
SLE Logical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Dominant (?), Gulenko describes Normalizing.

I honestly did not expect to find a pattern this clear. Entirely by accident on the part of the authors, we now have a short description of each of the DCNH subtypes for extravert types (except possibly LSE). This clears up some things, as I had previously regarded these subtype descriptions as confusing and self-contradictory. Knowing that Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov were describing different subtypes half the time makes a lot more sense.
Krig! That's one amazing discovery. Now I'm 100% sure which subtype I am.

35. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
Okay, I just completed a study of each type's subtype descriptions on Wikisocion, the ones by Viktor Gulenko as well as Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov. I was very surprised at what I found. While the subtype descriptions of Introverted types seemed to match up quite well between authors, subtype descriptions of Extraverted types did not match up well, and for the most part did so in a predictable pattern! In EJ types, Meged/Ovcharov seemed to describe the Creative and Normalizing subtypes, while Gulenko described the Harmonizing and Dominant subtypes. In EP types the pattern was reversed: Meged/Ovcharov seemed to describe the Harmonizing and Dominant types, while Gulenko described the Creative and Normalizing. The only possible exception was LSE, where I found it difficult to tell.

Here are my results:
LIE Intuitive Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Creative, Gulenko describes Harmonizing.
LIE Logical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Normalizing, Gulenko describes Dominant.

EIE Intuitive Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Creative, Gulenko describes Harmonizing.
EIE Ethical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Normalizing, Gulenko describes Dominant.

ESE Sensory Subtype: Difficult to tell, but does seem to follow previous pattern of Meged/Ovcharov Creative, Gulenko Harmonizing.
ESE Ethical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Normalizing, Gulenko describes Dominant.

LSE Sensory Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Creative, Gulenko describes Harmonizing. May be some Harmonizing in Meged/Ovcharov description as well.
LSE Logical Subtype: Difficult to tell. Meged/Ovcharov may be describing Dominant and Gulenko Normalizing, but that doesn't fit the pattern.

IEE Intuitive Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Harmonizing, Gulenko describes Creative.
IEE Ethical Subtype: Meged Ovcharov describe Dominant, Gulenko describes Normalizing.

SEE Sensory Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Harmonizing(?), Gulenko describes Creative.
SEE Ethical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Dominant, Gulenko describes Normalizing.

SLE Sensory Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Harmonizing(?), Gulenko describes Creative(?).
SLE Logical Subtype: Meged/Ovcharov describe Dominant (?), Gulenko describes Normalizing.

I honestly did not expect to find a pattern this clear. Entirely by accident on the part of the authors, we now have a short description of each of the DCNH subtypes for extravert types (except possibly LSE). This clears up some things, as I had previously regarded these subtype descriptions as confusing and self-contradictory. Knowing that Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov were describing different subtypes half the time makes a lot more sense.
This is awesome. I had attributed it to mistypes, as I did not like any of the Meged/Ovcharov ones. Makes me wonder why they'd notice those DCHN subtypes instead of the more simple to spot two-subtypes.

36. Oh wow, lol this great! I'm gonna go through each subtype now... right after class...

Do you think we/someone should compile some sort of DCNH subtype page?

N ENTp: (Victor Gulenko) Self-centred and pensive. Their ideas do not have direct connection with reality, for example philosophy, religion, bioenergetics etc. Their favourite occupation is comparing different logical systems. A type of office scientist. A very slim figure is characteristic for them. Angular in their movements, does not pay attention to external appearance, worry little about their health.

C ENTp: (Victor Gulenko) They differ in their excellent sense of novelty. They frequently become the originator of many inventions and discoveries. Unsurpassed generator of ideas. In their suggestions they is very daring. However, they easily drop a project if they are bored with it and they then feel drawn to a new, more captivating project. Capable of working well in business. Dynamic, talks rapidly, with many gestures. Frequently of stocky built, courageous appearance, whiskers (if a man). Great significance is attached to external appearance.

37. I wonder why Gulenko, having come up with the DCNH subtype model, was unable or not compelled to give consistent descriptions?

38. .

39. Originally Posted by xkj220
This is awesome. I had attributed it to mistypes, as I did not like any of the Meged/Ovcharov ones. Makes me wonder why they'd notice those DCHN subtypes instead of the more simple to spot two-subtypes.
Originally Posted by Subterranean
I wonder why Gulenko, having come up with the DCNH subtype model, was unable or not compelled to give consistent descriptions?
It appears that Gulenko was consistently giving the descriptions for the normal Ego-based subtypes, such as Harmonizing and Dominant for EIE, and Creative and Normalizing for IEE. Meged and Ovcharov agreed with him for the Introverts, but somehow they switched to the Id-based subtypes for the Extraverts. I'm not sure how it happened, but I think it provides excellent objective evidence that DCNH describes a real phenomenon, and is not just some abstract theoretical construct with no application in reality.

Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Oh wow, lol this great! I'm gonna go through each subtype now... right after class...

Do you think we/someone should compile some sort of DCNH subtype page?

N ENTp: (Victor Gulenko) Self-centred and pensive. Their ideas do not have direct connection with reality, for example philosophy, religion, bioenergetics etc. Their favourite occupation is comparing different logical systems. A type of office scientist. A very slim figure is characteristic for them. Angular in their movements, does not pay attention to external appearance, worry little about their health.

C ENTp: (Victor Gulenko) They differ in their excellent sense of novelty. They frequently become the originator of many inventions and discoveries. Unsurpassed generator of ideas. In their suggestions they is very daring. However, they easily drop a project if they are bored with it and they then feel drawn to a new, more captivating project. Capable of working well in business. Dynamic, talks rapidly, with many gestures. Frequently of stocky built, courageous appearance, whiskers (if a man). Great significance is attached to external appearance.
I was thinking of trying to come up with a "base" description for each subtype, by comparing for example all the Dominant descriptions and noting the commonalities between types, and compiling a generalized "Dominant Subtype" description.

I do think we need to be careful, though, not to attach too much value to this. These descriptions weren't written with DCNH in mind, they just happened to end up that way, and they may contain inaccuracies. Really definitive DCNH descriptions for each type have yet to be written/discovered.

But still, yes, I am quite excited by this.

40. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
It appears that Gulenko was consistently giving the descriptions for the normal Ego-based subtypes, such as Harmonizing and Dominant for EIE, and Creative and Normalizing for IEE. Meged and Ovcharov agreed with him for the Introverts, but somehow they switched to the Id-based subtypes for the Extraverts. I'm not sure how it happened, but I think it provides excellent objective evidence that DCNH describes a real phenomenon, and is not just some abstract theoretical construct with no application in reality.
But why didn't he create a generic description for both Ego-based subtypes, or at least use the same DCNH subtype for each type + subtype description? That would indicate to me that he doesn't actually know his theory, or that you've interpreted the decriptions wrong?

If as you say the general descriptions weren't written with the DCNH subtypes in mind, I don't see why each description should necessarily corrresond 100% with a particular DCNH subtype. When you say "somehow they switched to the Id-based subtypes for the Extravert" ...I just don't get how you conclude that an analysis of the Gulenko + Meged/Ovcharov descriptions together give you "provides excellent objective evidence that DCNH describes a real phenomenon, and is not just some abstract theoretical construct with no application in reality." To me, we have so many bits of personality descriptions which naturally have some correlations by virtue of being written about the same type.

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... Last