The DCNH subtype model

[CheGuevara]

You're missing my point: each DCNH subtype is based on one strong and one weak function. Normalizing IEE would be confident, engaged, and comfortable when in "Fi mode", and self-conscious, strained, and nervous when in "Ti mode" (though probably less so than other subtypes). I see no theoretical reason why this should not be the case; the only things that could change my mind (and I am quite willing to have my mind changed on this) are logical reasoning, or observational evidence. Your bare assertions are meaningless to me.

OK. Just didn't understand your idea. I thought you meant ignoring-fuction-subtype = disinterested, demonstrative-function-subtype = childish and so on. So your idea might be true.

Hmm, I can actually see your point with ILI, as Gulenko's description of the irrational subtype does sound more aggressive and confrontational than the Meged/Ovcharov description. But I don't see that same difference with the others you listed. What specifically about those other descriptions led you to this conclusion?

For LSI and SLI it should olso be obvious that different DCNH-types are described.

Ti-LSI:
Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, likes that all specify and explain their opinions, but sometimes is prone to get stuck up on nonessential details.

Te-LSI:
Outwardly is strict, sustained, somewhat single-minded. In working situations is official, and even with close relatives can manifest a barrack style of behaviour.

Ti-SLI:
The logical subtype prefers to maintain a distance. When they become aware of having had offended someone they show regret, soften themselves and apologize calmly.

Te-SLI:
Will always avoid useless matters, due to pragmatic nature. Very dynamic and technologically effective, Can extract the maximum of benefit even from tools.

Yeah, this is what I suspected. I mean no offense, but I believe your typing ability is not very strong. The only one on that list that I agree with is Gulenko (with an abstention on Castro since I haven't studied his type). Unfortunately, I can't really take you at your word on your personal observations when I am not confident of your typing ability.

My typing ability is certainly not bad. I just don't like typing celebrities so you might be better at that.
What do you think about Clinton? Some say SEE, others say IEE, others say ESE.
G.W.Bush? Some say LSE, other say LSI, others say EIE.
In my opinion it's completely useless to discuss about the types of celebrities. Gulenko might be of a different opinion than Ovcharov, DeLong of a different opinion than Ganin and so on. Useless.
If you understand the theories then you are able to type the persons you know personally. It will never be possible to type persons you don't know. Just my opinion.

In preparing to write this post, I researched Che Guevara (Wikipedia article and various photos), and my conclusion is that he is most likely IEI. Definitely Beta, in any case. It's an easy mistake to make; I myself have mistaken an IEI for H-LII in the past.

OK. I say LII, you say IEI, other say EIE. Whatever.

To be honest, I think there's a possibility that you are IEI yourself, CheGuevara. That might be what is throwing off your typings of other people.

No. You don't know me so it is possible from your point of view but I am a student of mathematics. I don't think there is any student of mathematics in the world who is IEI. is not my weakness but my strength.

And Harmonizers aren't particularly focused on actively helping people as much as passively correcting disharmony in their surroundings so they can be at peace.

Depends on the main type. H-SEIs certainly behave like you say. But H-LIIs are somesthing completely different.

I'm pretty sure it's a little more complicated than that...

Certainly. Everything is more complicated than it is described in Scionics. I just try to emphasize the main points.

[Krig the Viking]

If the creative (as in 2nd function, not DCNH Creative) subtype strengthens the role function, then I'd expect a weak-function accepting subtype (i.e. Guevara's , if you are correct) to register as a creative-function subtype in the two-subtype system (i.e. Guevara would be an -subtype in that system).

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. In an IEI, if Fe is strengthened via subtype, then Te would be the second most strengthened, according to DCNH. Likewise, if Se is strengthened, then Ne would be the second most strengthened.

According to my own personal theory on the matter (which I hasten to keep distinct from basic DCNH, as I am in no way certain of it), similar to Filatova's subtype theory, if a function is strengthened, then the pathway leading from that function may also be strengthened, leading to the possibility that the subsequent function may be moderately strengthened as well. In the example of an Fe-IEI, strengthened Fe may result in a strengthened pathway from Fe to Si, and perhaps moderately strengthened Si. But Te would still be strengthened second most.

I would expect an Se-Creative IEI to register as an Accepting/Lead Function/Irrational subtype in the traditional system.

The other possibility, which I have been considering lately, is that strengthened Accepting functions in the Mental Ring may not necessarily correlate with strengthened Accepting functions in the Vital Ring. After all, in the basic Model A, while the Accepting functions in the Mental Ring are the strongest in their respective blocks, in the Vital Ring it's the Producing functions which are stronger. How exactly the Mental and Vital Rings work together is something I intend to look into further.

ugh...

"wow, isn't it so amazing that people of the same type are different? Let's make another type system on top of the older type system in order to mask the fact that everyone is unique and that socionics is not as great as we wish it to be!"

Nothing is quantifiable! Everything is chaos! I am unique and special just like everybody else!

Seriously though, if you have evidence or logic to back up your assertions, I would be more than happy to listen to them. But bare assertions are pointless and fruitless. Just because you personally cannot perceive the order in a system, does not mean that such order does not exist.

[Krig the Viking]

For LSI and SLI it should olso be obvious that different DCNH-types are described.

I don't see it with either one. What aspects of the descriptions, specifically, are you looking at?

My typing ability is certainly not bad. I just don't like typing celebrities so you might be better at that.
What do you think about Clinton? Some say SEE, others say IEE, others say ESE.
G.W.Bush? Some say LSE, other say LSI, others say EIE.
In my opinion it's completely useless to discuss about the types of celebrities. Gulenko might be of a different opinion than Ovcharov, DeLong of a different opinion than Ganin and so on. Useless.
If you understand the theories than you are able to type the persons you know personally. It will never be possible to type persons you don't know. Just my opinion.

Some people are better at typing than others. Some people hold non-traditional views, while others aren't very experienced. The same people who disagree on the types of celebrities would disagree on the types of people they know personally; it's just more obvious with celebrities because we can't evaluate other people's personal typings over the Internet.

No. You don't know me so it is possible from your point of view but I am a student of mathematics. I don't think there is any student of mathematics in the world who is IEI. is not my weakness but my strength.

There are ESE mathematicians, why not IEI? Suggestive Ti doesn't mean you're incapable of rational thought, anymore than Suggestive Fe means I am an unfeeling robot.

Depends on the main type. H-SEIs certainly behave like you say. But H-LIIs are somesthing completely different.

Well, yes, because what you consider H-LIIs are actually IEIs.

Certainly. Everything is more complicated than it is described in Scionics. I just try to emphasize the main points.

There is such a thing as over-simplification, though.

[CheGuevara]

I don't see it with either one. What aspects of the descriptions, specifically, are you looking at?

Ti-LSI:
Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, likes that all specify and explain their opinions, but sometimes is prone to get stuck up on nonessential details.

Te-LSI:
Outwardly is strict, sustained, somewhat single-minded. In working situations is official, and even with close relatives can manifest a barrack style of behaviour.

Ti-SLI:
The logical subtype prefers to maintain a distance. When they become aware of having had offended someone they show regret, soften themselves and apologize calmly.

Te-SLI:
Will always avoid useless matters, due to pragmatic nature. Very dynamic and technologically effective, Can extract the maximum of benefit even from tools.

The same people who disagree on the types of celebrities would disagree on the types of people they know personally;

No, I don't think so. If you have known a person for some months and I have known the same person for some months we certainly would come to the same typing.

You read the Wikipedia-article about Che Guevara and now you think you can type him. That's not a reliable method, you know? I' ve been interested in Che's life for a long time. That's why typing celebrities sux. Some people read Wikipedia-articles and then they have their opinion. Typing like that doesn't make sense.

There are ESE mathematicians, why not IEI? Suggestive Ti doesn't mean you're incapable of rational thought, anymore than Suggestive Fe means I am an unfeeling robot.

OK. At least IEI-mathematicians are very rare. One of my hobbies is playing chess. I don't know any IEI or ESE who is interested in chess or mathematics.

I always asked myself: Why do I have so many problems with my parents whereas my brother has not. Then I studied Socionics: I am LII, my brother ILI, my father LSI, my mother EIE. That's for fact. Believe it or not but I have not mistyped myself. ArchonAlarion has.

Well, yes, because what you consider H-LIIs are actually IEIs.

There is such a thing as over-simplification, though.

Yes. The advantage of over-simplifying things is that you get answers immediately

[Waddlesworth]

I tend to agree as far as this DCNH system. It seems that there is no objective way of measuring DCNH subtype. If you want to use it as a way of describing behaviors.. fine..I can see the practical aspect of it, but figuring out your socionics type is hard enough. Even if this is truly part of you psyche how the hell would you know for sure which subtype you are.

Personally, I find accepting/producing subtypes to be a sufficient way of dividing the different behaviors of the same type. DCNH is overkill.

DCNH creates an interesting concept that one can focus on functions outside of his ego. While I don't think this is untrue, I still think that the ego functions are significantly more apparent to the point of rendering a non-ego subtype largely worthless.

Accepting/producing subtypes are limited enough considering that a producing subtype will still show their base function more than their creative.

Though I agree with the idea that ego functions/type appears to be apparent, there is still so much work that must be done in order to make socionics/typology objective. By objective I mean: A)Can type be consistently and reliably measured by different typologists/measuring devices? B)Does type/intertype relations really exist and influence life in a way that makes it worth researching?

Adding a subtype model such as the DCNH seems to simply apply unproven socionics on top of unproven socionics.

Nothing is quantifiable! Everything is chaos! I am unique and special just like everybody else!

Seriously though, if you have evidence or logic to back up your assertions, I would be more than happy to listen to them. But bare assertions are pointless and fruitless. Just because you personally cannot perceive the order in a system, does not mean that such order does not exist.

I am not sure if you are talking to me or yourself. In my opinion Socionics lacks evidence to back up many of its assertions, though I know for a fact that it does have logic. I personally can perceive order in the system but I am not convinced that the system(socionics) exists in reality the way it is claimed to(each person is a type and these types interact predictably).

To restate that: Sure, there is a nice system with axiomatic logic(Socionics) that works on paper, but that does not mean that this system can overlapped exactly with reality. For example; I can draw a diagram of the internal anatomy of a person and imagine all kinds of organs and have precise logical design of how these organs function. The logic is convincing but you will not know for sure unless you cut the person open and check to see what's inside.

DCNH uses an unproven diagram of the anatomy of the psyche and elaborates on it. I am not comfortable with it. That is simply my opinion.

In addition; everyone is obviously unique, even if everyone were a clone.

[CheGuevara]

Adding a subtype model such as the DCNH seems to simply apply unproven socionics on top of unproven socionics.

I personally can perceive order in the system but I am not convinced that the system(socionics) exists in reality the way it is claimed to(each person is a type and these types interact predictably).

To restate that: Sure, there is a nice system with axiomatic logic(Socionics) that works on paper, but that does not mean that this system can overlapped exactly with reality.

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." - George Edward Pelham Box

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 519

So you have studied Socionics for a long time and you still aren't sure about it's usefulness? What is your type?

[Krig the Viking]

Ti-LSI:
Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, likes that all specify and explain their opinions, but sometimes is prone to get stuck up on nonessential details.

Te-LSI:
Outwardly is strict, sustained, somewhat single-minded. In working situations is official, and even with close relatives can manifest a barrack style of behaviour.

I really don't see how these contradict each other. They seem like descriptions of the same person to me.

Ti-SLI:
The logical subtype prefers to maintain a distance. When they become aware of having had offended someone they show regret, soften themselves and apologize calmly.

Te-SLI:
Will always avoid useless matters, due to pragmatic nature. Very dynamic and technologically effective, Can extract the maximum of benefit even from tools.

These aren't even describing the same area -- the first is a description of interpersonal interactions, the second of work-related behaviour. Both could be true without contradicting one another.

No, I don't think so. If you have known a person for some months and I have known the same person for some months we certainly would come to the same typing.

This has not been my experience. If both parties have a strong understanding of Socionics, then yes, they will agree more often than not. But if one or both have a mistaken understanding of Socionics, or an incomplete understanding, then initially they will very likely disagree on many types, of both famous and non-famous people.

You read the Wikipedia-article about Che Guevara and now you think you can type him. That's not a reliable method, you know? I' ve been interested in Che's life for a long time. That's why typing celebrities sux. Some people read Wikipedia-articles and then they have their opinion. Typing like that doesn't make sense.

This is where we disagree. Once you know what you're looking for, I've found it's not hard to type people, even on little evidence. The hard part is learning what to look for.

OK. At least IEI-mathematicians are very rare. One of my hobbies is playing chess. I don't know any IEI or ESE who is interested in chess or mathematics.

I always asked myself: Why do I have so many problems with my parents whereas my brother has not. Then I studied Socionics: I am LII, my brother ILI, my father LSI, my mother EIE. That's for fact. Believe it or not but I have not mistyped myself. ArchonAlarion has.

Well, it's just a possibility; I haven't analyzed you thoroughly or anything. Typing people based on their postings on forums is even harder than typing celebrities, since there's only one form of evidence (the subjects' own words), unlike celebrities where you have third-party descriptions, photographs, and often interviews and video.

Though I agree with the idea that ego functions/type appears to be apparent, there is still so much work that must be done in order to make socionics/typology objective. By objective I mean: A)Can type be consistently and reliably measured by different typologists/measuring devices? B)Does type/intertype relations really exist and influence life in a way that makes it worth researching?

Adding a subtype model such as the DCNH seems to simply apply unproven socionics on top of unproven socionics.



I am not sure if you are talking to me or yourself. In my opinion Socionics lacks evidence to back up many of its assertions, though I know for a fact that it does have logic. I personally can perceive order in the system but I am not convinced that the system(socionics) exists in reality the way it is claimed to(each person is a type and these types interact predictably).

To restate that: Sure, there is a nice system with axiomatic logic(Socionics) that works on paper, but that does not mean that this system can overlapped exactly with reality. For example; I can draw a diagram of the internal anatomy of a person and imagine all kinds of organs and have precise logical design of how these organs function. The logic is convincing but you will not know for sure unless you cut the person open and check to see what's inside.

DCNH uses an unproven diagram of the anatomy of the psyche and elaborates on it. I am not comfortable with it. That is simply my opinion.

In addition; everyone is obviously unique, even if everyone were a clone.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. You're a Te-valuing type -- Gamma NT, perhaps? Te-valuers care more about empirical evidence than logical consistency; I can respect that. However, as a Ti-valuing LII, empirical evidence seems secondary to me, hardly even necessary if you've got good solid logical consistency.

[CheGuevara]

I really don't see how these contradict each other. They seem like descriptions of the same person to me.

These aren't even describing the same area -- the first is a description of interpersonal interactions, the second of work-related behaviour. Both could be true without contradicting one another.

How many persons of these types do you know personally? I know quite a lot and I am sure that some are the subtype Gulenko describes, others are the subtype Meged/Ovcharov describe. That's one of the main problems concerning the typing process: it's rather intuitive.
I can't prove that the descriptions don't describe the same subtype. It's my opinion and you can check it by analysing people you know. It only makes sense if you know enough people of the main types, of course.

This has not been my experience. If both parties have a strong understanding of Socionics, then yes, they will agree more often than not. But if one or both have a mistaken understanding of Socionics, or an incomplete understanding, then initially they will very likely disagree on many types, of both famous and non-famous people.

It certainly depends on the types of the people who type. Two LIIs should agree where other types would disagree. The most important functions for typing other people are and . If you ask an LSE or LSI to type someone I will not expect it to be reliable - doesn't matter how long the LSE/LSI has studied Socionics...

This is where we disagree. Once you know what you're looking for, I've found it's not hard to type people, even on little evidence. The hard part is learning what to look for.

You never know if you are right when typing celebrities. So you find it's not hard to type them - but you could be wrong in 60% of all cases. We just don't know.

But I agree that you have to know what you are lookin for. That's why I am sure that Archon Alarion is NE-ILI. I never saw ILEs behaving or looking like that. He is definitely a critic and after understanding DCNH subtypes I'm even sure he is a Creative Critic. Creative Critics may even be more able to understand difficult theories than Normalizing Seekers. But he just doesn't want to be a Critic because Augusta said Einstein was a Seeker

[CheGuevara]

"Ascetic, grumbling, loves to emphasize deficiencies, searches for opponents. Criticizes sometimes with a dose of biliousness. Frequently have a very slim figure; they can provoke conflicts and actions, including commercial ones."

"frequently gets stuck in details."

So you think these parts don't fit? I'm sure they do.

Didn't you critizise me for not going into details?
Didn't you critizise me with a dose of biliousness?
Didn't you try to provoke conflicts and actions?
Aren't you grumbling, don't you love to emphasize deficiencies?

interesting stuff.

Why else would a little kid find himself creating archives of fantastical creatures, giving them attributes, stats, sorting them into factions, giving them worlds to inhabit, creating table-top battle game rules without knowing what one was...? Imagine-structure-imagine-structure-imagine-structure.

Just because this little kid was a Creative Critic. Don't you know the first paragraph of this description? It clashs horribly. You are like Honoré de Balzac.

[Krig the Viking]

How long have you been studying Socionics, CheGuevara?

[CheGuevara]

How long have you been studying Socionics, CheGuevara?

I learned to know MBTI and Socionics about 2 years ago I think. During the last 6 months I have studied it very intensively. I've been reading and thinking about it almost every day for hours. Everytime I've talked to anyone I've thought about his type, his functions, his relations, his appearence during the last 6 months. Socioncs has been my main interest so I am of the opinion that I can't be very bad at typing.

There are three problems for me on this forum:
1.) I'm a noob here.
2.) I'm not a native speaker.
3.) I'm LII so I have unconventional ideas.


If I had posted 2000 posts here and my English was better people would at least think about my ideas and observations without thinking "He's a noob and he can't even speak English correctly"

You can call it irony of fate that ArchonAlarion called me a "fuckin noob", told me I had "probably the crudest form of socionics he had ever witnessed uttered in text format" and afterwards I discovered that he had mistyped himself. I'm definitely sure he is Ne-ILI even if he believes he is ILE for the rest of his life.

[crazedrat]

the important people on this forum have been here most every day doing socionics for the last two years at least. that's as far back as i know, because that's when i joined. most of them were actually here long before me. i think tcauds been obsessing over it for like four years now. six months of intense study.. that's alright, but it's no credential. i don't like it when new egos come in and act like know it alls. every problem i've seen you put forward has been solved and discarded tens of times. the only reason this discussion is allowed to go on so freely is because people here have lost interest in repeating themselves.

[CheGuevara]

the important people on this forum have been here most every day doing socionics for the last two years at least.

Oho, I didn't even know there are important and unimportant people on this forum. Greetings to the aristocracy.

i don't like it when new egos come in and act like know it alls.

That's not what I do. I just try to discuss my observations and compare them to the observations of others. Unfortunately nobody on this forum seems to be familiar with the DCNH-system. Even Krig has stated that he doesn't trust his own DCNH-typings...

If I realize that somebody has mistyped himself I see it as my obligation to tell him the truth. Nothing could be worse concerning Socionics than a wrong self-typing.

every problem i've seen you put forward has been solved and discarded tens of times. the only reason this discussion is allowed to go on so freely is because people here have lost interest in repeating themselves.

So where the hell is the DCNH-thread where all my problems concerning DCNH are solved? I just can't find it. Probably because it doesn't exist

[crazedrat]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post579485
DHCN subtype system theoretically discarded

[Gilly]

I actually think CheGuevara is correct here; DCNH Dominant and Normalizing subtypes are explicitly Rational subtypes, whereas Creative and Harmonizing are explicitly Irrational subtypes.

I don't have any objection to this part, as a general statement. However...

They're not really two separate systems; DCNH simply divides the traditional 2 subtypes into extraverted and introverted versions of each.

This, I disagree with. The DCNH system isn't actually based on anything functional in any way; it's simply a behavioral subtype based on group interaction. I suppose correlations could be drawn to functions, but in my case, they don't hold up; yes, I am a more "Intuitive" EIE, but I do still tend to take control in groups, even with other EIEs.

Creative subtype is also capable of taking leadership of a group, when necessary. Plus, EJ temperament would give you the tendency to take control anyway. However, I don't know you well enough to make any judgements on your subtype; I'm just pointing out the possibilities (why yes, I am an Ne Ego, why do you ask? ).

Yes, ok, EJ temperament gives me the tendency to take control, and Creative subtypes can do so as well. So why, in a group of three EIEs, between myself, a creative subtype, and another dominant subtype, do I usually become the center of conversation? Why do myself and the other D-sub butt heads comically with an undertone of a power struggle? Why have I typically been the "head" in my group of friends throughout my life, a leader and directing presence at any job that affords me authority or displays lack of an effective power structure? I'm sure you could easily feel comfortable chalking this all up to EJ temperament, and perhaps Se hidden agenda, but when you throw other EIEs and LSEs and ESEs in the mix, and I still tend to wind up "in charge," it's a bit hard to explain away, from my perspective.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Oho, I didn't even know there are important and unimportant people on this forum. Greetings to the aristocracy.

You're making a bigger deal out of it, it'll blow over.

That's not what I do. I just try to discuss my observations and compare them to the observations of others. Unfortunately nobody on this forum seems to be familiar with the DCNH-system. Even Krig has stated that he doesn't trust his own DCNH-typings...

Don't you think you sound a little fanatical here? With the implication that only you know the "truth"?

If I realize that somebody has mistyped himself I see it as my obligation to tell him the truth. Nothing could be worse concerning Socionics than a wrong self-typing.

Although you may be correct about someone's typing, remember it is the internet and no one is able to get a foolproof reading on someone in this type of format. Perhaps your skill at typing is not as good as what you think it is, at the very least you sound arrogant about your skills, and who can be bothered with an arrogant person do you think?

Not everyone cares so much about their typing or others as you do, some people have the attitude that there's more to them than a theory made up by some crazy woman somewhere.

Maybe you could just chill for a while and find your feet, hmmm?

So where the hell is the DCNH-thread where all my problems concerning DCNH are solved? I just can't find it. Probably because it doesn't exist

Sarcastic too

[Brilliand]

Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. You're a Te-valuing type -- Gamma NT, perhaps? Te-valuers care more about empirical evidence than logical consistency; I can respect that. However, as a Ti-valuing LII, empirical evidence seems secondary to me, hardly even necessary if you've got good solid logical consistency.

To me, the question is whether Socionics accurately predicts reality as far as it goes. It's clear that Socionics doesn't get down to the core causes, but if it's just as accurate as Newton's theory of gravity (which still supersedes Relativity in common use because it's so much simpler), then we don't have a problem.

@Waddleworth: We could use a disclaimer that "your type isn't a real part of your identity, just a category that helps to predict things" - but I can't in good conscious expect everyone to qualify all known typings with "sort of seems like" or "can be reasonably categorized as."

[Brilliand]

So you think these parts don't fit? I'm sure they do.

Didn't you critizise me for not going into details?
Didn't you critizise me with a dose of biliousness?
Didn't you try to provoke conflicts and actions?
Aren't you grumbling, don't you love to emphasize deficiencies?

interesting stuff.

Actually, he was using an automated criticism generator he found on the Internet.

I always asked myself: Why do I have so many problems with my parents whereas my brother has not. Then I studied Socionics: I am LII, my brother ILI, my father LSI, my mother EIE. That's for fact. Believe it or not but I have not mistyped myself. ArchonAlarion has.

Why would an LII have more problems with an LSI and an EIE than an ILI does?

You can call it irony of fate that ArchonAlarion called me a "fuckin noob", told me I had "probably the crudest form of socionics he had ever witnessed uttered in text format" and afterwards I discovered that he had mistyped himself. I'm definitely sure he is Ne-ILI even if he believes he is ILE for the rest of his life.

I call that battletyping (retyping someone to discredit them)... happens quite often around here, though I think it's toned down a bit now that we have a word for it. It probably wasn't battletyping when you originally said it, but this "irony" of yours is clear battletyping.

[ArchonAlarion]

Che Guephemeros.

Si ESFp here I come!

[1981slater]

Actually, he was using an automated criticism generator he found on the Internet.

LMAO

[CheGuevara]

Don't you think you sound a little fanatical here? With the implication that only you know the "truth"?

That is not what I said. I just got the impression that nobody on this forum (except of Krig) is willing or able to help me develop my DCNH-knowlege. So I'm quite disappointed about this community. Maybe I'll be banned, maybe I'll leave voluntarily...

Why would an LII have more problems with an LSI and an EIE than an ILI does?

My father (LSI) is my brother's (ILI) benefactor.
My mother (EIE) is my brother's (ILI) supervisor.

These asymmetrical relations have the interesting nature that they work quite well if the supervisor or benefactor is in a superior position to the supervisee oder beneficiary.

My father (LSI) is my (LII) comparative.
My mother (EIE) is my (LII) quasi-dual.

In quasi-dual-relations there are a lot of conflicts. Before studying Socionics I always wondered why I had a lot of conflicts with my mother whereas my brother hardly ever had one. I also wondered why my brother enjoyed talking to my father for hours and I did not. In comparative relations the people do not really understand each other's point of view.


There is another interesting aspect concerning DCNH-subtypes: I am Harmonizing while my brother, my father and my mother are Dominant subtype. That makes it even worse. Getting along with Dominant subtypes is really stressful for me.

[Trevor]

Actually, he was using an automated criticism generator he found on the Internet.

Hahahahaha...laughing my mouth off.

[717495]

Hahahahaha...laughing my mouth off.

Lol, I actually have no idea why it's funny, but I thought it was funny.

[Waddlesworth]

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." - George Edward Pelham Box

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 519

So you have studied Socionics for a long time and you still aren't sure about it's usefulness? What is your type?

I doubt most professional Socionists are even truly convinced of its usefulness. What they really are concerned about is their reputations, daydreams, delusions etc...

I was told my type by some computer programs written by human beings who could never prove type is real(can be measured consistently, reliably and that the premises are true etc...) in the first place. The results they gave me were usually(in no particular order) ENTP, INTP, INTJ, ENFP.

If I had to pick which type I'd rather be I would pick INTJ/INTj/LII. That could change tomorrow and there already is a part of me that still wants to be some other type and I am simply repressing that part of me for a reason I cannot explain.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. You're a Te-valuing type -- Gamma NT, perhaps? Te-valuers care more about empirical evidence than logical consistency; I can respect that. However, as a Ti-valuing LII, empirical evidence seems secondary to me, hardly even necessary if you've got good solid logical consistency.

Maybe I am an Ti-valuing LII, too. So then how would we resolve this issue?

@Waddleworth: We could use a disclaimer that "your type isn't a real part of your identity, just a category that helps to predict things" - but I can't in good conscious expect everyone to qualify all known typings with "sort of seems like" or "can be reasonably categorized as."

You guys can do whatever you want. I am mostly here for fun and practice.

[Brilliand]

Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. You're a Te-valuing type -- Gamma NT, perhaps? Te-valuers care more about empirical evidence than logical consistency; I can respect that. However, as a Ti-valuing LII, empirical evidence seems secondary to me, hardly even necessary if you've got good solid logical consistency.

While that's good for deciding what to think about, you can't really marry on the basis of a logically consistent theory that has nothing to do with reality.

Under , this requirement can be satisfied by mathematical proof from other rules that are known to apply to reality; however, Socionics has not achieved this. I've been contemplating this, and I find that Socionics is at best an accurate description of the side effects of a very different mechanism, and at worst a behavioral description whose logical form bears no resemblance to the patterns in reality.

The reasons why opposite clubs would work well together are pretty straightforward; the mechanisms behind valued and unvalued functions, not so much. The hardest question (to my mind) is why there are 8 elements, and not 7 or 23.

[CheGuevara]

I doubt most professional Socionists are even truly convinced of its usefulness. What they really are concerned about is their reputations, daydreams, delusions etc...

I'm not a professional Socionist, of course, but I guarantee Socionics is useful for understanding other people if, and only if the core concepts like dichotomies, information elements and functions are understood and used properly.

First of all you need to know your own type. If you don't know your type or have mistyped yourself you can't benefit from Socionics at all.

I was told my type by some computer programs written by human beings who could never prove type is real(can be measured consistently, reliably and that the premises are true etc...) in the first place. The results they gave me were usually(in no particular order) ENTP, INTP, INTJ, ENFP.

Computer programs don't tell you your type. They just tell you a tendency because they analyse the four dichotomies. They don't analyse the big picture, your functions, your relationships and all the stuff.

It is not possible to prove that type is real. It can just be experienced by learning the basics, typing people and analysing if the descriptions fit. Believe me, they do. If you would know how to type people you would be surprised how much of their behaviour, thoughts, relationships you could predict!

So you seem to be intuitive. That limits the number of possible types to 8.

f I had to pick which type I'd rather be I would pick INTJ/INTj/LII. That could change tomorrow and there already is a part of me that still wants to be some other type and I am simply repressing that part of me for a reason I cannot explain.

Maybe you misunderstood the main concept. Socionics is not about what type you want to be. It's about what you are. Your type can definitely not change because experienced Socionists can type people by V.I.
You could use a picture of you as your avatar and maybe I could tell you what type you are. Just maybe, of course. Single-picture-typing is not very reliable but I certainly could exclude some types at least.

[Waddlesworth]

It is not possible to prove that type is real. It can just be experienced by learning the basics, typing people and analysing if the descriptions fit. Believe me, they do. If you would know how to type people you would be surprised how much of their behaviour, thoughts, relationships you could predict!

So you seem to be intuitive. That limits the number of possible types to 8.

I "SEEM" to be intuitive so now all of the sudden the possibilities are limited to 8?

I need to "BELIEVE" that the descriptions fit because YOU say so? Yet "it is NOT POSSIBLE to PROVE that type is real"?

See, that is just a small sample of the many problems with socionics.

Maybe you misunderstood the main concept. Socionics is not about what type you want to be. It's about what you are. Your type can definitely not change because experienced Socionists can type people by V.I.
You could use a picture of you as your avatar and maybe I could tell you what type you are. Just maybe, of course. Single-picture-typing is not very reliable but I certainly could exclude some types at least.

True, some people may look a certain way and tend type(using a test) a certain way. I agree, I have seen this. But also I have thought I have seen this, or assumed this and been proven wrong. You will someday experience this.

Even if VI is correlated with what type a person tests as this does not mean intertype relations are real and that type cannot change, etcetera.

In the end we must choose our destinies. If we don't, others will do it for us.

Remember: In the end EVERYONE is unique.

[CheGuevara]

I need to "BELIEVE" that the descriptions fit because YOU say so? Yet "it is NOT POSSIBLE to PROVE that type is real"?

See, that is just a small sample of the many problems with socionics.

Sorry, I don't see the problem. You don't need to believe anything (especially not because I say so). You just have to experience the existence of types by learning the basics, typing people and realizing it works.

[Gilly]

You just have to experience the existence of types by learning the basics, typing people and realizing it works.

For how long? Is six months more experience than four years? Listen to your elders, fuckstick.

[CheGuevara]

For how long? Is six months more experience than four years? Listen to your elders, fuckstick.

I'm very proud of not being EIE.

There are slightly retarded people.
There are very retarded people.
There are EIEs.

[Krig the Viking]

I learned to know MBTI and Socionics about 2 years ago I think. During the last 6 months I have studied it very intensively. I've been reading and thinking about it almost every day for hours. Everytime I've talked to anyone I've thought about his type, his functions, his relations, his appearence during the last 6 months. Socioncs has been my main interest so I am of the opinion that I can't be very bad at typing.

There are three problems for me on this forum:
1.) I'm a noob here.
2.) I'm not a native speaker.
3.) I'm LII so I have unconventional ideas.

Those are not your problems. I'm still basically a n00b here, and I have a few unconventional ideas. While not everybody agrees with me or I'm sure even really likes me, I have not had nearly the problems you've had. Why is that?

I've been studying socionics for over 4 years now, and with the every-day intensity you describe for the last 2-3. However, when I joined this forum in July of this year, I did not go around acting like I was smarter than every damn person here, and I did not assume that everything I believed was unimpeachably true, or that all of the people on this board who have been studying socionics longer than I have were automatically wrong if they disagreed with me. On the contrary, I was humbled to be interacting with so many highly knowledgeable people, and tried to treat everyone with the respect and deference obligated by my n00b status.

Your main problem is not any of those things you listed, it's pride. Your pride will not let you admit when you are wrong, or even consider the possibility that you may be wrong. People hate pride, and so they hate and want to ban, you.

You need to stop feeling sorry for yourself, and address the possibility that you may not be the only one who understands socionics, and that others may in fact understand it better than you. You're not the big fish in a small pond anymore.

Oho, I didn't even know there are important and unimportant people on this forum. Greetings to the aristocracy.

It's not about aristocracy, it's about respect. Every community has a social hierarchy, and if you want to function in that community, you have to know your place and show respect to the "elders", even if you disagree with them. That's just how humans work.

That's not what I do. I just try to discuss my observations and compare them to the observations of others. Unfortunately nobody on this forum seems to be familiar with the DCNH-system. Even Krig has stated that he doesn't trust his own DCNH-typings...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You assume that your understanding of DCNH is better than mine and everyone else's, even though it is manifestly not the case. Your pride is blinding you to reality.

In quasi-dual-relations there are a lot of conflicts. Before studying Socionics I always wondered why I had a lot of conflicts with my mother whereas my brother hardly ever had one. I also wondered why my brother enjoyed talking to my father for hours and I did not. In comparative relations the people do not really understand each other's point of view.

Fom what I've seen, semi-duality is actually one of the two best inter-quadra relationships (along with Mirage). Certainly better than Benefit. I know an EIE, and while her Ni can get annoying, her base Fe is fun and easy to get along with.

I'm very proud of not being EIE.

There are slightly retarded people.
There are very retarded people.
There are EIEs.

If you want people to respect you and take you seriously, insulting them and their whole type is not going to help.

This, I disagree with. The DCNH system isn't actually based on anything functional in any way; it's simply a behavioral subtype based on group interaction. I suppose correlations could be drawn to functions, but in my case, they don't hold up; yes, I am a more "Intuitive" EIE, but I do still tend to take control in groups, even with other EIEs.

From Gulenko's second article on DCNH:

The alternate path examines the strengthening of various functions within the framework of the classical sociomodel. The fact is that the manifestation (and development) of a function is not equal to its position – its hierarchical place within the structure of psyche. Equally located, i.e. occupying one and the same position in the sociomodel, functions can have completely different degrees of manifestation. This circumstance, according to the ideology of this approach, forms the subtype’s special features in behavior. This concept in contrast to the combinatory-dichotomous approach mentioned above can be named functional-positional.

According to Gulenko, DCNH is explicitly based on "the strengthening of various functions within the framework of the classical sociomodel".

Yes, ok, EJ temperament gives me the tendency to take control, and Creative subtypes can do so as well. So why, in a group of three EIEs, between myself, a creative subtype, and another dominant subtype, do I usually become the center of conversation? Why do myself and the other D-sub butt heads comically with an undertone of a power struggle? Why have I typically been the "head" in my group of friends throughout my life, a leader and directing presence at any job that affords me authority or displays lack of an effective power structure? I'm sure you could easily feel comfortable chalking this all up to EJ temperament, and perhaps Se hidden agenda, but when you throw other EIEs and LSEs and ESEs in the mix, and I still tend to wind up "in charge," it's a bit hard to explain away, from my perspective.

Well, like I said, I don't know you well enough to objectively determine your subtype. Your description does sound like Dominant though. In that case, what leads you to believe you are the Intuitive subtype in the traditional system?

To me, the question is whether Socionics accurately predicts reality as far as it goes. It's clear that Socionics doesn't get down to the core causes, but if it's just as accurate as Newton's theory of gravity (which still supersedes Relativity in common use because it's so much simpler), then we don't have a problem.

Indeed. It is the predictive power of Socionics that leads me to believe, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it is an accurate representation of reality.

I call that battletyping (retyping someone to discredit them)... happens quite often around here, though I think it's toned down a bit now that we have a word for it. It probably wasn't battletyping when you originally said it, but this "irony" of yours is clear battletyping.

Battletyping? Nice, I like it. Excellent word-coinage!

While that's good for deciding what to think about, you can't really marry on the basis of a logically consistent theory that has nothing to do with reality.

Under , this requirement can be satisfied by mathematical proof from other rules that are known to apply to reality; however, Socionics has not achieved this. I've been contemplating this, and I find that Socionics is at best an accurate description of the side effects of a very different mechanism, and at worst a behavioral description whose logical form bears no resemblance to the patterns in reality.

The reasons why opposite clubs would work well together are pretty straightforward; the mechanisms behind valued and unvalued functions, not so much. The hardest question (to my mind) is why there are 8 elements, and not 7 or 23.

I'm afraid in contrasting Te with Ti, I may have overstated my case. I mostly agree with you here.

Maybe I am an Ti-valuing LII, too. So then how would we resolve this issue?

If I had to guess your type, I would say ILI. However, this is the Internet, so I would only put 20% or so confidence in that guess.

[Gilly]

I'm very proud of not being EIE.

There are slightly retarded people.
There are very retarded people.
There are EIEs.

Your sense of irony is perverted threefold, given 1) your reading of my post, 2) your subsequent response, and 3) your overriding idiocy and failure to see how laughably simplistic your interpretation of both subtypes and Socionics at large are.

[Gilly]

I see. I was under the impression that it was devised separately of actual Model A, despite the apparent correlations.

Well, like I said, I don't know you well enough to objectively determine your subtype. Your description does sound like Dominant though. In that case, what leads you to believe you are the Intuitive subtype in the traditional system?

Well, I am just obviously more "intuitive" than I am "ethical" on just about every conceivable level, aside from my general humanistic outlook on life: I am spacey, I fail at routine tasks, I am not incredibly socially active outside of my circle of close friends, I am self-absorbed and can be rather sedentary...I could go on. But, group activity motivates me, and if I feel that I am among peers, I will naturally assume a role of leadership in nearly all group interactions.

As far as relative function strength goes, I feel that I do excel at "logic" in a general sense compared to other EIEs, in terms of being concise, methodical, having a highly rational outlook on life and how the world works; I also have natural business sense and think rather instinctively about things like efficiency, time effectiveness, money management, and so forth.

Also, just in terms of basic rational/irrational differences, I tend to be more irrational: I am pretty impulsive, I prefer to leave things to the last moment, I don't naturally generate routine, I lead a generally unstructured life, etc.

So, as far as group behavior goes, even when thinking about other EIEs, I tend toward Dominant subtype, but my bent in terms of my overall personality is quite obviously intuitive.

[ArchonAlarion]

You are definitely D Gilly.

[crazedrat]

The hardest question (to my mind) is why there are 8 elements, and not 7 or 23.

yes. A very in depth discussion is needed for this. maybe you'd like to start it?

[xerx]

yes. A very in depth discussion is needed for this. maybe you'd like to start it?

It's because of the sacredness of the number 4 in Jungian psychology. Jung only explored the 4 dimensions of human experience and dichotomized them into extroverted/introverted halves.

They carry over to socionics: Time (N), space(S), matter(T) and energy (F).

The question should be whether they're enough to make a sufficiently descriptive system.

But indeed, it is an interesting discussion. Why not a dimension for information processing of lower level reptilian emotions ???

[Brilliand]

yes. A very in depth discussion is needed for this. maybe you'd like to start it?

I doubt that we are capable of discussing it meaningfully at this stage... but, no harm in putting it on the table.

Why 8 Functions?

[Gilly]

You are definitely D Gilly.

D-ILE, right?

[CheGuevara]

Your main problem is not any of those things you listed, it's pride. Your pride will not let you admit when you are wrong, or even consider the possibility that you may be wrong.

I do consider this possibility very often. Maybe some people mix up pride or arrogance with confidence. Keirsey says that INTJs are the most self-confident of all types. If I am sure about something I will say that I am sure. If I am not sure I will say that I am not sure.

I'll just repeat all of my debatable statements again:

1.) I'm sure that ArchonAlarion is a Creative Critic, Ne-ILI.
2.) I'm of the opinion that Gilly is a Creative Actor, Ne-EIE.
3.) Gulenko's abbreviations for the IEs are L = law and logic for and P = profit and production for . Of course it's simplified. I just wanted to state the main points. ArchonAlarion disagreed.
4.) I got the impression that I understand more about DCNH-subtypes than some other persons on this forum. I didn't say "more than anyone else".

It's not about aristocracy, it's about respect. Every community has a social hierarchy, and if you want to function in that community, you have to know your place and show respect to the "elders", even if you disagree with them. That's just how humans work.

I do not work like that because I am LII. So ranks and titles are completely irrelevant for me. I did not use any dirty words so far. ArchonAlarion (a "fuckin noob" in my opinion) and Gilly (a "schmuck" and a "fuckstick" in my opinion) did.

They have mistyped themselves and don't want to believe it so they call me noob or fuckstick. That's what I call arrogance and ignorance.

Fom what I've seen, semi-duality is actually one of the two best inter-quadra relationships (along with Mirage). Certainly better than Benefit.

Depends on subtypes. I also know some EIEs I get along with.

[crazedrat]

Well.. You started getting annoying when you prefaced your posts with allusions to your supernatural insight. And the allusion was meant in a general sense. my problem isn't with the descriptive elements of DHCN. I actually like alot of what Krig has to say, and find your observations interesting.. at least the parts I've read. My problem with DHCN is on a theoretical level. I don't necessarily think it's flawed, only incomplete. Tcauds -/+ functions give the same level distinction as DHCN but also elaborate on the functional processes and tie it in with the 16 types. One problem with these additional levels of complexity is the identification of types becomes prone to human error. An easy mistake is in discriminating between an ENTp-INTp and an INTp-ENTp. Is there even really a discrimination? It depends whether the types are considered parallel or tiered processes. If tiered process, how do we identify the foundational building block of information? Are we identifying the persons basic element first, or is that judgment tainted by how we process the information they give off? That is where human error sets in. It is true Gilly has bounced back and fourth between EIE and ILE; and at one point Archon considered himself INTp. Anyway, for novelty, what is my type?