The DCNH subtype model

[CheGuevara]

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?

I really think these accepting-producing-descriptions on wikisocion are not what they seem to be. They are DCNH-description which are presented as acc-prod-description. It can't be true that both Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov are unable to offer consistent descriptions of the accepting and producing subtypes.

In my opinion the only explanation is that those guys on wikisocion did it voluntarily. They took the Dominant description from Gulenko and the Normalizing from Meged/Ovcharov e.g. and called both "logical subtype".

These descriptions were all translated by Niffweed17. We should ask him.

Krig, what about your research? Come on, just look at all the LIIs you know and you will see that D- and H-subtype have oval faces e.g. - it's not difficult to verify that.

[tereg]

These descriptions were all translated by Niffweed17. We should ask him.

The descriptions are not his descriptions. Just wanted to clarify this.

[CheGuevara]

The descriptions are not his descriptions. Just wanted to clarify this.

So whose descriptions are they? Gulenko's and Meged/Ovcharov's?

[Krig the Viking]

Some more thoughts: The DCNH system could be looked at in terms of functions rather than information elements. For example, a Ti-Normalizing LII could be said to have an "Ego" subtype, while an Ni-Harmonizing LII could be said to have an "Id" subtype.

There should be certain commonalities between people with the same function-subtype. For example, there should be some similarities between a Ti-Normalizing LII, and an Fe-Dominant IEI. In the broadest of terms, if I'm right, Mental subtypes should be alternately confident, engaged, and comfortable, or self-conscious, strained, and nervous. Vital subtypes, on the other hand, should alternate between a sort of bored confidence and disinterest, or child-like neediness and naïveté. Furthermore, I speculate that Mental subtypes might be more conscious and deliberate in their actions, while Vital subtypes might be more impulsive and instinctive in their actions.

That's all theory, though, I need to see if it matches up with the evidence in reality.

After my discoveries I realised that I had a wrong idea of some of the subtypes. Systematical typing error. Bias.
I had mixed up Ti-ILI and Te-ILI for example. But now that I know Gulenko describes the Te-ILI AND that Te-ILIs have round faces I am sure I got it right now...

And I still can't understand the systematical error in the subtype descriptions. How the heck could this happen? Very strange...

Yeah, I went over the Introvert subtype descriptions again, and Gulenko seems pretty consistent in describing each subtype as a strengthening of one of the two Ego functions. I did a little research, and found the original article where these subtype descriptions are taken from here. It was written in 1991, before his first article on DCNH in 1995 (here). It's very likely that DCNH didn't even exist when these subtype descriptions were written. Gulenko was just thinking about the two subtypes as "strengthened rational ego function" and "strengthened irrational ego function", which I suspect led to him asking the question "Why couldn't you strengthen other functions than just the Ego?", and eventually creating DCNH.

It's Meged and Ovcharov who are the inconsistent ones. I really don't know how that happened.

It's hard to study Socionics as a German. No useful German material is available anywhere. Why are there no DCNH-descriptions in English at least?

I can't seem to find much on DCNH in any language; I've looked through some of Gulenko's articles in Russian (using Google translate), and didn't turn up anything. I suspect that there hasn't been that much work done on it; remember, socionics is still a very young theory.

Sorry, my sources are the people I know personally. I have no pictures and if I had some I wouldn't post them.

The problem with using only people you know personally is that, in an Internet setting, nobody can double-check your results. I have no way of knowing that you're typing people accurately, and you have no way of knowing that *I* am typing people accurately. Typing celebrities is more difficult, but at least we both have the same evidence at hand.

Just check the typings of the persons you know. No celebrities please...
You will realize that my discovery is correct and that subtypes DO NOT change over time and ARE NOT created by the environment...

I looked through my list, and I'm not seeing any particular correlation between face-shape and DCNH subtype. To be honest, I'm not certain enough of my DCNH typings to have a large enough data set to really observe any pattern like that. Frankly, I'm surprised that you seem so confident in your typings, given the relative dearth of information on DNCH.

Also, even if your observations are accurate, you haven't proved that subtype can't change, just that the change is limited to shifting from one Mental subtype to another, or from one Vital subtype to another.

[sarinana]

um I'm either creative or normalizing...

[Not A Communist Shill]

I really think these accepting-producing-descriptions on wikisocion are not what they seem to be. They are DCNH-description which are presented as acc-prod-description. It can't be true that both Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov are unable to offer consistent descriptions of the accepting and producing subtypes.

In my opinion the only explanation is that those guys on wikisocion did it voluntarily. They took the Dominant description from Gulenko and the Normalizing from Meged/Ovcharov e.g. and called both "logical subtype".

These descriptions were all translated by Niffweed17. We should ask him.

Krig, what about your research? Come on, just look at all the LIIs you know and you will see that D- and H-subtype have oval faces e.g. - it's not difficult to verify that.

The translated wikisocion articles have a link to the original Russian article at the top of the relevant page - I doubt there's anything missed out.

[CheGuevara]

In the broadest of terms, if I'm right, Mental subtypes should be alternately confident, engaged, and comfortable, or self-conscious, strained, and nervous. Vital subtypes, on the other hand, should alternate between a sort of bored confidence and disinterest, or child-like neediness and naïveté.

In my opinion your idea sounds interesting but is not correct.
Harmonizing subtypes are quite sensitive. Ni-IEEs for example can in no way be characterized as "bored confidence and disinterest" although Ni is their ignoring function. Normalizing subtypes are usually self-confident. Fi-IEEs (creative, mental subtype) are not "self-conscious, strained, and nervous".

Yeah, I went over the Introvert subtype descriptions again, and Gulenko seems pretty consistent in describing each subtype as a strengthening of one of the two Ego functions.

No, I think you are wrong. Look at ILI. Gulenko obviously describes Creative Ne-ILI, Meged/Ovcharov Harmonizing Ni-ILI. The same with IEI, SLI, SEI.

I can't seem to find much on DCNH in any language; I've looked through some of Gulenko's articles in Russian (using Google translate), and didn't turn up anything. I suspect that there hasn't been that much work done on it; remember, socionics is still a very young theory.

Gulenko had 14 years to write 64 descriptions. That should be time enough.

The problem with using only people you know personally is that, in an Internet setting, nobody can double-check your results. I have no way of knowing that you're typing people accurately, and you have no way of knowing that *I* am typing people accurately. Typing celebrities is more difficult, but at least we both have the same evidence at hand.

It's always speculation so I don't like it very much. But ok, let's talk about celebrities.

creative LII - Victor Gulenko (round face)
harmonizing LII - Che Guevara (oval face)

creative SEE - Bill Clinton (round face)
harmonizing SEE - Fidel Castro (oval face)

creative LSE - George W. Bush (oval face)
dominant LSE - Joseph Stalin (round face)

I looked through my list, and I'm not seeing any particular correlation between face-shape and DCNH subtype. To be honest, I'm not certain enough of my DCNH typings to have a large enough data set to really observe any pattern like that. Frankly, I'm surprised that you seem so confident in your typings, given the relative dearth of information on DNCH.

I was thinking a lot about it during the last weeks. I came to this conclusion after I had realized that a H-SLI and a D-SLI I know personally look like brothers and that a C-IEE and a N-IEE also look very similar. I checked all the people I know personally and yes, there is a general pattern. To be honest, I had to correct some wrong typings after that. Nobody is perfect.

Also, even if your observations are accurate, you haven't proved that subtype can't change, just that the change is limited to shifting from one Mental subtype to another, or from one Vital subtype to another.

I really don't think that I could become a D-LII over time. D- and H-subtypes are very different. I can't prove it at the moment but I know I'm right.

That's the difference between us: -LII is better at analyzing things like that whereas -LII is a generator of ideas - I probably would never have ckecked the acc-prod-descriptions while having DCNH and possible patterns in mind.

I hope that our self-typings are correct...

[Gilly]

...you think Che Guevara was an LII? rotfl

[CheGuevara]

...you think Che Guevara was an LII? rotfl

Definitely. I won't even discuss about it. Why is LII called "Robespierre"? Because some of them (harmonizing subtype) are extreme leftists and revolutionaries like Robespierre, Lenin, Che Guevara and so on...

Read this description if you didn't know.

This is an impressive example of the usefulness of subtypes! Only H-LIIs are revolutionaries whereas the other 3 subtypes are not! You see why DCNH rox?


BTW: Gilly, you say you are "EIE-Ni, Dominant Subtype". You must be joking.
You can be either "EIE-Ni, Harmonizing Subtype" or "EIE-Fe, Dominant Subtype". OK?

[Gilly]

I don't think the two subtype systems refer to the same thing. I think of myself as an EIE with a more intuitive bent, who happens to best fall into the Dominant subtype category.

And, you must be kidding yourself; Lenin was a textbook SLE. I think I heard you say Stalin was LSE? Laughable. LSI to the core.

[Brilliand]

This is an impressive example of the usefulness of subtypes! Only H-LIIs are revolutionaries whereas the other 3 subtypes are not! You see why DCNH rox?

The Harmonizing subtypes are the revolutionaries? Superficially, that sounds ridiculous.

[FDG]

Definitely. I won't even discuss about it. Why is LII called "Robespierre"? Because some of them (harmonizing subtype) are extreme leftists and revolutionaries like Robespierre, Lenin, Che Guevara and so on...

Read this description if you didn't know.

This is an impressive example of the usefulness of subtypes! Only H-LIIs are revolutionaries whereas the other 3 subtypes are not! You see why DCNH rox?


BTW: Gilly, you say you are "EIE-Ni, Dominant Subtype". You must be joking.
You can be either "EIE-Ni, Harmonizing Subtype" or "EIE-Fe, Dominant Subtype". OK?

WAT, dictators harmonizing subtype? Also, man, you have built your own theory here, gilly's diciture is perfectly "correct" in the standard vesion of DCNH

Listen to Krieg the Viking, you've got a lot to learn from him

[CheGuevara]

I don't think the two subtype systems refer to the same thing. I think of myself as an EIE with a more intuitive bent, who happens to best fall into the Dominant subtype category.

The accepting-producing-subtype depends on the fourth dichotomie: perceiving/judging. I'm a quite perceiving LII so I am the intuitive subtype. The DCNH-subtype not only depends on the fourth but also on the first dichotomie. I am very introverted so I am a introverted-perceiving-LII = NI-LII = harmonizing LII.

You say you are rather intuitive and rather extraverted. So you should be a creative EIE, not a dominant one. Just my opinion. Which of these four descriptions do you think describes you best?

And, you must be kidding yourself; Lenin was a textbook SLE. I think I heard you say Stalin was LSE? Laughable. LSI to the core.

That's why I don't like talking about celebrities. Did you know Lenin and Stalin personally? I didn't.
Mike Tyson is SLE for example. Lenin was an intellectual. So it doesn't fit. But I really don't want to discuss about things like that. It's completely useless, we didn't know them personally, talking about their types doesn't make sense to me.

The Harmonizing subtypes are the revolutionaries? Superficially, that sounds ridiculous.

It sounds paradoxical but I thought a lot about it and it makes sense. Dominant subtypes want power, creative subtypes want fun, normalizing subtypes just want to do their job and harmonizing subtypes want to help other people.
Che Guevara for example was not really interested in power or fun. He wanted to help the poor people by defeating the capitalists. That's how harmonizing LIIs think.

WAT, dictators harmonizing subtype? Also, man, you have built your own theory here, gilly's diciture is perfectly "correct" in the standard vesion of DCNH

Everyone who studies Socionics has his own ideas in mind. There is not very much material available about this DCNH-system. That's why we have to discuss it here. If there was enough material available I wouldn't be forced to discuss about it.

Listen to Krieg the Viking, you've got a lot to learn from him

Certainly. He's the same type as Victor Gulenko. Maybe he can also learn some things from me?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Mike Tyson is LSE for example.

[CheGuevara]

sorry, I mean SLE of course. And Lenin definitely doesn't look like Tyson, doesn't behave like Tyson and so on. But I really won't discuss about it any further. Useless. We can discuss about theories but not about celebrities please. Sux like hell.

Talking about celebrities doesn't help us at all. How can we discuss about the celebrities' subtypes if we don't even know their main types?!

Was Stalin interested in truth and justice () or in power and economy () ?
Was Lenin a puncher ( ) or an intellectual ( ) ?
To me it seems obvious. As we do not agree on the main types it would be absolutely useless to discuss about subtypes.

[ArchonAlarion]

You have probably the crudest form of socionics I have ever witnessed uttered in text format.

[CheGuevara]

You have probably the crudest form of socionics I have ever witnessed uttered in text format.

So what is your opinion about DCNH? What is your type? What is wrong about my understanding of it?

[ArchonAlarion]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...e-guevara.html

I think DCNH is potentially useful, but I would alter it somewhat.

I am Ti ENTp

It is not that you don't understand DCNH, but that your understanding of the IE's is crude, overly simplistic, banal, and not at all based on the aspects (external, static, field, etc).

Not only that, but your attempt to apply socionics to economics is, in a word, preposterous.

[CheGuevara]

I am Ti ENTp

I don't believe that at the moment.

Your avatar is not a picture of you, is it? The guy on this picture is definitely not Ti-ENTp. That's for fact.

It is not that you don't understand DCNH, but that your understanding of the IE's is crude, overly simplistic, banal, and not at all based on the aspects (external, static, field, etc).

I just try to simplify my thoughts so that people understand the main points. We also could discuss about it in a more detailed way.

Not only that, but your attempt to apply socionics to economics is, in a word, preposterous.

No. People who value are interested in earning money. People who ignore are not interested in earning money. That is definitely true.

[Gilly]

The accepting-producing-subtype depends on the fourth dichotomie: perceiving/judging. I'm a quite perceiving LII so I am the intuitive subtype. The DCNH-subtype not only depends on the fourth but also on the first dichotomie. I am very introverted so I am a introverted-perceiving-LII = NI-LII = harmonizing LII.

As Fabio said, it looks a bit like you have devised your own theory here. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. The DCNH subtype is nothing related to functional preference, but rather behavioral subdivisions of a single type. The theory was initially spurred by a project in which people of the same type were told to work together on a task, and their roles in the dynamic showed some consistency; thus, a subtype system revolving around group dynamics relative to how they work with other members of the same type.

In this sense, I am the Dominant subtype because, even in a group with other EIEs, I tend to take charge if there are no other mitigating factors; I like to be the one controlling the group, guiding other people, organizing, distributing responsibility, and giving a sense of direction.

However, functionally, I favor Intuition more than Ethics, and am more like an LIE than ESE; hence, Ni subtype.

You say you are rather intuitive and rather extraverted. So you should be a creative EIE, not a dominant one. Just my opinion. Which of these four descriptions do you think describes you best?

The first two describe me equally well, I'd say, although I'm neither as explosive as the first (Meged and Ovcharov), nor as tacit as the second (Gulenko), but somewhere in between. The Intuitive sexual behavior description fits me rather well.

That's why I don't like talking about celebrities. Did you know Lenin and Stalin personally? I didn't.

No, but given their distinctive personalities and appearances, and the relatively large amount of historical information available on them, I think we can make informed decisions, to say the least.

Mike Tyson is SLE for example. Lenin was an intellectual. So it doesn't fit. But I really don't want to discuss about things like that. It's completely useless, we didn't know them personally, talking about their types doesn't make sense to me.

You really think this shit is that simple? Jesus christ, either do yourself and the rest of the members here some common decency and learn to interpret the theory and what it applies to properly, or go somewhere else before I ban you out of sheer intellectual spite.

[Gilly]

No. People who value are interested in earning money. People who ignore are not interested in earning money. That is definitely true.

lmfao.

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't believe that at the moment.

Your avatar is not a picture of you, is it? The guy on this picture is definitely not Ti-ENTp. That's for fact.

I just try to simplify my thoughts so that people understand the main points. We also could discuss about it in a more detailed way.

No. People who value are interested in earning money. People who ignore are not interested in earning money. That is definitely true.

lol it is me, and I have little interest in discussing these "facts" with you.

Like I said Gilly, just ban the fuck out of him. ban ban ban.

Please. He is like socionics and politics combined and my mind will explode at the sheer amount of convincing I must do unto him. By his "facts" I doubt we will convince him of anything, and therefore banning outright with ruthless passion and zeal is the best answer.

(I wonder if he'll catch on!)

[CheGuevara]

The first two describe me equally well, I'd say, although I'm neither as explosive as the first (Meged and Ovcharov), nor as tacit as the second (Gulenko), but somewhere in between. The Intuitive sexual behavior description fits me rather well.

GREAT! As Krig found out (and others confirmed) the first is Creative, the second Harmonizing.

Dominant is the fourth description:

"Emotionally excited, sharp. Demonstrates fervent feelings, is decisively artistic. Easily yields to flattery. Characterized by aristocratic manners. Frequently a good speaker or a political leader with patriotic leanings. Is internally dramatic and spontaneous, loves to demonstrate his opinion. Outwardly they can shock those around them by extremes in clothing – a hobo with soiled sleeves. They can, on the contrary, dress in vivid or aristocratically choice clothes. "

If your avatar is a picture of you then you are definitely not a Dominant EIE. Your face is rather oval compared to a D-EIE. I know some D-EIE and at least one C-EIE and your avatar looks like his twin.

Please don't ban me for telling you which type you really are.

[ArchonAlarion]

His avatar is not of him. It is an artistic representation of EIE's off of a russian site.

[CheGuevara]

lol it is me, and I have little interest in discussing these "facts" with you.

OK. Just one conclusion. In my unimportant opinion you are not ILE but ILI. No offence meant.

Like I said Gilly, just ban the fuck out of him. ban ban ban.

Take it easy, guys. All of us are still learning...

[ArchonAlarion]

The issue is more about you being flagrantly wrong (in a manner almost unmatched previously), and then re-typing people based on your misconceptions.

[1981slater]

ArchonAlarion is a clear ILE Ti

[CheGuevara]

ArchonAlarion is a clear ILE Ti

So the following description should fit:

"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."


The problem is: he neither behaves like an ILE nor does he look like an ILE. In my opinion the following description (Ne-ILI) should fit better (and his avatar definitely looks like people I know of this type):

"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. Possesses large erudition and memory, frequently gets stuck in details. A scientist and theorist that makes fundamental developments and who also has an eye for social-economic tendencies. Using analogies, frequently they can predict the development of an ongoing process. Outwardly slovenly and negligent. Little regard to their health."

And one more thing: If I understand this thread correctly he thinks of himself as an architect!! So it is very likely that he is not only MBTI-INTP but also Socionics-INTp.

[1981slater]

So the following description should fit:

profile


The problem is: he neither behaves like an ILE nor does he look like an ILE. In my opinion the following description (Ne-ILI) should fit better (and his avatar definitely looks like people I know of this type):

"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. Possesses large erudition and memory, frequently gets stuck in details. A scientist and theorist that makes fundamental developments and who also has an eye for social-economic tendencies. Using analogies, frequently they can predict the development of an ongoing process. Outwardly slovenly and negligent. Little regard to their health."

And one more thing: If I understand this thread correctly he thinks of himself as an architect!! So it is very likely that he is not only MBTI-INTP but also Socionics-INTp.

OK, I'm sure AA is my identical. If I have mistyped him, then I am an ILI too.

[CheGuevara]

OK, I'm sure AA is my identical. If I have mistyped him, then I am an ILI too.

That would be very strange. What do you think about your MBTI-type?

I think one of AA's misconceptions is that Einstein was INTP and ENTp.
Another misconception is that Einstein was like AA.

Keirsey typed Einstein INTP because Keirsey himself is INTP.
Augusta typed Einstein ENTp because she was ENTp.
AA types himself INTP and ENTp because he thinks he is the next Einstein.

[1981slater]

That would be very strange. What do you think about your MBTI-type?

MBTI is useless: it types people by means of observations of their behaviour: so, if I am at work, I am an ENTJ;with my friends, ENFP, when sleeping, ISTP...
Socionics studies how people get and deal with information and how they interact with each other
MBTI misled me for years. Until I ditched it, I mistyped myself

I think one of AA's misconceptions is that Einstein was INTP and ENTp.

AA is not the only one who believes this.

Another misconception is that Einstein was like AA.

AA is taller, I think

Keirsey typed Einstein INTP because Keirsey himself is INTP.

Is that good or bad?

Augusta typed Einstein ENTp because she was ENTp.

Spotting our identicals is an easy task

AA types himself INTP and ENTp because he thinks he is the next Einstein.

If so, I hope he creates a new generation of exciting videogames

[Gilly]

Archon doesn't "search for opponents," although you reveal much of your own vulnerability by claiming as much He's actually typically conflict averse.

The picture is not of me, although it does resemble my facial structure and general look to a degree.

GREAT! As Krig found out (and others confirmed) the first is Creative, the second Harmonizing.

And both are intended to be neither Creative nor Harmonizing, but simply the Intuitive subtype! Fancy that, not everything fits together perfectly!

In the end they are both vague descriptions of essentially the same thing, with minor variances. Personally I do not think they are by any means definitive.

[Brilliand]

Archon doesn't "search for opponents," although you reveal much of your own vulnerability by claiming as much He's actually typically conflict averse.

Archon doesn't look for conflict, but I've noticed that he's pretty quick to accept one when it's handed to him on a silver platter... thought it seems that Alpha NTs often make themselves miserable by constantly jumping into conflict when they actually hate conflict.

[CheGuevara]

Archon doesn't look for conflict, but I've noticed that he's pretty quick to accept one when it's handed to him on a silver platter... thought it seems that Alpha NTs often make themselves miserable by constantly jumping into conflict when they actually hate conflict.

The point is that Archon is a Gamma-NT.

I guess about 30% of the people on this forum have mistyped themselves. That's the main problem about Socionics. For someone like Archon Socionics is not only a waste of time because he doesn't benefit from it but it might even cause very big problems - he might marry a ISFp-woman and would realize that it is not a dual-relation but a super-ego-relation.

Congratulations so far...

He willl probably shout again "ban CheGuevara, ban CheGuevara, he has no idea about Socionics".

ArchonAlarion is a Ne-INTp. That's for fact. Even if nobody believes it.

[Brilliand]

Congratulations so far...

I have an idea of what you mean by this, but could you be a bit clearer so that I don't have to make assumptions?

[Krig the Viking]

In my opinion your idea sounds interesting but is not correct.
Harmonizing subtypes are quite sensitive. Ni-IEEs for example can in no way be characterized as "bored confidence and disinterest" although Ni is their ignoring function. Normalizing subtypes are usually self-confident. Fi-IEEs (creative, mental subtype) are not "self-conscious, strained, and nervous".

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.

No, I think you are wrong. Look at ILI. Gulenko obviously describes Creative Ne-ILI, Meged/Ovcharov Harmonizing Ni-ILI. The same with IEI, SLI, SEI.

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?

It's always speculation so I don't like it very much. But ok, let's talk about celebrities.

creative LII - Victor Gulenko (round face)
harmonizing LII - Che Guevara (oval face)

creative SEE - Bill Clinton (round face)
harmonizing SEE - Fidel Castro (oval face)

creative LSE - George W. Bush (oval face)
dominant LSE - Joseph Stalin (round face)

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.

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.

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.

Incidentally, as I've said before, this is one reason I find DCNH so useful. Without it, I would have no way to explain why certain LIIs resemble certain IEIs and vice versa, and it would be easy to draw the line between the two in the wrong place.

Only H-LIIs are revolutionaries whereas the other 3 subtypes are not!

I agree with Brilliand and FDG on this, Harmonizing subtype strikes me as particularly unlikely to become an active revolutionary like Che Guevara. I suspect Guevara's subtype was Se-Creative, assuming he is in fact IEI as I believe.

I don't think the two subtype systems refer to the same thing. I think of myself as an EIE with a more intuitive bent, who happens to best fall into the Dominant subtype category.

I actually think CheGuevara is correct here; DCNH Dominant and Normalizing subtypes are explicitly Rational subtypes, whereas Creative and Harmonizing are explicitly Irrational subtypes. They're not really two separate systems; DCNH simply divides the traditional 2 subtypes into extraverted and introverted versions of each.

In this sense, I am the Dominant subtype because, even in a group with other EIEs, I tend to take charge if there are no other mitigating factors; I like to be the one controlling the group, guiding other people, organizing, distributing responsibility, and giving a sense of direction.

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? ).

Dominant subtypes want power, creative subtypes want fun, normalizing subtypes just want to do their job and harmonizing subtypes want to help other people.

I don't think this is an accurate description of the subtypes. Well, okay, the Normalizing one is an accurate simplification. But I wouldn't say Dominant subtypes want power any more than an Se-Creative subtype would (both want power, they would just use it differently), or that Creative subtypes want fun any more than an Fe-Dominant would. 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.

No. People who value are interested in earning money. People who ignore are not interested in earning money. That is definitely true.

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

[Brilliand]

I actually think CheGuevara is correct here; DCNH Dominant and Normalizing subtypes are explicitly Rational subtypes, whereas Creative and Harmonizing are explicitly Irrational subtypes. They're not really two separate systems; DCNH simply divides the traditional 2 subtypes into extraverted and introverted versions of each.

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).

[ArchonAlarion]

So the following description should fit:

"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."

That is a great description of me.

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.

"Their ideas do not have direct connection with reality, for example SOCIONICS."

3 years ago (before I knew of Socionics), I would have chosen this description without hesitation. I love "comparing logical systems" as silly as it sounds.

And btw I've been made fun of for my angular motions and tendancy to fidget fwiw.

The problem is: he neither behaves like an ILE nor does he look like an ILE. In my opinion the following description (Ne-ILI) should fit better (and his avatar definitely looks like people I know of this type):

"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. Possesses large erudition and memory, frequently gets stuck in details. A scientist and theorist that makes fundamental developments and who also has an eye for social-economic tendencies. Using analogies, frequently they can predict the development of an ongoing process. Outwardly slovenly and negligent. Little regard to their health."

Bolded applies. Italicized sometimes applies.

Also, that description might be of some other type. Do you take the russian word as holy writ?

And one more thing: If I understand this thread correctly he thinks of himself as an architect!! So it is very likely that he is not only MBTI-INTP but also Socionics-INTp.

I do, and I will likely never deviate from that. INTP fits me very well.

That would be very strange. What do you think about your MBTI-type?

I think one of AA's misconceptions is that Einstein was INTP and ENTp.
Another misconception is that Einstein was like AA.

Keirsey typed Einstein INTP because Keirsey himself is INTP.
Augusta typed Einstein ENTp because she was ENTp.
AA types himself INTP and ENTp because he thinks he is the next Einstein.

Well I am brilliant and indisputably empirically correct/factual.

The point is that Archon is a Gamma-NT.

I guess about 30% of the people on this forum have mistyped themselves. That's the main problem about Socionics. For someone like Archon Socionics is not only a waste of time because he doesn't benefit from it but it might even cause very big problems - he might marry a ISFp-woman and would realize that it is not a dual-relation but a super-ego-relation.

lmfao.

lol.

no wait!

LOL

Congratulations so far...

He willl probably shout again "ban CheGuevara, ban CheGuevara, he has no idea about Socionics".

ArchonAlarion is a Ne-INTp. That's for fact. Even if nobody believes it.

kk

[Waddlesworth]

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.

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!"

[Azeroffs]

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!"

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.