Changing Your Subtype
In context, I’m asking about the DCNH system or something similar. Primarily, has anyone here experienced a subtype change that they know of? If so, how did it happen, and what happened during the change?
Secondly, can a person change their subtype by using the functions involved repeatedly and over a significant amount of time? Is it difficult to do so? Is it only behavioural modifications, or does one also have to change some of their thought habits?
IJ temperament
LII ()
LII-Ne
H-LII
Ni-LII
iei-LII
Enneagram: 5(w4?)
Your shadow has the opposite subtype to your "normal" one. After "taking responsibility" as an adult individual and coming to terms with your capacity for evil, you switch out your subtype pretty much anytime you experience a PoLR hit. I'm a creative subtype, but my shadow is dominant, which is why I may appear as such, especially when discussing issues like equality (that one always brings the inner dragon roaring out the gate, breathing fire and fumes
Now what if you haven't taken responsibility for the shadow yet? In that case, you will strain to cope with your ego's subtype, and it will be a difficult experience for you.
I'm curious, so if I'm ENFJ-ni, does this make my shadow functions ISTP-te? I'm not sure yet on how the shadow functions manifest in the psyche and how it correlates with the ego.
EIE tritype 5w4, 4w5, 9w1
As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
Carl Jung, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections", 1962
Nobody on this forum has experienced a DCNH subtype change - because DCNH subtype cannot change...Originally Posted by Currere
It is consensus that main types do not change. Im a H-LII and I will be a H-LII for the rest of my life. Why should subtypes ever change?! A subtype system with subtypes that are not inborn would be useless...
I am able to distinguish between DCNH subtypes by V.I. which would be impossible if subtypes could change. They definitely can't. Just type enough people and you will realize that different subtypes have characteristic facial structures that will never change if you aren't like Michael Jackson...
@tcaudillig: Could you further explain the idea of "shadow functions"? I've seen you mention this, but I haven't come across a full description of the concept. It's to do with the Super-Ego right? Please, elaborate.
@JohnDo: Really? I basically understood that subtype was mostly external behaviour, and thus people of the same type *act* differently. Although, I suppose if you're right about identifying subtype facial structure, you'd probably be right about them being inborn just like sociotypes. What do you think about peoples' behaviours being influenced by upbringing, etc., and how that could be explained by Socionics other than subtype?
IJ temperament
LII (
LII-Ne
H-LII
Ni-LII
iei-LII
Enneagram: 5(w4?)
Currere: JohnDo has his own variation of the DCNH system, which does not match up with Gulenko's system.
Tcaudilllg has his own variation of Socionics, which I'll leave to him to explain -- I've never looked closely at it.
Quaero Veritas.
Type is often the result of self-image and the tendency for people to use systems to categorize themselves. I think the idea of subtype, or more specifically, changing subtype, is the result of a realization that the type system is not perfect, but the person still wants to "hold on" to the type system or their given type. People do this for a variety of reasons but mostly to protect their egos because many crucial life decisions are made using type systems. People rarely like to admit they made the wrong decisions and also that they have wasted their time miserable believing in type systems.
That could be wrong, but it just seems that way.
Last edited by Waddlesworth; 01-01-2010 at 05:44 AM.
Nope, it's ESTJ-Te. But it does not assert order... it looks for it. It appeals to authority.
Being stuck in the ego (or to a lesser degree the superego or the id) makes you blank to opposing viewpoints. That opposing viewpoint is the shadow. The shadow is the superid.. (but if your ego is being strongly affected by the superego or id, the shadow becomes strongly associated with the correspondingly opposite superego / id.)
I don't think so. Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov also describe some visual differences between subtypes. A subtype system with changing subtypes would be useless somehow...I basically understood that subtype was mostly external behaviour, and thus people of the same type *act* differently.
Upbringing may cause different habits (smoking, drinking, sports, occupations, ...). But in my opinion subtypes are something completely different.What do you think about peoples' behaviours being influenced by upbringing, etc., and how that could be explained by Socionics other than subtype?
If parents are heavy drinkers their children are more likely to beome alcoholics. If parents are politicians their children are more likely to become politicians (like the Bushs or Kennedys). If parents are race drivers their children are more likely to become race drivers (like Hill, Villeneuve, Rosberg, Piquet and so on).
That has nothing to do with subtypes (Bush Jr. obviously is a different type than Bush Sr. and so on) but with upbringing, the environment...
That is not true. I just use Gulenko's system and try to find visual differences between subtypes. What is wrong with this approach?JohnDo has his own variation of the DCNH system, which does not match up with Gulenko's system.
Except that Gulenko specifically says that subtypes can change, and even proposes a fifth, transitional subtype ("zero subtype") for people in the process of switching between subtypes.
Compatibility and Duality - Wikisocion
Whether or not you're right (and I'm quite sure you're not), your understanding of DCNH is clearly not the same as Gulenko's, and is therefore a variant. You could call it "Physiognomic DCNH", or something.
Quaero Veritas.
First of all, the shadow gets a bad rap. It's purpose is to see through delusion by contrasting opposing vantagepoints to see which views have the ultimate outcome of one's own self-destruction. The so-called "criminal" aspect of it arises from a limitless determination to prevent the destruction of oneself and one's friends.
Delusion knows only its own virtues; it is blind to its vices. This is why the delusional have been known by a common word throughout every culture since the dawn of recorded history: "fools".
So long as the shadow is restrained to protecting oneself (and those close to oneself) from idiots, it doesn't interfere with the ego's initiative to social prosperity. Because the shadow does not serve its evolved function by taking the place of the ego, we repress it until our brains mature enough to allow the shadow to operate at the ego's behest.
Boukalov argues that there are eight functions, but because these functions are shared by the ego and shadow, they look like 16 functions. The ego and shadow each get a slice of each functional position. Neither ever gets an even slice, because there are five portions to be divided per function. (the "dimensions" you keep hearing about). This is what makes some functions strong, and others weak.
The circuitry of human personality is not as interconnected as it could be. There are four major shifts in the circuitry of the mind over the course of an individual life time, which Jung called "levels of individuation". With each shift, the ego and shadow work together better than they did before, and your functions, for all intents and purposes, become stronger.
The reason your shadow is your superego partner is, for one thing, because the superego relation is misnamed without it (this is what Augusta was really referring to, way in the abstract), and because of the eight shadow functions the counterparts to the ego's 3rd and 6th functions get the biggest portion. Boukalov says there are "supramental" and "physical" tracks in the shadow which are counterpart to the mental and vital tracks in the ego, but he doesn't say which functions go with which. I have concluded through introspection that the functions are on the same "track types" for either side, meaning the supramental uses the mental functions and the physical uses the vital functions. The big clue is that the vital functions are said to account for one's sense of one's own body and its survival, which means that the physical (the surivival instinct) must correlate to the vital because Boukalov's vital is half of Augusta's.
The article you refer to is from 1995. You certainly noticed that this article from 2006 describes a completely different DCNH system where the D and the H type are changed! D is a conecting terminator and H a connecting initiator now! So the theory described in the article from 1995 is obviously inaccurate. Why should the idea of changing subtypes be true then?
It is really interesting what Gulenko said about changing subtype in 1995. If change really originated around the ignoring-connecting scale it would lead to the conclusion that a harmonizer might become a dominator - but never a normalizer or creator.
Maybe Gulenko had discovered the same pattern I described. D and H look very similar, C and N look very similar. D and H have rather oval faces in static types and rather round faces in dynamic types. C and N have rather round faces in static types and rather oval faces in dynamic types. So a change like H->N seems to be impossible.
Nevertheless, I'm still of the opinion that changes like H->D do not occur. The visual differences are more subtle but they exist. It depends on the function strengthened due to your subtype:
base: round ( )
creative: square [ ]
ignoring: rectangle []
demonstrative: oval ()
Last edited by JohnDo; 01-01-2010 at 08:36 PM.
If I focus more on my mobilizing function and less on my suggestive function I get a lot more creative, otherwise I get more accepting.
Tcaudilllg: I'm starting to become interested in all this "shadow" stuff. Are any of Boukalov's writings on the subject accessible on the Internet? I'd like to read up on it.
Quaero Veritas.
It's described in Model B. Jxrtes has provided several translations which are archived here. I also machine-translated an article for Wikisocion. The article that specifically deals with the ego and shadow is called "On the function of consciousness in socionics"
I just noticed that there is another article by Boukalov called "On the Four Type Model", where he describes the tracks. I cannot find it online, however.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
