DCNH visual identification

[Hope]

I think DCNH is about the role someone take in a group, its not a change in stacking or functions. Is just an accent.

[The Reality Denialist]

I'm crap when it comes to craniometrical socionics.

Seriously I don't trust myself when it comes to evaluating face shapes. Anyways, I pinned my own down to 2 after serious thinking and comparison.

[nefnaf]

@crAck you are aware that DCNH types can change over the course of a person's life, right? In some cases changes can happen later in life. This basically rules out any 1:1 correlation with face shape

[Bertrand]

it does change daily, just not permanently but most people are in some way dehydrated, bloated, infected with something, sun burnt, on medications, lactose intolerant, had a couple drinks, etc.. change isn't that rare, change is constant, pictures are snapshots of someone in flux. cameras bring their own set of distortions to reality. phrenology already tried to get past all that with precise measurements and ratios. and then it was found to not reliably correlate with anything. the bottom line is someone gives off an impression with their face, but it is a subset of a broader frame set by everything else. by this I mean you can have two different "types" of ILI, the fat one or the skinny one, and then say according to each baseline state one can be DCNH inasmuch as this person has a more square or round deviation from the baseline. the one with the "circle" type could be even more square the the square baseline because DCNH is a modification on the starting position, but we don't know what the starting position is except judged as an average in time. you only get a firm impression of someone over time so to speak. in other words DCNH is relative to the starting point which we do not know and in any case head shape is just a proxy for hormones which are the real actors on facial characteristics. watch someone go on something that significantly disrupts hormones and it becomes obvious. even then DCNH can easily be ascertained by the role people play in a group, like super fast, if you just know how to look, which makes sense because thats what defines DCNH, not head size. honestly I don't even know where that article came from or why you latched onto it so hard

[Bertrand]

it seems odd to me that you're so invested in this aspect of DCNH. gulenko has already pointed out that contact/distance are correlated to hormones, namely that contact is an indicator of testosterone. because contact is by definition the desire to approach and overcome an obstacle rather than run from it. testosterone as well as the other relevant hormones (estrogen/serotonin/dopamine as well as progesterone and vasopressin) all distinctly link up to behavioral patterns and facial characteristics. its the hormones that are common cause. if you draw a direct link between face shape->DCNH its mistaking the proxy for the thing. at best its an unreliable shortcut useful for forming a first impression but subject to many exceptions and says nothing about base type, without which DCNH is somewhat useless as to what it really tells you that isn't already just tautological with DCNH itself, and, moreover, somewhat trivial to establish by other means (the aforementioned direct route via group roles). in other words, high T is dominance behavior (by DCNH) taking command of groups is dominance behavior, etc. you can say this person is D type and its like stating nothing more than what was already obvious, its not really a theory of psychological type in the way base type is (it is a social observation). it doesn't actually go to cognitive functioning because it doesn't establish the baseline order of cognitive functions, it only says for whatever is already there these are accented, but that is by definition and obvious

the idea seems to be something like "but if I know DCNH type I might be able to consider possibilities I'd otherwise not, since a D-ILE could look like a B-XYZ" but they only look alike to begin with if you're presupposing the same superficial criteria to judge. that possible pitfall, or, more accurately, a possibility of a false negative, is one that takes care of itself if you just genuinely get to know the underlying type system. its a worry that takes for granted the premise that the two types look alike to begin with when if you understand both set of factors you can sort them out without trying to rely on a visual heuristic to get at DCNH up front. the justification relies on solving a non problem. its a justification that perpetuates itself inasmuch as it distracts from forming a solid basis. in other words its a closed loop of a way of looking at type that literally perpetuates stereotypes unnecessarily


I would also like to venture the idea that the reason socionics is said to require years of experience more or less regardless of who you are, is because it touches on dimensions of reality spanning the whole gamut of psychological functions, thus everyone has something that can only be integrated via experience and is thus subject to the requirement. although what specifically someone learns as the missing piece via experience differs by individual, it is nevertheless a universal constraint. people come in and think because they have 80% of the theory right off the bat they know enough, but the devil is in that last 20%, they are in many ways unknown unknowns and thats precisely the point of socionics, to acquaint one with their unconscious. i personally continue to learn new stuff everyday and would be embarrassed by my early postings were it not for the fact they were necessary to wind up where I am today, and, more importantly, where I, hopefully, will get to tomorrow