Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: DCNH subtypes by Vera Borisova: Dominant, Creative, Normalizing, Harmonizing

  1. #41
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,105
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you think of this?

    Subtypes and compatibility:

    From most to least compatible:

    Dual subtype > Identical subtype > Subtype you supervise > Subtype who supervises you

    The last two could be switched or could be on an equal compatibility level. I put subtype you supervise as more compatible than the subtype you supervises you for no real good reason other than I'd rather be the supervisor than the supervisee.

    So the order of most compatible to least compatible matches for each DCNH subtype:

    D subtype: N > D > C > H
    C subtype: H > C > N > D
    N subtype: D > N > H > C
    H subtype: C > H > D > N
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  2. #42
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,646
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    What do you think of this?

    Subtypes and compatibility:

    From most to least compatible:

    Dual subtype > Identical subtype > Subtype you supervise > Subtype who supervises you

    The last two could be switched or could be on an equal compatibility level. I put subtype you supervise as more compatible than the subtype you supervises you for no real good reason other than I'd rather be the supervisor than the supervisee.

    So the order of most compatible to least compatible matches for each DCNH subtype:

    D subtype: N > D > C > H
    C subtype: H > C > N > D
    N subtype: D > N > H > C
    H subtype: C > H > D > N
    Yeah, that sounds about right, with the addition of the point that not all Subtype Identicals are created equal: Dominants will clash all the time, Creatives will clash if they are both "on" at the same time, Normalizers with ignore each other, and Harmonizers will try to get along with each other (but it will be kind of boring).

    However, since DCNH subtype deals with external behavioural strategies moreso than internal information processing, subtype relationships tend to be more obvious and therefore less problematic -- in other words, you're less likely to become seriously interested in someone with an incompatible subtype.

    On the other hand, a Conflictor with a compatible subtype is at least initially going to be more appealing than a Conflictor with an incompatible subtype. The same would be true across the board. So there could be some problems there, at least for people who are not familiar with socionics.
    Quaero Veritas.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default hmmm a baffling case of

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    I think you're confusing the two subtype theory with DCNH. With the two subtype theory, there's increased emphasis on either the dominant or the creative function, nothing else. With DCNH it's possible that the increased emphasis is going elsewhere besides the dominant or the creative function. With H subtypes, the increased emphasis is on the demonstrative (8th) and mobilizing (6th) functions.
    I'm fairly certain that DCNH is centered around the idea of extroverted-introverts and introverted extroverts, and the corresponding inter relationships that follow. Implicitly, one type has two different subtypes. The definition of subtypes in DCNH is consistent with the idea of subtypes who have a proficiency for one of their two main ego functions. Typically we understand INTJ to have two subtypes: logical and intuitive. In DCNH INTJ corresponds to have two subytpes: normalizing and creative. To synthesize the two systems means the creative subtype/intuitive subtype is the extroverted-introvert and there're all one and the same subtype only described in two different systems. The article I read from wikosocion made the implication clear without mention of including all eight ego-blocks into the explanation. I'm not sure where you sourced that.

    Either I have confused the subtypes found on other websites to be consistent with DCNH by an act of synthesis or your confused. We can not both be right and both be wrong when were saying different things about the same thing.

  4. #44
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,014
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    I'm fairly certain that DCNH is centered around the idea of extroverted-introverts and introverted extroverts, and the corresponding inter relationships that follow. Implicitly, one type has two different subtypes. The definition of subtypes in DCNH is consistent with the idea of subtypes who have a proficiency for one of their two main ego functions. Typically we understand INTJ to have two subtypes: logical and intuitive. In DCNH INTJ corresponds to have two subytpes: normalizing and creative. To synthesize the two systems means the creative subtype/intuitive subtype is the extroverted-introvert and there're all one and the same subtype only described in two different systems. The article I read from wikosocion made the implication clear without mention of including all eight ego-blocks into the explanation. I'm not sure where you sourced that.

    Either I have confused the subtypes found on other websites to be consistent with DCNH by an act of synthesis or your confused. We can not both be right and both be wrong when were saying different things about the same thing.
    You're fairly wrong here, as DCNH is a four subtype system not by differentiating between two subtypes each of static and dynamic types, but by identifying four subtypes applicable for each type.

    That, in short, means that Harmonizing LII has strengthened Ni (demonstrative) and Si (mobilizing) functions. Creative ILI has strengthened Ne (ignoring) and Se (suggestive). Dominant LSE - Te (base) and Fe (role). Etc.

    System described here obviously differs in that author relates each subtype to strengthening one of the functions of mental ring. I personally think this may be a better approach, not that it makes identifying subtypes any easier without considering them separately for each type.

    There have been attempts at relating DCNH subtypes to more common accepting/producing system, which kind of fail (IMO) because while grouping rational/irrational together makes more sense, introversion/extroversion also makes a difference; in effect, people with strengthened elements in id will probably have troubles identifying with either of two subtypes.

    Gulenko mentions the possibility of there rather being 8 subtypes (i.e. strengthening a particular element, whether by its positioning or not), which would solve these problems, except he then goes further with cross-type theory taking it beyond the subtypes and into a remodeling of socionics. I think I've read somewhere about a different approach by Filatova, but I couldn't find any articles about it.

  5. #45
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,646
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    I'm fairly certain that DCNH is centered around the idea of extroverted-introverts and introverted extroverts, and the corresponding inter relationships that follow. Implicitly, one type has two different subtypes.
    From Gulenko's article on DCNH:

    Isolating four subtypes

    This degree of detail is needed when, for example, you have the problem of selecting one of three-four uniform candidates for a vacant post, or if there are several representatives of the same type which have to work together and it becomes necessary to solve the question of which to appoint for different tasks.
    He's pretty clearly talking about one type having four different subtypes. It's talked about fairly explicitly throughout the article. Are you perhaps thinking of a different article?
    Quaero Veritas.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Okay I can admit when I'm wrong but only if I'm wrong

    Okay time to admit I'm wrong. shit. The article begins with: "Why are people of one type so different?" the answer DCNH. To be intersubjective: is that the right beginning?

  7. #47
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,646
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    Okay time to admit I'm wrong. shit. The article begins with: "Why are people of one type so different?" the answer DCNH. To be intersubjective: is that the right beginning?
    "Right" in what sense?
    Quaero Veritas.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    "Right" in what sense?
    proper/correct/true/the way things are meant to be done/etc.

  9. #49
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,014
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    proper/correct/true/the way things are meant to be done/etc.
    Not something you're going to get in socionics, then. You can say what's right or wrong in context of the specific theory, but it doesn't mean you're meant to use this one - especially true when comparing subtype system, alternative models, and similar.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Krig I know this may come as a shock, but do you think it just might be possible that Gulenko was, on the matter of eight subtypes -- gasp -- WRONG? Flat out wrong? He wouldn't be the first!

  11. #51
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  12. #52
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,646
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    proper/correct/true/the way things are meant to be done/etc.
    Sorry man, I still don't quite understand the question. I feel dumb. Are you asking if the sentence is grammatically correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Krig I know this may come as a shock, but do you think it just might be possible that Gulenko was, on the matter of eight subtypes -- gasp -- WRONG? Flat out wrong? He wouldn't be the first!
    Er -- so you're saying you believe in the four-subtype version of DCNH, but not the eight-subtype version? Why? It seems like a logical extension of the theory to me.
    Quaero Veritas.

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default by process of elimination

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    Not something you're going to get in socionics, then. You can say what's right or wrong in context of the specific theory, but it doesn't mean you're meant to use this one - especially true when comparing subtype system, alternative models, and similar.
    Okay my interest is reality which I take to be singular meaning there is only one reality so when learning different thorhetical models of behaviour, well, I see them all converging like a sperm race and in the end, at the risk of sounding silly but to quote from the movie highlander: "there can only be one".

  14. #54
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  15. #55
    Shytan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII 4w3 Sx/sp
    Posts
    449
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Wont INFj introverted feeling be a dominant subtype?

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    I've read two articles on DCNH subtypes from wikionics* and here is what I can recall:

    They wanted to explain why certain types of the same socionic type exhibit different behaviour along the extroversion and introversion scale. From closer observation the same socionic type found in two people (or more) would manifest differently in terms of their first and secondary function.

    Example: two people of the same type ISFP would not entirely act the same. One person acts extroverted and another acts introverted (hmm...how interesting they thought). They deduced the concept of extroveted-introvert to account for these differences of the same type.

    The concept applies as needed to all introverts who demonstrate extroveted behaviour. Inversely, they realised the same phenomena with extroverts and so deduced the concept of introverted-extroverts. Hence the need for subtypes in addition to socionic typology. I think most of us can mostly agree to this - adimittedly it is a fiction in terms of what type made them realize there is subtypes and to further pursue investigating to other types.

    From memory,

    the dominant types are: ESFJ , ESTJ , ENTJ , ENFJ , ISFP , ISTP , INFP , INTP .

    the normalizing types are: INTJ , INFJ , ISFJ , ISTJ , ENTP , ENFP , ESTP , ESFP .

    Dominant and normalizing are compatible with each other in terms of their way of life and intimate relationships. Honestly not sure what that means yet for socionics as understood on socionics.com. I mean intimate relationships seems to include marriage I would assume. To prioritize amongst these two groups obviously duality would be most favourable but I'm unsure if that remains true when introducing the all other groups.

    the creative types are: INTJ , INFJ , ISFJ , ISTJ , ENTP , ENFP , ESTP , ESFP .

    the harmonizing types are: ESFJ , ESTJ , ENTJ , ENFJ , ISFP , ISTP , INFP , INTP .

    Creative and harmonizing are compatible with each other, so on, ecctera. Like I was mentioning before, I'm not sure if an ESFJ is more compatibile with a INTJ or a ENTP ? Socionics would say INTJ and ESFJ are compatible but DCNH would say ESFJ and ENTP are more compatible - that is my interpretation.

    The article mentions supervision, beneficial and activiation relationships. Familiar terms used in an unfamiliar way.

    Dominants activate creatives, creatives activate normalizing, normalizing activates harmonizers, and harmonizers activates dominants.

    Dominants supervise creatives, creatives supervise normalizing, normalizing supervises harmonizers, and harmonizers supervise dominants.

    Dominants benefit creatives, creatives benefit normalizing, normalizing benefits harmonizers, and harmonizers benefit dominants.

    Try compare that to your understanding of socionic interrelationships. I'm too exhausted and confused as to what it really means for socionics. This is only what I remember, the article gives a brief description of each type and there is more diagrams and relationships mentioned.

    Some people argue if there is such a thing as subtypes and if so, is that a more ideal duality? - according to DCNH yes. However that complicates the socionics.com description of duality alot more than expanding upon it. If DCNH is true then socionics may have some revisions to consider.

    As far as relevancy of enneagram system, at first it appears very general and contrived but then you discover there is wings and instinctual types which accounts for some differences in behaviour of the same type but then there is tri-types, ie. 5-2-9. Unbelievably, some people on the internet have gone through the bother of describing all the different combinations for a 5 tri-type.

    Carl Jung is like the Charles Dawin for psychological types but dame this got way more confusing than evolution (Enneagram is influenced by Carl Jung's typology as is socionics).
    Won't INFj of introverted feeling subtype be a dominant subtype?

    C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •