Gulenko's IE subtype system

[JohnDo]

DCNH is starting to bore me. It explains a lot and everyone should be familiar with it but I came to the conclusion that people of the same type and same DCNH subtype are not in all cases real doubles.

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

From now on I will use Gulenko's system with 8 subtypes. I don't know its official name or if it even got one. I will call it "IE subtype system" because it works with the information elements as tokens for the subtypes.

Unfortunately, there is not much information available. In this DCNH article there is a brief passage about it. Does anyone know if there can be found more information about it anywhere?

In this thread I described how to distinguish between DCNH subtypes by V.I. - this method works, believe it or not. Even more interesting: IE subtypes can also be distinguished by facial structure but it is hard to do that because the differences are subtle:

For the DCNH subtype system I discovered the following pattern:
base+role: circle
creative+vulnerable: square
ignoring+suggestive: rectangle
demonstrative+mobilizing: oval

This can be described more detailed for the IE subtype system:
base: circle
creative: square
role: angular circle
vulnerable: rounded square
suggestive: broad rectangle
mobilizing: broad oval
ignoring: thin rectangle
demonstrative: thin oval

[Aiss]

DCNH is starting to bore me. It explains a lot and everyone should be familiar with it but I came to the conclusion that people of the same type and same DCNH subtype are not in all cases real doubles.

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

You'll have to go back to "everyone is unique".

[JohnDo]

You'll have to go back to "everyone is unique".

Of course everyone is unique but I want to have a typology with 64, 128 or 256 types where two people of the same type, age and gender look like twins...

In total I met 22 persons of that type, so I figured 22 diveded by 2,5 was most close to 8 and not 16.

Yes, a system with 128 types seems to be appropriate. With only 64 types there are still visible differences...

I'm still figuring out, what makes them a separate catagory.

Just try it with IE subtypes and the pattern I detected. I'm sure it works like that. Maybe my descriptions ("angular circle", "square with rounded corners") are a bit confusing but I will post some pictures of celebrities to make it clear...

I suggest you move to a gradient subtype system. With six billion people in the world, I'm gonna guess there might be perhaps 5 other people like any given person, so you need a billion different types...

No, I don't think so. What I understand from it, "types" are categories which can be distinguished. Sooner or later we will arrive at a system where it is not possible to increase the number of types further because distinguishing between more types would be impossible. Some months ago I thought it was 64. Now I know that I was wrong and 128 types can be distinguished. At the moment I don't know if there are 256 types - but I will probably know it in some months...

You want a system like that? Good luck even if it is impossible because socionics doesn't explain everything about people.

Socionics only explains inborn characteristics of humans. Even with 128 types everyone is unique because everyone lives his own unique life...

[JohnDo]

* Domination along the primary axis generates the intragroup role of the motivator (psychologists call this the informal leader), and along secondary axis - role engine (formal leader).
* Creative along the primary axis contributes the acquisition to itself of the role of contactor, and on the secondary - role of group innovator.
* Normalizing along primary axis in a given role is the conscience of the group, and along the secondary - coordinator.
* And finally, primary harmonization leads to the role of decorator, and secondary - expert.

So the 8 subtypes have the following names:

--- motivator
--- leader
--- contactor
--- innovator
--- conscience
--- coordinator
--- decorator
--- expert

Let's have a look at some celebrities. I will start with INTj:

code --- subtype element --- type --- subtype function --- facial structure

Ti-INTj --- --- Coordinating Analyst --- base function --- circle:
Colin Powell


Ne-INTj --- --- Innovating Analyst --- creative function --- sqare:
Al Gore


Fi-INTj --- --- Conscientuous Analyst --- role function --- angular circle:
Frank Walter Steinmeier


Se-INTj --- --- Contacting Analyst --- vulnerable function --- rounded square:
Stefan Raab


Fe-INTj --- --- Motivating Analyst --- suggestive function --- broad rectangle:
Vladimir Putin


Si-INTj --- --- Decorating Analyst --- mobilizing function --- broad oval:
Ludwig van Beethoven


Te-INTj --- --- Leading Analyst --- ignoring function --- thin rectangle:
Christian Rach


Ni-INTj --- --- Expert Analyst --- demonstrative function --- thin oval:
Carl Jung

[JohnDo]

Some ISTJs:

Ti-ISTj --- --- Coordinating Inspector --- base function --- circle:
Heinrich Himmler:


Se-ISTj --- --- Contacting Inspector --- creative function --- square:
Alexander Lukaschenko


Ni-ISTj --- --- Expert Inspector --- mobilizing function --- broad oval:
Hans Eichel

[JohnDo]

Some ESTjs:

Ne-ESTj --- --- Innovating Director --- mobilizing function --- broad oval:
George W. Bush


Ni-ESTj --- --- Expert Director --- vulnerable function --- rounded square:
Joseph Stalin

[Jarno]

So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

now we're talking.

You encounter twins (copies) among types sometimes.

My method how I arrived at 8 subtypes was:
I've written down a particular type of who I know most of, and looked at one particular twin subset.
I knew 4 of them. Then there was another twin subset, I knew 3 of them. Etc. On average I knew about 2,5.
In total I met 22 persons of that type, so I figured 22 diveded by 2,5 was most close to 8 and not 16.

I'm still figuring out, what makes them a separate catagory. But that copies or twins exist, is an observable fact, if you know a lot of people of one particular type.

another important thing to keep in mind is the difference in accepting and producing. That still holds. So you have 4 accepting and 4 producing subtypes.

[Brilliand]

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

I suggest you move to a gradient subtype system. With six billion people in the world, I'm gonna guess there might be perhaps 5 other people like any given person, so you need a billion different types... that's 30 dichotomies. An 8-subtypes system will only have 7 dichotomies... Tcaudian dual-types+function (8) subtypes take us up to 11. Smilexian types are immediately infinite in number, though you could probably convert his system into a 4-subtype system (strong concrete, weak concrete, weak abstract, strong abstract) without much loss.

One thing that has a huge, not-type-related effect on personality is association of functions with physical objects/events... so make sure that these odd associations (i.e. ice cream reminding someone of their mean older brother) aren't being included in your typing system, or you'll never reduce people to a reasonable number of categories.

[The Exception]

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

Even identical twins don't always share the same socionics type.

[JohnDo]

Let's see how intertype relations work in the EM subtype system:

For the DCNH system Gulenko claims that "subtype duality" is the best relation:
Dominant with Normalizing: ---
Harmonizing with Creative: ---

For the IE subtype system it is quite obvious how it works theoretically:
Leader with Conscience: ---
Motivator with Coordinator: ---
Innovator with Decorator: ---
Contactor with Expert: ---

Just like in classical socionics where -base is -dual-seekig and so on...

I definitely know that I am an Expert Analyst (Ni-INTj) and that I find Contacting Enthusiasts (Se-ESFj) most attractive of all 128 types. Evolutionary psychologically it is clear that the perfect match must be the most atractive person - evolution didn't make mistakes there I think...

Some people don't need socionics because they just choose the most attractive partner which is naturally a good choice. But some months ago I didn't even know which type of woman I find most attractive. Socionics helps a lot to find out what kinds of humans even exist...

Note that perfect matches have the same facial structure: Both Ni-INTj and Se-ESFj have a face which I call a "thin oval".

Even identical twins don't always share the same socionics type.

That is something I do not believe until I see it.

[FDG]

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

Well, take into account enneagram type and place of origin (not just race! you need to be of the same, uhm, "body type") and you get closer.

Your system is kind of whacky, though. Those people aren't even that similar...

[JohnDo]

Well, take into account enneagram type and place of origin (not just race! you need to be of the same, uhm, "body type") and you get closer.

Your system is kind of whacky, though. Those people aren't even that similar...

What do you mean? It is very difficult to find people of the same type when working with 128. But Churchill and Göring are clearly Expert Conquerers and they somehow look like twins, don't they?

[Brilliand]

What's that "broad rectangle," "thing oval," "oblong world-eating triangle" stuff at the ends of the types in your earlier posts?

[JohnDo]

What's that "broad rectangle," "thing oval," "oblong world-eating triangle" stuff at the ends of the types in your earlier posts?

That's just what this thread is all about: the facial structure, what else should it be?! The reason for this thread is that I want to explain how to determine IE subtypes by V.I....

Brilliand, I'd like to guess: Is it correct that your face rather looks like a circle?

[Brilliand]

That's just what this thread is all about: the facial structure, what else should it be?! The reason for this thread is that I want to explain how to determine IE subtypes by V.I....

Brilliand, I'd like to guess: Is it correct that your face rather looks like a circle?

No, not really... more of a long oval.

[The Exception]

That's just what this thread is all about: the facial structure, what else should it be?! The reason for this thread is that I want to explain how to determine IE subtypes by V.I....

Brilliand, I'd like to guess: Is it correct that your face rather looks like a circle?

JohnDo, how come we never get to see your face?