This article is a much more readable version of the earlier article I translated for wikisocion.
[[xx]]: Poorly translated phrase.
System of DCNH Subtypes
Viktor Gulenko, 2006. подтипов: система DCNH
Original text: ??????? ?. ?. ?????? ????????: ??????? DCNH | ????? ???????????? ?????????
1. The problem of intra-type differences
Why are people of one type so different? This question has long disturbed every sober-minded practitioner of socionics. How can two carriers of one and the same psychological system, which has an identical structure, demonstrate in one and the same situation such different modes of behavior?
Conduct a simple experiment. Gather 3-4 people of a single type, it is unimportant which type their school’s specialist determined. Give them any mutually accessible task (a jointly solved intellectual puzzle or a game or such) and observe their behavior. You will see that in spite of their identical type, some of them will be more active, others more passive, some more resourceful, others more conservative and so on. The most interesting thing is that the greater the number of representatives of the same type gathered, the greater the number of differences will you reveal between them. Thus the depth of the typology is possible to increase even further.
This state of affairs mustn't seem astonishing. Other regions of human perception are analogous. When scrutinizing a surface drawn in primary colors of paint you will, as a rule, see many different nuances. And in the sound of any musical instrument, you can grasp a characteristic overtone – the timbre. The situation is comparable to holding a stamp in your hands, which does not change in the course of time, yet creates a different imprint with every use. So it is, within the psyche of a real person - a carrier of a type - there is always present, in effect, an admixture of some other type. Here I call this admixture "subtype," or variation of the type.
We meet a similar phenomenon in other sciences. Recall isomerism – the ability of a chemical compound, without changing its composition, to form substances with different properties. Subtypes are nothing more than unique psychological isomers. The existence of varieties of a type is a completely normal phenomenon within the framework of a biological outline.
I proposed long ago a sufficiently systematic solution to the problem of intra-type differences near the end of the 1980s. In this report I would like to present a contemporary appraisal of the problem.
Purely theoretically, the subtype problem can be solved in two ways.
The first way lies through the introduction of special dichotomies. With respect to the customary common type dichotomies, they bear a more concrete nature, thus coming out as lower level factors. I call this procedure combinatorial-dichotomous.
The alternate path examines the strengthening of various functions within the framework of the classical sociomodel (Model A). The fact is that the manifestation (and development) of a function is not [always] equal to its position – its hierarchical place within the structure of the psyche. In spite of being equally located, i.e. occupying one and the same position in the sociomodel, functions can have completely different degrees of manifestation. This arrangement, according to the tenets of this approach, forms the subtype’s special behavioral features. This concept, in contrast to the combinatorial-dichotomous approach mentioned above, can be named functional-positional.
The combinatorial-dichotomous and functional-positional methods do not contradict, but rather supplement each other. The specialists of the school of humanitarian socionics, therefore, use both approaches. It all depends on the goals and the purposes of the researcher. There is an additional important preliminary question, which it is not possible to totally bypass: how many subtypes is it necessary to distinguish? The answer is that the quantity of subtypes must not be smaller than the average size of the group with which you are dealing. In small groups – at the lower end of the collective hierarchy – it suffices to distinguish between four to eight subtypes. But if we happen to deal with the whole society, with the entire system of tightly interacting small groups, representing the highest level of communicative organization, then distinguishing the shades and nuances of all 16 sociotypes becomes unavoidable.
2. 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 whom to appoint for different tasks.
Even in personal life, it is now and again necessary to choose in favor of one of several familiar duals. Each of them has different benefits and it is desirable to preserve them all. If you intend to associate with each of them, as contact will be intensive in each case, you must figure out in what priority they should be encountered and the different tasks that can be solved with each. There is no doubt that after failing to arrange priorities, you can bring about chaos into the communicative system, which as a result, in the course of time is destroyed.
2.1 Three pairs of dichotomies
First dichotomy: contact/distance.
The first pole indicates the predominance of the need for contact, and the second the need to maintain distance. Into the contact category will fall clearly expressed extroverts as well as extroverted introverts. Distant will be clearly expressed introverts, but also introverted extroverts – those extroverts who avoid intensive contact. The scale of vertness is thus split into four gradations.
Second dichotomy: terminating/initiating.
I understand terminating as the ability to finish what was started and a tendency towards regulation. Initiating, as the opposite tendency to initiate and to easily move on to something else, with corresponding disorder in matters and affairs. As you see, these are the concrete definitions of the usual dichotomy rationality/irrationality. It would be incorrect to think that in the house of any rational reigns pristine order, that it clearly plans all, and that all irrationals throw everything to the side and are burdened by planning. In reality, two intervening gradations are frequently encountered between these extreme poles.
In the terminating pole belong clearly expressed rationals and orderly irrationals. Initiating behavior is possessed by clearly expressed irrationals and disorderly rationals.
And the third additional dichotomy is connecting/ignoring.
The level of sensitivity to changes in the environment is assumed to be the basis of this scale. Connectors are very sensitive to such changes, whereas ignorers, as the name suggests, are capable of turning no attention towards this.
This polarity is the subtype refinement of the classical dichotomy dynamic/static. Combining these three scales, we obtain the four following subtypes:
* contact, terminal, connecting - dominant subtype (D);
* contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C);
* distant, terminal, ignoring - normalizing subtype (N);
* distant, initial, connecting - harmonizing subtype (H).
2.2 Strengthening the pair of the functions
* Strengthening the linear-energetic functions Te and Fe, whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D).
* Strengthening of the mobile-flexible functions Se and Ne leads to the appearance of a creative subtype (C).
* Strengthening of the balanced-stable functions Ti and Fi gives a normalizing subtype (N).
* Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions Si and Ni engenders a harmonizing subtype (H).
These functions are strengthened precisely in pairs, since they possess close energization (another way of saying they complement each other).
2.3 Models of behavior in autonomous groups
The four subtypes named above can be observed experimentally. This is done with the aid of the observation of the behavioral modes of four participants in autonomous groups of identical types. Dominant will manage the leadership role better than others, Creative – the generator of ideas, Normalizer – the finisher, Harmonizer – the corrector.
The SHS (School of Humanitarian Socionics) working group checked the presence of these informal roles in a whole series of experiments, carried out for a period during 2006. If a group consists of not four, but three people, then one person takes on two roles. Most frequently, leader along with generator of ideas and finisher with harmonizer, since these types are nearer in terms of power engineering. Although in life, any, even improbable, combinations are encountered.
But if the small group consists of different types, then the distribution of roles begins to influence not only subtype, but type factors as well. Our observations testify, however, that the main type, due to the close distance contact, gets pushed into the background.
2.4 Test situations
Subtype can also be revealed through people's fixed behavioral reactions to specialized test situations. After entering into a situation, the subject is forced to manifest such qualities as persistence or resourcefulness, keenness or flexibility. This area of application is only beginning to emerge. The first priority is the selection of tasks, which can be equally and effectively solved using any of the four methods, or, conversely, [[is it clearly specialized in the solution method.]]
3. Do subtypes affect intertype relations?
It goes without saying that their influence is considerable, especially due to the conditions of intensive and close contact within a small space. However, let us first build a system of relationships that appears between the subtypes within the framework of an autonomous four-type group. It is most visibly obtained by describing the two following dichotomies:
* on the presence of a leader: symmetrical relations (equal, without the need for a fixed leader) versus the asymmetric (unequal, require a fixed leader);
* on the direction of the connection: attractive relations versus repellent ones;
* on the place and time of action (additional polarity): sequential relations against relations of parallel action.
I want to emphasize that the above cited characteristics of relations are not extensible abstractions, but sufficiently experimentally checked concrete parameters. Combining these polarities, we obtain the following picture:
* Symmetrical attractive relations. Conditionally this is called subtype duality. They appear between opposite subtypes. They bear a smoothing, harmonizing nature. They are difficult to begin at first, but then partners all the more greatly begin to value the advantages of the division of labor that these relations provide them. The harder the conditions for existence, the more durable they are.
* Symmetrical repellent relations. They are called subtype identity. Their bearing is creative. They appear between identical subtypes. Mutual lift is caused at first, but differences increase in the course of time within the dyad and mutual disappointment begins. Verification of the strength (of the relationship), as a rule, is not performed. They are useful for duplicating, redundancy, preparation for change.
* Asymmetric attractive relations. The working name is subtype benefit. Their nature includes pushing, urging, and one-sided activation. D-subtype prevails over C-subtype. C prevails over N-subtype. Normalizing, in turn, prevails over H-subtype. But harmonizer, by paradoxical means, influences the dominant participant. Thus the circle is locked. These relations are the main accelerators of group dynamics.
* Asymmetric repellent relations. For their designation we will use the code term subtype supervision. They bear the nature of rate setting, retention within the framework, one-sided braking. They are directed in the opposite direction in comparison to benefit. They are useful from the point of view of correction, the correction of errors. Dominant inspects harmonizing. Harmonizing inspects normalizing. Normalizing impedes and corrects creative. And creative - dominant. And here occurs the closing of the outline, only in the reverse direction of the main vector.
But now a few brief conclusions on the specialization of intertype relations:
* identical subtypes contribute to intellectual development (understanding, instruction, the generation of ideas in a region of interest);
* benefit subtypes are most suitable for social activity, intensive work, overall expansion;
* supervision subtypes are specialized for psychological stabilization, the balancing of dreams and reality; they are most suitable for friendship or training;
* dual subtypes offer physical compatibility (lifestyle, intimate relations).