Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 128

Thread: DCNH Forum Member Typings

  1. #1
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default DCNH Forum Member Typings

    IMO the "dual strengthening" model of DCNH subtypes (the one that claims that the subtype strengthens both functions of the temperament) makes sense of many of the more confusing forum members' types here. Also it accurately explains some of the more obvious stand-out traits of particular forum members.

    For example:

    Me: H EIE
    Joy: H LSE

    Joy and I both have naturally engaged, dominant personalities, and yet we display lots of adaptive, nonstandard type behaviors that have caused both of us a lot of confusion in settling on types. This, according to DCNH theory, is typical of Harmonizing subtypes.

    Maritsa: C EII (many nonstandard viewpoints, erratic behavior, has a "spat"-ish kind of behavior, periodic assertivenes and overconfidence)

    discojoe: D LSI (emphasis on practicality in both lifestyle and beliefs, enjoys having an emotional impact on others)

    Jimbean: C LSI (obviously nonstandard beliefs, confusion with EP temperament)

    strrng: N IEI (increased focus on direct logic and harsh judgments of people)

    Pinnochio: C LSI (stubborn, often excessively assertive or stubborn, but also holds some fairly out there/absurd beliefs

    Ashton: C LIE (can have a blithely over-assertive presence, holds non-standard viewpoints)

    tcaudilllg: C LII (nonstandard viewpoints, sometimes commanding and insistant but generally displays behavior consistent with Se PoLR)

    For those who aren't familiar with DCNH theory:

    System of DCNH Subtypes - Wikisocion
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wonder if a lot of people on this forum are Cs.

  3. #3
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Joy and I both have naturally engaged, dominant personalities, and yet we display lots of adaptive, nonstandard type behaviors that have caused both of us a lot of confusion in settling on types. This, according to DCNH theory, is typical of Harmonizing subtypes.
    I thought that was C subtype.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  4. #4
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,956
    Mentioned
    137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    15 Thread(s)

    Default

    you're comparing yourself to joy. gross!

  5. #5
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    I thought that was C subtype.
    Well we're both EJ temperament with H subtype; that's what I was getting at.

    H is the one that under-expresses type-specific behavior.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  6. #6
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess I'd be uh, N?
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    I guess I'd be uh, N?
    Nah, you'd be an H.


    GET IT?

  8. #8
    <something> Wynch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a Hill
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Judging by the breakdown of the dichotomies for each subtype, I would expect to be a C sub-type. That said D-ILE would explain a lot of the reasons why I waffle towards EXE. I'm certainly either D or C.

    I'm not particularly familiar with DCNH to do anything beyond applying what I've just read of the theory. Any thoughts/suggestions Gilly?
    ILE
    7w8 so/sp

    Very busy with work. Only kind of around.

  9. #9
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    IMO the "dual strengthening" model of DCNH subtypes (the one that claims that the subtype strengthens both functions of the temperament) makes sense of many of the more confusing forum members' types here. Also it accurately explains some of the more obvious stand-out traits of particular forum members.
    It is almost impossible to type other people on the internet so subtyping them doesn't make sense to me at all. Last year I also tried to type and subtype people here but without V.I. it just doesn't work...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Joy and I both have naturally engaged, dominant personalities, and yet we display lots of adaptive, nonstandard type behaviors that have caused both of us a lot of confusion in settling on types. This, according to DCNH theory, is typical of Harmonizing subtypes.
    Not necessarily. You frequently considered ILE as your base type so chances are good that, using complete subtypes, you are EIE-ILE, actually. That would make you a C-EIE in DCNH.

    This typing is even consistent with the V.I. pattern I discovered: Your face is something like a thin oval which means that the base function of your subtype should be the demonstrative function of your base type. is ILE's base function and EIE's demonstrative function, indeed...

    btw: ILE-EIE is not possible because EIE's base function, Fe, is ILE's mobilizing function which would lead to a broad or piriform oval...

  10. #10
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    I thought that was C subtype.
    C subtype said something close to it. It was supposed to be the "most ambiguous" regarding regular type. H was more adapting to the needs of others.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  11. #11
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i don't believe in that subtype theory. it lacks parsimony.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  12. #12
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vero View Post
    Judging by the breakdown of the dichotomies for each subtype, I would expect to be a C sub-type. That said D-ILE would explain a lot of the reasons why I waffle towards EXE. I'm certainly either D or C.

    I'm not particularly familiar with DCNH to do anything beyond applying what I've just read of the theory. Any thoughts/suggestions Gilly?
    I would tend towards D for you: with more pronounced rational characteristics, less overt impulsiveness, more grounded, consistent energy, a side of EJ makes sense. Also you don't really have the same sort of nervousness/giddiness as C-ILEs; I had one for a roommate, and she had this very sort of anxious pressure about her coupled with a sort of natural carefree-ness and tendency towards impulsivity, whereas you seem vastly more "in control" and self-possessed by comparison.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  13. #13
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    psychosis
    I'll pass.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  14. #14
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I'm a C. Possibly H
    Last edited by stanprollyright; 08-10-2010 at 12:52 AM.
    Stan is not my real name.

  15. #15
    star stuff April's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    chatbox
    TIM
    NG human sorcerer
    Posts
    917
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    C here. Looks like I'm in good company.

  16. #16
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,931
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I am making sense of all this correctly, I am probably a N or a H...but it really depends on how I intepret my behaviour.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  17. #17
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,321
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I finally got around to reading the OPs link. I can't say that it's cleared anything up for me.

    It says that there are three dichotomies:

    First dichotomy: contact/distance.
    The first pole indicates the predominance of the need for contact, and the second the need to maintain distance.

    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.

    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.
    I have a difficult time figuring out the first (probably due to the sx/sp thing?). I feel a combination of both needing/desiring contact, while at the same time needing/desiring distance.

    Initiating is an easy one. I desire the ability to finish what I've started, but I rarely do it. And when I do, it's a HUGE thing for me. Usually, I start something, get an idea and start something else, get distracted and start something else, etc etc etc. It's only been within the past 4 years or so that I've started cycling through initiating the same types of projects. Such that for those projects I've started working on "next step" actions so that I've got the room to quickly switch projects, while still feeling that SOMEthing is getting done towards the achievement of a project.

    The third dichotomy is an easy one too. Possibly due to my history, I'm quite sensitive to changes in my environment, and in those close to me.

    So, if by going by the dichotomies:
    split on contact/distance
    initiating
    connecting


    According to the linked site:


    • contact, terminal, connecting - dominant subtype (D);
    • contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C);
    • distant, terminal, ignoring - normalizing subtype (N);
    • distant, initial, connecting - harmonizing subtype (H)
    This would put me as a harmonizing subtype.

    Why are there no subtypes of
    contact, initial, connecting?
    contact, terminal, ignoring?
    distant, terminal, connecting?
    distant, initial, ignoring?
    If you have three dichotomies, that leads to 8 options, not 4.

    So then I look at:

    • Strengthening the linear-energetic functions , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D).
    • Strengthening of the mobile-flexible functions leads to the appearance of a creative subtype (C).
    • Strengthening of the balanced-stable functions gives a normalizing subtype (N).
    • Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions engenders a harmonizing subtype (H).
    If Strengthening means what I think it means, then I'd say that
    I don't understand what it means to strengthen "linear-energetic" functions..
    I already feel quite mobile-flexible that there's no need to strengthen those functions.. (the two disorder labels I have are linked with an 'overabundance' of this, actually)
    I feel very unbalanced and unstable and have put in time trying to strengthen those functions.. (to help balance the previous 'overabundance' above)
    I feel quite comfortable with how receptive-adaptive I am, so no need to strengthen those functions.

    This would place me as a normalizing subtype instead.


    So then I look at the descriptions given:
    Dominant will manage the leadership role better than others,
    Creative – the generator of ideas,
    Normalizer – the finisher,
    Harmonizer – the corrector
    I suck at managing and finishing anything, so not D nor N.
    I'm not very good at correcting, so not H.
    I'm much more comfortable generating ideas with others, so C.


    then:
    Any type of behavior that has as its priority the satisfaction of common group needs can be both primary and secondary. Primary needs are needs of a concrete, current nature (food, health, shelter, family, intimacy and so forth). Secondary needs are deep, lofty (a quick promotion, social status, spiritual peace, knowledge and so on). Questionnaires with the use of this scale have yet to be created.
    Experimentally these subtypes are derived through their internal role within an octal group of identicals.

    • Dominating, along the primary axis generates the intragroup role of the motivator (psychologists call this the informal leader), and along the secondary axis role - the engine (formal leader).
    • Creative, along the primary axis acquires for itself the role of contactor, and on the secondary the role of group innovator.
    • Normalizing along the primary axis is the conscience of the group, and along the secondary its coordinator.
    • And finally, primary harmonization leads to the role of decorator, and secondary to the role of expert.
    motivator, informal leader, yes..I played this role quite often up until I had my daughter
    formal leader no.
    contactor, no i don't think so
    innovator, no, i don't consider myself creative enough to be an innovator
    conscience of the group...preferably not
    coordinator, hell no
    decorator, lol not
    expert, lol not


    and finally
    Here I derive the following patterns...
    • Strengthening function forms demonstrative-artistic behavior. Corresponds to primary domination through emotional pressure, the skill to inspire or frighten. Primary domination in animals is connected to bright colors, cries, expressive mimicry and gestures.
    • Strengthening function forms the lingering behavior. This method of domination is secondary. This is the business leader, who persistently and emphatically gets his own way.

    Both these models of behavior are frequently encountered together, being combined through the role mask. This bears out the fact that domination, although it is manifested through two varieties, is nevertheless a one-piece process.
    no, and no




    • Strengthening function forms excitable behavior. This treats creativity as primary and instinctive. It gives nonstandard, rapid solutions during extreme, critical (for survival) situations.
    • Strengthening function forms affective-labile behavior. This is secondary creativity, connected to intellectual fantasy, nonstandard ideas, directed not towards output based on dead-end situations, but to the solutions of future problems.

    Both these functions frequently work together as two sides of a united innovation-introductory process.
    I don't quite get the first. I'm already excitable, and I already tend to give nonstandard 'rapid' solutions for situations. So it's not limited to survival/critical situations.
    The second is natural every day behavior, not something that's consciously strengthened or such. There's no need for me to strengthen it, it's already like breathing. So maybe I don't understand what "strengthening functions" means.





    • Strengthening function gives alarming-over-anxious behavior. This is the primary-axis setting, which does not require formal commitment to traditional rules.
    • Strengthening function leads to the formation of formal-pedantic behavior. It is secondary in nature in response to the satisfaction of common group needs. It is based on regulation, instruction and official laws.

    Both these models of behavior can act together, strengthening each other. Conscientiousness and pedantic relation to one's responsibilities are considered two sides of normalizing behavior.
    Again I feel that I don't understand what "strengthening function" means, as to me, strengthening Fi reduces the over-anxious behavior that I have a tendency towards. But I'm not formally committing to traditional rules, ...and I'm not sure how that fit in on the descriptions.
    I also don't get the second one.





    • Strengthening function is responsible for the formation of asthenoneurotic behavior. This is primary, vital harmonization, connected to the value of solid comfort.
    • Strengthening function forms shut-off, self-submerged, up to autistic behavior. This is secondary harmonization in terms of a spiritual-mental plan.

    Both these models of behavior are equivalent, i.e. they are frequently developed together and strengthen each other. It is well known that for the meditation of the mind it is necessary to relax the body.
    The first seems kinda natural/desirable, who wouldn't want it? :wink:
    The second doesn't seem to fit.




    So, basically, I haven't a f'n clue what the heck the DCNH stuff is supposed to be describing. The OP's link didn't help clear it up for me, either. Reading it feels like reading a bunch of random stuff that got thrown together willy-nilly. Seeing that others grasp it..or claim to...doesn't do much for my self-confidence.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  18. #18
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,723
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm D.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  19. #19
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,931
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    So, basically, I haven't a f'n clue what the heck the DCNH stuff is supposed to be describing. The OP's link didn't help clear it up for me, either. Reading it feels like reading a bunch of random stuff that got thrown together willy-nilly. Seeing that others grasp it..or claim to...doesn't do much for my self-confidence.
    I don't grasp it either...or see much of a point.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  20. #20
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Strange, it seems to make everything fit perfectly to me.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Strange, it seems to make everything fit perfectly to me.
    Yes, it explains why I am so bizarre, for example.

  22. #22
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    I don't grasp it either...or see much of a point.
    I think I grasp it as much as I care to, but I still don't see the point, either. The whole thing is based on these dichotomies that are even more vague than Reinins, some of which basically exist already as regular type dichotomies. So there are dynamic statics and extroverted introverts, huh? Kind of silly. And the other big problem I see is that your subtype simultaneously strengthens two opposing functions (both Ni and Si, for example). Maybe I'm misunderstanding that part and your subtype only strengthens one of those two, but then why aren't there 8 subtypes, one for each element? And it doesn't address the idea that by focusing on one function you neglect others.
    Stan is not my real name.

  23. #23
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    Nah, you'd be an H.


    GET IT?
    I do not.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  24. #24
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,321
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is anyone in the know gonna answer my question?

    Why are there no subtypes of

    • contact, initial, connecting?
    • contact, terminal, ignoring?
    • distant, terminal, connecting?
    • distant, initial, ignoring?

    If you combine three dichotomies, that leads to 8 options, not 4.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Is anyone in the know gonna answer my question?

    Why are there no subtypes of

    • contact, initial, connecting?
    • contact, terminal, ignoring?
    • distant, terminal, connecting?
    • distant, initial, ignoring?

    If you combine three dichotomies, that leads to 8 options, not 4.
    Why there need to be?

  26. #26
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,321
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    Why there need to be?
    because if the theory is actually built off of 3 sets of dichotomies, that gives 8 options, not 4?
    because by deleting the other half, the theory risks cutting out people who might identify with one of those 4?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  27. #27
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The theory is built on two dichotomies:

    contact / distance = extroversion / introversion
    terminating / initiating = rational / irrational

    The other dichotomy: connecting / ignoring = dynamic / static is derived by combining the first two, since

    (extroversion + rational) OR (introversion + irrational) = dynamic
    (introversion + rational) OR (extroversion + irrational) = static

    So there are only two basic or unique dichotomies, meaning: 2 x 2 = 4 possible combinations.

    Additionally, you can derive any one of those dichotomies from the other pair. So, for example, extroversion / introversion can be derived from dynamic / static and rational / irrational.

    I hope that answers your question.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  28. #28
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,321
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    The theory is built on two dichotomies:

    contact / distance = extroversion / introversion
    terminating / initiating = rational / irrational

    The other dichotomy: connecting / ignoring = dynamic / static is derived by combining the first two, since

    (extroversion + rational) OR (introversion + irrational) = dynamic
    (introversion + rational) OR (extroversion + irrational) = static

    So there are only two basic or unique dichotomies, meaning: 2 x 2 = 4 possible combinations.

    Additionally, you can derive any one of those dichotomies from the other pair. So, for example, extroversion / introversion can be derived from dynamic / static and rational / irrational.

    I hope that answers your question.
    This helped, yes.
    It's a shame that the linked site didn't mention this.

    Doesn't change the confusion I had regarding the rest of it, heh.
    But thank you, jxrtes.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  29. #29
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's OK, Gulenko shouldn't have stupidly assumed that people would know about the underlying systematization behind the Reinin dichotomies.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  30. #30
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    Yes, it explains why I am so bizarre, for example.
    Yeah it does
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  31. #31
    Creepy-male

    Default

    I think Isha is a Harmonizing ILE. It would probably explain her fairly restricted, mild presentation on the forums, which is quite at odds with the silly, upbeat Isha whose company I ruthlessly exploit enjoy in real life. She's also patently EP, in that she's always doing or thinking about something. Or fidgeting.

    Similarly for me and being a Creative SEI. Even though I project a great deal of expressive energy, I think I check every IP box, in terms of being quite comfortable at very low levels of activity or energy, being flexible in the extreme (in how I respond to situations, and in how I move--I recall Isha describing me as being rather catlike).

    I suppose C-sub also explains this "weirdness" I apparently have that Isha keeps talking about. Dee might possibly have been a Creative subtype as well, but he was before my time unfortunately, I only know that Isha thinks I'm his clone.

  32. #32
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah C subs are usually the most "overtly weird" people, IMO. My brother-in-law is C-ESE and he is strange as fuck.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  33. #33
    <something> Wynch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a Hill
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    I would tend towards D for you: with more pronounced rational characteristics, less overt impulsiveness, more grounded, consistent energy, a side of EJ makes sense. Also you don't really have the same sort of nervousness/giddiness as C-ILEs; I had one for a roommate, and she had this very sort of anxious pressure about her coupled with a sort of natural carefree-ness and tendency towards impulsivity, whereas you seem vastly more "in control" and self-possessed by comparison.
    Thanks for the input. I guess you could create the contrast between C and D between two people like Riddy and I?
    ILE
    7w8 so/sp

    Very busy with work. Only kind of around.

  34. #34
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, Riddy is probably a good example of C-ILE.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  35. #35
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,321
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    The theory is built on two dichotomies:

    contact / distance = extroversion / introversion
    terminating / initiating = rational / irrational

    The other dichotomy: connecting / ignoring = dynamic / static is derived by combining the first two, since

    (extroversion + rational) OR (introversion + irrational) = dynamic
    (introversion + rational) OR (extroversion + irrational) = static

    So there are only two basic or unique dichotomies, meaning: 2 x 2 = 4 possible combinations.

    Additionally, you can derive any one of those dichotomies from the other pair. So, for example, extroversion / introversion can be derived from dynamic / static and rational / irrational.

    I hope that answers your question.
    After sleeping on it, my mind popped up a question.
    If connecting is defined as: being sensitive to changes in the environment...
    couldn't that also be describing extroversion?

    I guess I'm just not seeing how:

    the need for contact
    + a tendency to initiate then move on to something else
    = lack of attention of changes in environment

    nor how

    the need for contact
    + sensitivity to changes in the environment
    = the ability to finish what was started, and a tendency towards regulation


    Trying to make sense of this part of the theory....
    If I were to describe my most natural self, using the the definitions given, I would say that

    • I spontaneously initiate contact with others, with objects, with my environment, but when the insecurities hit is when I then seek some distance from it, but the distance seeking is a learned thing, and not natural for me. (as I said, it seems awfully connected to the sx/sp thing for me)
    • I tend to initiate new things and then easily move on to something else. I desire to finish what I've started, but I don't. On the rare occasions that I do, I get so excited that I call those closest to me to share my joy with them, lol. For years I tried to be more of a finisher, but it causes much stress when I do. However, I'm learning how to make better use of the tendency to initiate rather than finish. (we're talking...even just finishing the dishes without getting distracted is a pretty big deal to me, ..and finishing a thought before moving on to a new one? hah!)
    • I'm sensitive to changes in my environment. I often feel overwhelmed because I can't seem to push out my awareness of it to concentrate on what's immediately before me. The only time that I feel relaxed and less overwhelmed about all the environmental input is when I'm walking on a trail where there are less things moving, less sounds, less cluttering sights, etc. (However, this may also be a learned thing, due to having had to be hyper-aware as a teenager. Yet I still don't see how it might not just be another description of extroversion.)

    But according to this theory, I can't be all that?
    It leads me to think that there's something off about the theory.

    Let's see, according to this I'm what...a "dynamic EP (with static info processing)" that quickly switches between that and IP at any given moment?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  36. #36
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What you write sounds like C subtype; the connecting thing could just be extreme Si valuing/seeking. Connecting is about more than just your immediate environment, but also your more general circumstances and how they relate to your internal flux.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  37. #37
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,321
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    What you write sounds like C subtype; the connecting thing could just be extreme Si valuing/seeking. Connecting is about more than just your immediate environment, but also your more general circumstances and how they relate to your internal flux.
    the connecting thing is actually more closely related to Fe for me, and how I go about figuring out the general circumstances and how it relates to my internal flux is via Fi, not Si.

    how does what I said, though, fit in with

    • Strengthening the linear-energetic functions , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D).
    • Strengthening of the mobile-flexible functions leads to the appearance of a creative subtype (C).
    • Strengthening of the balanced-stable functions gives a normalizing subtype (N).
    • Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions engenders a harmonizing subtype (H).
    ?

    As I said before, I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't understand what it means when it talks about "strengthening the [] functions". But how does what I said suggest a strengthening of mobile-flexible functions? You attributed it to Si, I can sort of see how as a teen I had to strengthen my receptivity and adaptivity to survive the environment I was in.

    And after leaving that environment, that heightened receptivity and adaptivity caused all sorts of problems, causing me to later start seeking some sense of balance and stability, which has I said before has lead to working on strengthening Fi/Ti functions.



    Hmmm, does one's DCNH subtype change over time?
    Like, I guess I could make sense of it if as a teen I had to strengthen the receptive-adaptive functions...making me an H subtype as a teen.
    But after leaving home, that adaptation interfered with normal life and normal environments, forcing me to seek to strengthen the balanced-stable functions.

    This could also explain why some people on this forum see me as a base Fi type when those who actually know and interact with me know that there's no way in hell that I am any J type nor Introvert.

    Or it could mean other things, as well as have no meaning, .
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  38. #38
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well it is my general belief that Subtype is typically an adaptive behavior, at least to some degree. I don't know about it changing, though; can't rule it out entirely, but I don't exactly see convincing evidence for it.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  39. #39
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,321
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Well it is my general belief that Subtype is typically an adaptive behavior, at least to some degree. I don't know about it changing, though; can't rule it out entirely, but I don't exactly see convincing evidence for it.
    You didn't answer my question about how what i had said (that you called C subtype) fit with the strengthening functions quote thingy.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  40. #40
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vero View Post
    Judging by the breakdown of the dichotomies for each subtype, I would expect to be a C sub-type. That said D-ILE would explain a lot of the reasons why I waffle towards EXE. I'm certainly either D or C.

    I'm not particularly familiar with DCNH to do anything beyond applying what I've just read of the theory. Any thoughts/suggestions Gilly?
    Just from watching your video I think you're D. It's always nice to see ILE with subtype duality to me.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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