Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Plus/Minus (+/-) Signs and DCNH

  1. #1
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Plus/Minus (+/-) Signs and DCNH

    Gulenko believes (at least as far back as the 90s, so things may have changed) that if someone values +Ne, they also value -Ni at the id level, but devalue -Ne and +Ni and never use either. +Ne and -Ni complement each other energetically, so there's no friction in using them side by side and no incompatibility (as between +Ne and +Ni /or/ the classical Ne and Ni).

    So an ILE's ego: +Ne -Ti would be complimented by -Ni +Te in the id (id is the level of basic survival with the strong functions you use for daily chores - he calls it vital harmonization - whereas the ego is an area of creativity and higher goals, usually; though I suppose it's possible that there exist really practically minded people of any type who use even their ego functions less abstractly).


    When DCNH is discussed on his website, people don't talk about an ILE Si or Fe subtype. They talk about an ILE Ni or Te subtype. It's your strong functions that get effected, so clubs get grouped together. A way to explain that maybe by assuming they break the subtypes down for ILE like this:

    +Ne-ILE, -Ti-ILE, +Te-ILE, -Ni-ILE, whereas +Ni-ILE would be too incompatible and energy intensive to ever form into a stable structure.
    Gulenko's descriptions on +/-: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...o-gulenko.html

    No clue if this is right, but it makes sense superficially at least.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Gulenko believes (at least as far back as the 90s, so things may have changed) that if someone values +Ne, they also value -Ni at the id level, but devalue -Ne and +Ni and never use either. +Ne and -Ni complement each other energetically, so there's no friction in using them side by side and no incompatibility (as between +Ne and +Ni /or/ the classical Ne and Ni).

    So an ILE's ego: +Ne -Ti would be complimented by -Ni +Te in the id (id is the level of basic survival with the strong functions you use for daily chores - he calls it vital harmonization - whereas the ego is an area of creativity and higher goals, usually; though I suppose it's possible that there exist really practically minded people of any type who use even their ego functions less abstractly).
    I think it was Boukalov who made the original discovery of that, not Gulenko. What you're talking about is Model B.

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, this has been discussed before on the forum (the part not involving subtypes at least).

    Here's another view of it: according to this theory you can attribute common values between adjacent quadras to both the Rational and the Irrational function axis.

    For example:
    Alpha and Delta share Si and Ne values, but also share values of Ti-/Te+ and Fi+/Fe-. The former attributes the shared values to the Irrational axis, the latter attributes it to the Rational axis.

    It is useful to have a sepparate symbol for the function values that are shared. Ti- and Te+ are both held by Taciturn Logical types, so it could be refered to as Taciturn Logic.

    I would find it interesting if these symbols (Taciturn/Narrator + N/T/S/F) would become as popular as Ti, Fe, Se, etc. If Gulenko is right that this value system exists, they may have that potential. Of course, it is not given that the strength of the two value systems is equal.

    This value system also made me come up with a secundary type club/quadra chain...

    The original chain that is used by various posters on the forum (for example, Smilingeyes):
    INTj ISTj ISFj INFj INTj (shared strong valued regular function)
    New chain:
    INTj ESTj ISFj ENFj INTj (shared strong valued Taciturn/Narrator function)

    Aka, "type change" from INTj to ESTj is possible through the Taciturn Logic function. I don't believe in permanent type change, but type changes on a micro level sometimes help understand the processes of the functions better.

    The theory makes Taciturn/Narrator look much more important than it has seemed to me so far. In the chain, it is on the same level as Static/Dynamic (contestant for most important dichotomy, rivalled only be Rational/Irrational).

  4. #4
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I think it was Boukalov who made the original discovery of that, not Gulenko. What you're talking about is Model B.
    I don't know anything about Model B and I'm only relaying what Gulenko believes about them, whether or not Model B is involved.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

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

    Default

    The original chain that is used by various posters on the forum (for example, Smilingeyes):
    INTj ISTj ISFj INFj INTj (shared strong valued regular function)
    New chain:
    INTj ESTj ISFj ENFj INTj (shared strong valued Taciturn/Narrator function)

    Aka, "type change" from INTj to ESTj is possible through the Taciturn Logic function. I don't believe in permanent type change, but type changes on a micro level sometimes help understand the processes of the functions better.
    That would certainly make Gulenko's belief in a changing DCNH type a candidate for what smilingeyes observed. Even if the DCNH subtype descriptions and attributions to the element definitions turn out to be a crock, the idea that someone can fixate for long periods on functions not normally done so by his type while retaining many of his other type characteristics, and allowing that fixation to change, isn't a bad one.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  6. #6
    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 jxrtes View Post
    Gulenko believes (at least as far back as the 90s, so things may have changed) that if someone values +Ne, they also value -Ni at the id level, but devalue -Ne and +Ni and never use either.
    This "never use either" stuff reminds me of model X. I think everyone uses everything from time to time. People just have a different focus...

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    When DCNH is discussed on his website, people don't talk about an ILE Si or Fe subtype. They talk about an ILE Ni or Te subtype. It's your strong functions that get effected, so clubs get grouped together.
    Some months ago I also thought DCNH rather affected strong functions but it's not true as far as I can judge it. DCNH can be expanded to 16 subtypes: An ILE-SEI does not have stronger but slightly weaker Ni than an average ILE, even though he is an H-ILE in DCNH...

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    A way to explain that maybe by assuming they break the subtypes down for ILE like this: +Ne-ILE, -Ti-ILE, +Te-ILE, -Ni-ILE, whereas +Ni-ILE would be too incompatible and energy intensive to ever form into a stable structure.
    If we use 16 subtypes: what about an ILE-IEE? ILE's base is +Ne, IEE's base is -Ne...

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    That would certainly make Gulenko's belief in a changing DCNH type a candidate for what smilingeyes observed. Even if the DCNH subtype descriptions and attributions to the element definitions turn out to be a crock, the idea that someone can fixate for long periods on functions not normally done so by his type while retaining many of his other type characteristics, and allowing that fixation to change, isn't a bad one.
    I have formulated a personal subtype theory on this basis once.

    I find that when I study a certain problem for a very long time there comes a point at which I learn to assert the opinions I've reached in a way that resembles Se usage.

    However, when I do this for long periods of time, I find that at a certain point someone shows up who challenges my claims in a sort of defensive way as if saying "can I depend on your opinion in a survival situation?" Usually this causes me to retreat... But with even more effort I reach the point at which I dare to take such responsibility. This "feels" like Fi to me.

    So it seems to me that there is a subtype change going on in these cases, from INTj, to ISTj Se, to ISFj Fi, just like Smilingeyes described. The thing is, the change is never permanent. It is more like peculiar to the subject matter or environment that I developed the opinions in.

    This caused me to see smilexian subtypes as being linked to an environment or subject matter. Whenever one resets one's understanding of any topic at zero, one reverts to the initial type. But when a single topic is focussed on for long stretches of time, one progresses along the function spectrum.

  8. #8
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    This "never use either" stuff reminds me of model X. I think everyone uses everything from time to time. People just have a different focus...
    It's more like the pairing of +Ne and +Ni is unfavorable because the two completely extinguish each other. Whether or not it can happen for short periods (or whether +Ni should even be considered a part of an ILEs psyche) is debatable, but the point is that the structure isn't very viable in the long term, so a full-fledged subtype (with stable preferences and inter-type relations) can't form around it.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  9. #9
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    I have formulated a personal subtype theory on this basis once.

    I find that when I study a certain problem for a very long time there comes a point at which I learn to assert the opinions I've reached in a way that resembles Se usage.

    However, when I do this for long periods of time, I find that at a certain point someone shows up who challenges my claims in a sort of defensive way as if saying "can I depend on your opinion in a survival situation?" Usually this causes me to retreat... But with even more effort I reach the point at which I dare to take such responsibility. This "feels" like Fi to me.

    So it seems to me that there is a subtype change going on in these cases, from INTj, to ISTj Se, to ISFj Fi, just like Smilingeyes described. The thing is, the change is never permanent. It is more like peculiar to the subject matter or environment that I developed the opinions in.

    This caused me to see smilexian subtypes as being linked to an environment or subject matter. Whenever one resets one's understanding of any topic at zero, one reverts to the initial type. But when a single topic is focussed on for long stretches of time, one progresses along the function spectrum.
    Yes. That's how I interpret type-change issues, as well.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  10. #10
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    If we use 16 subtypes: what about an ILE-IEE? ILE's base is +Ne, IEE's base is -Ne...
    An ILE-IEE maybe better explained as someone who fixates on using his PoLR, which maybe unhealthy behavior depending on your viewpoint.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  11. #11
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    An ILE-IEE maybe better explained as someone who fixates on using his PoLR, which maybe unhealthy behavior depending on your viewpoint.
    I used to wonder about that, but Gulenko describes the unhealthy "accentuation" of an element as a separate thing from subtype. The way he currently describes subtype or "energy type" is as a whole separate type that works on a different level from the base type or "information type" (both of which should be considered distinct from tcaud's versions of them, until proven otherwise).
    Quaero Veritas.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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