Gulenko looks to emphases of functions as the basis of DCNH tendencies. In contrast, I see DCNH as the effect of choosing from amongst several distinct mental processes that have common components; in other words, I see DCNH more in terms of Jungian quadrachotomies (like T/F and S/N) than as function emphases. In my view, the emphases are emergent phenomena that manifest in the course of the processes' practical application.
I see DCNH as a dichotomy of two attitudes:
- Comfort with responsibility for framing an outlook on the world vs discomfort with the same.
- Comfort with transforming the world around oneself as desired vs hesitation.
The latter attitude defines accepting/producing, the dichotomy that forms the basis of the original 2-subtype system. Thus, DCNH encompasses the earlier system.
We get four combinations:
- Responsibility for framing an outlook upon which the world is to be changed (dominance)
- Responsibility for framing an outlook through which the world is observed (creating)
- Acceptance of existing outlooks upon which the world may be changed (normalizing)
- Acceptance of existing outlooks through which the world is observed (harmonizing)
Framework acceptance vs framework responsibility are mutually exclusive: to accept another's framework without criticism is to deny responsibility for any shortcomings it may have. Meanwhile, challenging a framework means taking responsibility for its replacement -- you can't question something without facing the insecurity of possibly having to rely on yourself for a new answer.
Example: Gilly and I argue about the meaning of an IM aspect's usage in a sentence. Gilly, as a harmonizer, chooses only to see element as occurring in the context of the IM type, which he has trained himself in the observance of through available materials. I, in contrast, consider that the element may be appearing in the context of either the IM type OR the EM type that I have asserted to exist and have created my own framework by which to study it. Unless Gilly adopts my framework, he and I will live in two different states of belief about the meaning of the aspect's usage. If it comes to an argument between Gilly and myself over the meaning, then it is a factor, ultimately, of Gilly failing to reckon with the fact that the aspect is being used outside the function ordering rules of Model A. He is failing to criticize the framework's consistency and universality. A C-subtype, in contrast, will always do this if they believe the issue important enough to study.