Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: DCNH as I see it

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default DCNH as I see it

    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.

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

    Default

    A few things worth noting.

    - Each subtype has a reliance on another type. D relies on N for backup and to extent their power; C relies on H for report; N relies on D for direction; H relies on C for an idea of what details to look for when observing a situation. In this sense, the subtypes form dyads.
    - There is a relational system between the subtypes. It follows the following pattern, where the first term is accepting or producing, and the second is framing vs adopting.
    • same/same: identical
    • opposite/same: contrary (this is the subtype you try to avoid emulating)
    • same/opposite: complement (dyad partner, which you feel is an unnecessary distraction for you to emulate)
    • opposite/same: opposite (this is the subtype style you refuse to emulate)


    - Subtype drastically impacts how people use their EM functions. For example, an LSI EM dominant subtype is more likely to choose a career as a police officer (consider Arizona's Arpio), while an LSI EM creative subtype is more likely to choose a role as a detective or even a physicist. This because of the internal ethics wards against behavior identified with one's opposite on the accepting/producing scale.
    - Each person dreams of using the subtype of their id. This subtype is opposite their ego's subtype (the one they most readily identify with) with regard to accepting/producing only -- the responsibility dimension is identical. The ego subtype serves the purposes of the id. This means:
    • dominant subtypes attempt to realize the structural frameworks that will make action further change unnecessary.
    • creating subtypes conceive of the means to the transformations that they desire.
    • normalizing subtypes intervene in situations so as to bring about the stability that will allow them to relax.
    • harmonizing subtypes take in the situation, so that they have justification for their intervention.


    Note the de facto social functionality of this "arrangement": although it is not their first inclination, social pressure against the formal exercise of the id ultimately forces people to rely on their contrary partners, thus D and C, N and H naturally find and look to each other to "qualify" their social aspirations. D wants to be seen as doing something important; C needs acceptable and relevant means and methods; N needs validation of their assertions; and H wants clearance for decisive intervention.

    There appears to be a relationship between the dyad partners of either and the soul. There is a sense that the relevance of the ego's subtype is temporary... one dreams of sooner or later settling in a role where the one takes on the role of one's dyad partner. For D, this means becoming a steward over the world one has transformed; for N, it means taking the reigns; for C, it means settling down into an informational capacity; and for H, it means braving exciting frontiers that had heretofore gone unexplored.

    One more thing: there appears to be a motivation evident here, where the accepting subtypes want to reduce their roles, and the producing subtypes want to increase their roles. This may explain the truthfulness of the adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- the existing regime squelches opposition because it wants to remain inert, where the creative spirits feel they never have enough ability or control, and spend their time dreaming of the day when they themselves might be the regime (or, "necessity is the mother of invention").
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 02-24-2011 at 07:25 PM.

  3. #3
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If the founder of DCNH defined them himself as temperament-based subtypes, and you think it's defined as something else, why do you insist on calling it DCNH? Why would you not claim that DCNH is a non working theory and replace it with your own 4 subtype system with less confusing names?
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  4. #4
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mm, well, I appreciate you taking some time to lay this out clearly, tcaud. I've long wanted you to spell out exactly how you see DCNH, or whatever one wants to call it as a modified version of the Gulenko material.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    tcaud probably thinks Gulenko stole the idea from dual-type theory
    I do not.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    If the founder of DCNH defined them himself as temperament-based subtypes, and you think it's defined as something else, why do you insist on calling it DCNH? Why would you not claim that DCNH is a non working theory and replace it with your own 4 subtype system with less confusing names?
    No you're missing the big picture. These four attitudes towards framing and intervention end up, in the aggregate, creating all those behaviors that are attributed to the subtypes. Gulenko didn't use a model to describe the subtypes -- he just noticed that there were behavioral differences that he could categorize using the functions. (In the case of the 2-subtype system, half of the functions really are more preferred than the other half -- but in DCNH I don't see a quartering of the functions at all). He described them thus and did a little comparison without trying to figure what the actual internal struggles were in the course of choosing a preference (as an LSI EM, his talents lie in the cognitive sphere and that, broadly speaking, focuses him on the "hows" over the "whys"). Now I'm looking at his descriptions and asking, "OK, what do all these behaviors of this type have in common in relation to the behaviors of this other type?" (contrasting groups of comparable units is the key to effective analysis).

    And... it also didn't help that Gulenko mostly shunned model B, either. That basically made it impossible for him to perceive the internal struggles that define the preference.

  7. #7
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default x

    Very interesting.
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  8. #8
    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 Crispy View Post
    If the founder of DCNH defined them himself as temperament-based subtypes, and you think it's defined as something else, why do you insist on calling it DCNH? Why would you not claim that DCNH is a non working theory and replace it with your own 4 subtype system with less confusing names?
    I agree. Tcaud's theories have diverged so far from Gulenko that it really is misleading to keep calling it "DCNH".
    Quaero Veritas.

  9. #9
    jughead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NC
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    883
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes redefine it for our sakes... I can barely understand all the dichotomies and overlap, its like I need a spreadsheet and graphs.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is the same system and hence, I will not redefine it.

  11. #11
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So the system you propose is identical to the one that says DCNH are temperament based subtypes? Very well then.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  12. #12
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I'm:
    ILI-C

    probably INTp-ESTp
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    So the system you propose is identical to the one that says DCNH are temperament based subtypes? Very well then.
    I don't see it as a proposal. Gulenko is the person who identified the temperaments, I'm just trying to explain why the temperaments exist.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    I think I'm:
    ILI-C

    probably INTp-ESTp
    That means you would be spending most of your time observing Ti (factual) data. I spend most of my time imagining how a given prejudice by a person can affect their thinking. That's what's running beneath the types, anyway: a bunch of unshakeable prejudices towards others that are shaped by egocentric beliefs. A person believes everyone has (or should have) a common personal motive, and they judge others by the degree to which a person accomplishes this motive by their behavior. Thus the various relational dynamics between people of different personality trait combinations are created. Comparative relations, it says straight out one believes the other has incorrect or inferior priorities.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-27-2011 at 10:51 AM.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    I think I'm:
    ILI-C

    probably INTp-ESTp
    What do you think lazybones is ? IEI-LSE ?

  16. #16
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    That means you would be spending most of your time observing Ti (factual) data.
    Not sure if this is true for me as my perspective doesn't grasp the nature yet.

    I'm still wrestling with the idea and I don't want to jump to conclusions.

    I spend most of my time imagining how a given prejudice by a person can affect their thinking. That's what's running beneath the types, anyway: a bunch of unshakeable prejudices towards others that are shaped by egocentric beliefs. A person believes everyone has (or should have) a common personal motive, and they judge others by the degree to which a person accomplishes this motive by their behavior. Thus the various relational dynamics between people of different personality trait combinations are created. Comparative relations, it says straight out one believes the other has incorrect or inferior priorities.
    I'm interested in how this differs between Introverts/Extraverts and Rationals/Irrationals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    What do you think lazybones is ? IEI-LSE ?
    Not too familiar to type, let alone sub type.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Not sure if this is true for me as my perspective doesn't grasp the nature yet.

    I'm still wrestling with the idea and I don't want to jump to conclusions.
    SLE EMs are quite frankly fixated on the effects of war and peace. Negativists study war, positivists study peace. The negativists argue against war (Einstein), while the positivists argue in favor of war to create conditions for greater peace (Rumsfeld, Project for a New American Century, etc.). Seems like the positivists tend to want to use external conflict as a means to avoiding internal conflicts, using them as a means to procure resources and distract from problems at home.

    I've known a few LII-SLEs. They are always thinking about how best to wage war, it seems. I remember my mom, an LII-SLE, had a discussion with me when I was ten (1992) about what an attack on the U.S. would look like. She concluded it would involve the WTC, because of the symbolic implications of such an attack.

    Seems like NPR is a favorite of negativist SLE EMs in America.

    I'm interested in how this differs between Introverts/Extraverts and Rationals/Irrationals.
    It doesn't. Par for the course for IEI EMs... the assumption is that everyone is trying to avoid some kind of error or negative treatment of others and that they are critical/condemning of others based on their demonstrated ability to avoid these errors. Where Alpha NT-IEI EMs differ from other IEI EM people, is that they spend a lot of time debating hypothetical states of mind, rather than the implications of observed states of mind or expected states (as in the case of gamma NT EMs).

    Ni = attention to probable states
    Ne = attention to possible states
    All other elements = attention to observed states and their implications
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-27-2011 at 03:11 PM.

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
  •