DCNH and intertype relations

[1981slater]

I'd like to know how DCNH modifies intertype relations.

Regarding DCNH, my self typing is D, although I'm not sure. C makes sense too.

I have observed that, generally speaking, my intertype relations are affected by the DCNH subtypes of the people with whom I interact. For instance, I know dozens of gamma SFs:

........ my first impression ......our long term relationship

SEE D ......good..............cold
SEE C.......veeeery bad.....veeeeeeeeeeery bad
SEE N......cold...............bad
SEE H......good..............bad

ESI D.......good............cold
ESI C.......veery bad.....cold
ESI N.......cold.............bad
ESI H.......good............cold

You might be surprised at the "accuracy" I use to describe my relations, up to the point that you may think I am either ethical or valuer. I disagree with that opinion.

The Ineffable believes I am an LIE. 99% of the forum, ILE. Ironically, I have always doubted between ILE and LII. According to intertype descriptions, conflictors have the worse possible compatibility. I find SEEs more annoying than ESIs. Do you find your superego more disgusting than your conflictor?

The info I have provided suggests I get along with D/H subtypes: does it mean I am a C/N subtype then?

[DirectorAbbie]

My superego and conflictor are about equal to me, though I', more likely to annoy my conflictor. It's my quasi who gets on my nerves the most.

I still haven't decided whether DCNH is valid.

[Jonathan]

This is a very interesting topic, but yeah, it's very difficult to evaluate. People can hardly agree on typing people into 16, and now we have detail up to 64. Naturally, there are many differences within a type, but what regularities do those have?

For example, originally, I thought maybe the DCNH theory is that people may emphasize some in-quadra function that's not in the ego block. However, reading further, it seems that's not how it works. Rather, from the descriptions, it's always in one of the conscious blocks, meaning that half of the subtypes are emphasizing their Id block.

This would have enormous ramifications, because it would mean that half of the subtypes are straddling between their quadra and the opposing quadra.

That means that someone who's your conflictor in regular Socionics is now your "sorta dual" in DCNH if their DCNH flips their static/dynamic aspect.

Life is complicated, so I think this is possible, but it would throw most people's typing methods way out of whack. For example, club + temperament would no longer tell one anything about a person's type, because their DCNH may completely contradict their overall type's temperament.

So yeah, in addition to not being able to ever be sure what anyone's type is, it would have a huge impact on intertype relations, potentially putting the opposite quadra "sorta" in your quadra too.

(By the way, in the DCNH articles by Gulenko that have been translated on the forum, I notice he keeps talking about a dichotomy information metabolism and what a person actually does ("energy"). Obviously, this sounds exactly like Tcaudilllg's IM vs. EM thing.

For those who know: Is it basically the same thing?)

[Galen]

ESTps tend to be the kind of people that I consciously avoid the most. It's like something about them immediately jumps out to me as something to avoid. I do get along well with the few ESTps I know, but it's very much a surface relationship and I have no real intention or desire to get to know them better. But when it comes to ISTjs, when I see them I tend to just not pay attention to them until we have to interact. It's that "two ships passing in the night" deal, we're just living in two different worlds. I wouldn't say that my overall relationship with one beta ST is any inherently worse than the other. I've met ISTjs I've gotten along with fairly well, and I know ESTps I get along with fairly well. It's all dependent on the individual really.

I do wonder if the intertype relations w/ creative subtypes, or whatever non-leading subtype you have, are inherently different than the leading subtypes. Maybe not to the extent of treating non-leading subtypes as another type altogether, but tinged enough to make it worth noting. fwiw I have noticed a switch of sorts between creative subtype semi-duals and illusionaries (e.g. Ti-ESTp and Fe-ISFp being the same relation as Se-ESTp and Ni-INTp).

[Jonathan]

By the way, refining the concept intertype relation of "sorta dual" further, basically, the confictor whose DCNH type is in a dual relationship to yours is your "sorta dual."

For example, among conflictors, D with N or C with H would define the "sorta dual" relationship.

As an example, an ENFp-Fi type would be "sorta dual" with an ISTj-Te type. According to the descriptions, an ENFp-Fi somewhat resembles and INFj, and the ISTj-Te somewhat resembles an ESTj.

So they'll recognize each other as duals and have Fi-Te duality, even though they're also conflictors.

[The Ineffable]

My superego and conflictor are about equal to me, though I', more likely to annoy my conflictor. It's my quasi who gets on my nerves the most.

Answered here, because it was going off-topic.

[Jonathan]

Regarding DCNH, my self typing is D, although I'm not sure. C makes sense too.
...
The info I have provided suggests I get along with D/H subtypes: does it mean I am a C/N subtype then?

I think the first question (if we're going to give this theory some credence, hypothetically speaking), is do you believe you use Te a lot? ...because as I understand it, an ILE D subtype is actually an ILE who focuses on Te but remains an ILE (if that's possible).

So if you're an ILE without contradiction, C or N is more likely. That would suggest that you would get along better with D/H types.

However, theoretically, any ILE should get along better with D/H types, even if you're D/H yourself. Because you're still ILE, whereas the D/H Gamma SFs are part Gamma and part Alpha...that is, their Socionic type would be more ambiguous.

That said, given all your interactions with ESIs, have you found any of them to be dual-like? Have you ever mistaken ESI for your dual or thought they were SEIs? Have you ever interacted with ESIs and thought "this isn't so bad" or even "this is great"...like they're duals...even though they're also your conflictor?

[Sumer1an]

This is a very interesting topic, but yeah, it's very difficult to evaluate. People can hardly agree on typing people into 16, and now we have detail up to 64. Naturally, there are many differences within a type, but what regularities do those have?

For example, originally, I thought maybe the DCNH theory is that people may emphasize some in-quadra function that's not in the ego block. However, reading further, it seems that's not how it works. Rather, from the descriptions, it's always in one of the conscious blocks, meaning that half of the subtypes are emphasizing their Id block.

This would have enormous ramifications, because it would mean that half of the subtypes are straddling between their quadra and the opposing quadra.

That means that someone who's your conflictor in regular Socionics is now your "sorta dual" in DCNH if their DCNH flips their static/dynamic aspect.

Life is complicated, so I think this is possible, but it would throw most people's typing methods way out of whack. For example, club + temperament would no longer tell one anything about a person's type, because their DCNH may completely contradict their overall type's temperament.

So yeah, in addition to not being able to ever be sure what anyone's type is, it would have a huge impact on intertype relations, potentially putting the opposite quadra "sorta" in your quadra too.

(By the way, in the DCNH articles by Gulenko that have been translated on the forum, I notice he keeps talking about a dichotomy information metabolism and what a person actually does ("energy"). Obviously, this sounds exactly like Tcaudilllg's IM vs. EM thing.

For those who know: Is it basically the same thing?)

Regarding DCNH, my self typing is D, although I'm not sure. C makes sense too.
...
The info I have provided suggests I get along with D/H subtypes: does it mean I am a C/N subtype then?

I think the first question (if we're going to give this theory some credence, hypothetically speaking), is do you believe you use Te a lot? ...because as I understand it, an ILE D subtype is actually an ILE who focuses on Te but remains an ILE (if that's possible).

So if you're an ILE without contradiction, C or N is more likely. That would suggest that you would get along better with D/H types.

However, theoretically, any ILE should get along better with D/H types, even if you're D/H yourself. Because you're still ILE, whereas the D/H Gamma SFs are part Gamma and part Alpha...that is, their Socionic type would be more ambiguous.

That said, given all your interactions with ESIs, have you found any of them to be dual-like? Have you ever mistaken ESI for your dual or thought they were SEIs? Have you ever interacted with ESIs and thought "this isn't so bad" or even "this is great"...like they're duals...even though they're also your conflictor?

Wow.... this would actually make a ton of sense for me. If DCNH is valid then I am an ILI-C (or Ne subtype or whatever). Which might explain why I once thought I was ILE and it fit somewhat well. In addition to that I dont conflict with every ESFj (or ISFp) I know. In the short term the relations are pretty good but in the long term we usually view each other as very unusual.

[Jonathan]

Of course, it seems quite possible that the DCNH type descriptions on Wikisocion are actually drawn from descriptions that were intended for the more familiar base/creative subtyping system. The D and C descriptions are both by Gulenko, while the others are by someone else. I wonder if someone took descriptions by Gulenko that were intended to be "base" and "creative" (i.e., creative as in "producing" subtype) and then confused that with "dominant" and "creative" from the DCNH theory.

Someone who knows DCNH pretty well could perhaps help verify if it was really supposed to imply that half the subtypes are straddling opposite quadras.

In any case, I am quite interested in people's experiences with super ego / conflict relations that seem somewhat dual-like.

[1981slater]

Regarding DCNH, my self typing is D, although I'm not sure. C makes sense too.
...
The info I have provided suggests I get along with D/H subtypes: does it mean I am a C/N subtype then?

I think the first question (if we're going to give this theory some credence, hypothetically speaking), is do you believe you use Te a lot? ...because as I understand it, an ILE D subtype is actually an ILE who focuses on Te but remains an ILE (if that's possible).

So if you're an ILE without contradiction, C or N is more likely. That would suggest that you would get along better with D/H types.

However, theoretically, any ILE should get along better with D/H types, even if you're D/H yourself. Because you're still ILE, whereas the D/H Gamma SFs are part Gamma and part Alpha...that is, their Socionic type would be more ambiguous.

Oh, yes. This makes sense

That said, given all your interactions with ESIs, have you found any of them to be dual-like? Have you ever mistaken ESI for your dual or thought they were SEIs? Have you ever interacted with ESIs and thought "this isn't so bad" or even "this is great"...like they're duals...even though they're also your conflictor?

As I said in my first post, I get along well with some ESIs but in the long term, our different values disappoint each other.

BTW, regarding SEIs:

SEI D +
SEI C +
SEI N +
SEI H ++

This would mean that I am a creative subtype, I dunno.

[FDG]

Yes, this is interesting. It's clear that intertype relationships are modulated by something DNCH-alike, in addition to standard socionics theory. I believe there might be a club-specific way to understand DNCH relations...but I'm too tired to think about it, now, lol. I'll try tomorrow.

[Jonathan]

As I said in my first post, I get along well with some ESIs but in the long term, our different values disappoint each other.

I'd be curious about examples if you'd be willing to share. Getting along well can be anywhere from being to work well with a colleague to being absolute best friends. What kinds of value conflicts have you experienced?

BTW, regarding SEIs:

SEI D +
SEI C +
SEI N +
SEI H ++

This would mean that I am a creative subtype, I dunno.

It would seem that SEI-H would be the most straightforward SEI type, as it means emphasis on the base function, just as ILE-C is the most straightforward ILE. But apart from intertype relationships, do you see yourself manifesting anything other than base Ne with producing Ti? Do you find anything ambiguous about your type in regard to ILE that would lead you to consider yourself ILE-D or ILE-H?

[1981slater]

As I said in my first post, I get along well with some ESIs but in the long term, our different values disappoint each other.

I'd be curious about examples if you'd be willing to share. Getting along well can be anywhere from being to work well with a colleague to being absolute best friends. What kinds of value conflicts have you experienced?

Basically, they get annoyed by everything I do or say.

BTW, regarding SEIs:

SEI D +
SEI C +
SEI N +
SEI H ++

This would mean that I am a creative subtype, I dunno.

It would seem that SEI-H would be the most straightforward SEI type, as it means emphasis on the base function, just as ILE-C is the most straightforward ILE. But apart from intertype relationships, do you see yourself manifesting anything other than base Ne with producing Ti? Do you find anything ambiguous about your type in regard to ILE that would lead you to consider yourself ILE-D or ILE-H?

When I was younger, I was an obvious ILE-D. Since most of the people I know are (non tolerant) gammas, I have somehow changed a little bit my beaviour, which gammas regarded as "non politically correct", so I can see myself as Harmonizing now.
As a result, gammas do not "recognize" me when they see me with my alpha friends.

[Jonathan]

I'd be curious about examples if you'd be willing to share. Getting along well can be anywhere from being to work well with a colleague to being absolute best friends. What kinds of value conflicts have you experienced?

Basically, they get annoyed by everything I do or say.

But in the short term, they liked it? Or they just didn't tell you right away that they were annoyed?

[1981slater]

Basically, they get annoyed by everything I do or say.

But in the short term, they liked it? Or they just didn't tell you right away that they were annoyed?

As I am very handsome, ESIs like me until I talk about Star Trek.

[Jonathan]

But in the short term, they liked it? Or they just didn't tell you right away that they were annoyed?

As I am very handsome, ESIs like me until I talk about Star Trek.

Interesting though that Gammas could talk about Star Trek with them, and they'd do just fine.

How about from your end? What do you like about the ESIs at first? Does anything about them annoy you long-term (besides that they don't like your talking about Star Trek)?

[woofwoofl]

I'd like to know how DCNH modifies intertype relations.

Regarding DCNH, my self typing is D, although I'm not sure. C makes sense too.

I have observed that, generally speaking, my intertype relations are affected by the DCNH subtypes of the people with whom I interact. For instance, I know dozens of gamma SFs:

........ my first impression ......our long term relationship

SEE D ......good..............cold
SEE C.......veeeery bad.....veeeeeeeeeeery bad
SEE N......cold...............bad
SEE H......good..............bad

ESI D.......good............cold
ESI C.......veery bad.....cold
ESI N.......cold.............bad
ESI H.......good............cold

You might be surprised at the "accuracy" I use to describe my relations, up to the point that you may think I am either ethical or valuer. I disagree with that opinion.

The Ineffable believes I am an LIE. 99% of the forum, ILE. Ironically, I have always doubted between ILE and LII. According to intertype descriptions, conflictors have the worse possible compatibility. I find SEEs more annoying than ESIs. Do you find your superego more disgusting than your conflictor?

The info I have provided suggests I get along with D/H subtypes: does it mean I am a C/N subtype then?

I'd say yes and for the record, I get along really, really great with a C-SLE, at least three C-SEEs, at least one H-SLI, an IEE with a Producing subtype of some sort (I remember an H-SEI and a C-ILE from a while back too - if you need more to go on, I'll dig my mind some more)...

That said, it's hard as hell for me to totally nail down a subtype for myself (due to it being tough, in my personal experiences, to separate my from my , since the two work in tandem so much), though I see no reason to change what I've got, it works - I see myself focusing on more than most other SEEs, and more recently, , though I wonder if is at the root of this, and should be attributed instead...

[Jonathan]

I wouldn't put much stock in the provisional DCNH descriptions. Perhaps user CheGuevara, who came up with them, can explain them for us. But I have the distinct impression that it's just using two sets of descriptions that were intended for the base/producing subtype theory.

So, we start with a highly questionable theory (DCNH), where there's no particular reason to think that one's DCNH is even a stable trait, and we add to it the fact that we don't have any consistent set of descriptions for that theory and are borrowing descriptions from another subtype theory.

[EyeSeeCold]

I wouldn't put much stock in the provisional DCNH descriptions. Perhaps user CheGuevara, who came up with them, can explain them for us. But I have the distinct impression that it's just using two sets of descriptions that were intended for the base/producing subtype theory.

So, we start with a highly questionable theory (DCNH), where there's no particular reason to think that one's DCNH is even a stable trait, and we add to it the fact that we don't have any consistent set of descriptions for that theory and are borrowing descriptions from another subtype theory.

Yeah. I think DCNH is confusing on it's own for the fact that it is "temperaments within temperaments".

Two subtype is probably the best starting place.

[The Ineffable]

Basically, they get annoyed by everything I do or say.

Well let's hope that's not the reason why you type someone as Gamma SF...

[1981slater]

Basically, they get annoyed by everything I do or say.

Well let's hope that's not the reason why you type someone as Gamma SF...

That's necessary but not sufficient, everybody gets annoyed by me IRL.
What separates gamma SFs from the rest of the crowd is that they get new cell phones every three months.

[Jonathan]

Well let's hope that's not the reason why you type someone as Gamma SF...

That's necessary but not sufficient, everybody gets annoyed by me IRL.
What separates gamma SFs from the rest of the crowd is that they get new cell phones every three months.

If they're so into new gadgets, how come they don't like Star Trek?
Please give us an example, if you're willing to....What made the relationship seem good at first (besides your good looks), and where the actual conflict was in the relationship.

[Aleksei]

I think it has a fairly strong effect, particularly in initial approach. It's a range within he same relation though -- I'm not compatible with a C-SLI, for example, or incompatible with a D-LSI.

[Clumsy]

Is there a trick to learning DCNH subtyping? I've looked through a few of the threads on this subject but don't even know where to start.

[FDG]

That's necessary but not sufficient, everybody gets annoyed by me IRL.
What separates gamma SFs from the rest of the crowd is that they get new cell phones every three months.

If they're so into new gadgets, how come they don't like Star Trek?
Please give us an example, if you're willing to....What made the relationship seem good at first (besides your good looks), and where the actual conflict was in the relationship.

JOHNNY HE WAS JOKING!!1111

[1981slater]

Is there a trick to learning DCNH subtyping? I've looked through a few of the threads on this subject but don't even know where to start.

Dominant: Annoying idiot
Creative: Self-destructive idiot
Normalizing: Rigid idiot
Harmoninzing: Lazy idiot

[1981slater]

Speaking on gadgets, I think that serious types prefer to update their stuff (cell phones, software...) on a regular basis. Most of them are serious ( ) , and you can also find ESEs updating their shit ( hidden agenda IMO) to come across as "modern people".

FMPOV, most merry people, specially only buy new stuff when they have to (when it's "broken").

Star Trek, Star Wars, etc are related to rds (alpha NT).

[The Ineffable]

Star Trek, Star Wars, etc are related to rds (alpha NT).

Yeah, they're the only ones who know those are bogus.

[RoadPaveMent]

Is there a trick to learning DCNH subtyping? I've looked through a few of the threads on this subject but don't even know where to start.

Learn Russian.

[Clumsy]

Whether you want to apply the Gulenko ones or otherwise.

Since the DCNH subtypes are supposed to align with a certain temperament that could potentially cover several of the attitudes/romance styles, do you believe that just one attitude could sum up each of the four DCNH types?

If so, which attitude would you assign to which subtype, as a general trend?

[EyeSeeCold]

As per 1981slater:

Fe = Emotional Aggressor / Mental Infantile
Te = Mental Aggressor / Emotional Infantile
Se = Physical Aggressor / Spiritual Infantile
Ne = Spiritual Aggressor / Physical Infantile
Fi = Emotional Caregiver / Mental Victim
Ti = Mental Caregiver / Emotional Victim
Si = Physical Caregiver / Spiritual Victim
Ni = Spiritual Caregiver / Physical Victim


And since types have two ego functions, they are a mix of two: One base, one auxiliary.

[Clumsy]

As per 1981slater:

Fe = Emotional Aggressor / Mental Infantile
Te = Mental Aggressor / Emotional Infantile
Se = Physical Aggressor / Spiritual Infantile
Ne = Spiritual Aggressor / Physical Infantile
Fi = Emotional Caregiver / Mental Victim
Ti = Mental Caregiver / Emotional Victim
Si = Physical Caregiver / Spiritual Victim
Ni = Spiritual Caregiver / Physical Victim


And since types have two ego functions, they are a mix of two: One base, one auxiliary.

This is great. Thank you, EyeSeeCold.

[Codie]

As per 1981slater:

Fe = Emotional Aggressor / Mental Infantile
Te = Mental Aggressor / Emotional Infantile
Se = Physical Aggressor / Spiritual Infantile
Ne = Spiritual Aggressor / Physical Infantile
Fi = Emotional Caregiver / Mental Victim
Ti = Mental Caregiver / Emotional Victim
Si = Physical Caregiver / Spiritual Victim
Ni = Spiritual Caregiver / Physical Victim


And since types have two ego functions, they are a mix of two: One base, one auxiliary.

That's great, did you have this idea or did you see it somewhere else?

[EyeSeeCold]

This is great. Thank you, EyeSeeCold.

No problem.

That's great, did you have this idea or did you see it somewhere else?

They are 1981slater's extensions.

[MisterNi]

Man those NT's are so clever

Check these out aswell...

Aggressor + victim = happiness

Infantile + caregiver = protection

Aggressor + infantile = aggression

Aggressor + caregiver = disagreements


Aggressor + aggressor = respect

Infantile + infantile = neglect

Caregiver + Caregiver = stagnation

Victim + victim = boredom

Infantile + victim = sloppiness

Caregiver + victim = mutual disappointment

That doesn't sound too bad. Thumbs up from me.

[MisterNi]

This is great. Thank you, EyeSeeCold.

No problem.

That's great, did you have this idea or did you see it somewhere else?

They are 1981slater's extensions.

You weren't directing that to me, but thanks anyway. That's pretty well explanatory of what does seem like a rather natural extension of the Gulenko Erotic Attitudes.

[gooey]

When looking at the DCNH post on wikisocion (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._DCNH_Subtypes), I found this:

"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."

Is Gulenko saying that subtypes affect ALL intertype relations or simply the ones within the same type? Not that it says INTERtype on wikisocion but I'm wondering if it's supposed to say INTRAtype...Thanks!

[mu4]

When looking at the DCNH post on wikisocion (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._DCNH_Subtypes), I found this:

"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."

Is Gulenko saying that subtypes affect ALL intertype relations or simply the ones within the same type? Not that it says INTERtype on wikisocion but I'm wondering if it's supposed to say INTRAtype...Thanks!

I think it's more subtype relations can affect intertype relations, like a D subtype may have problems with a H subtype even if there is a duality intertype relationship.

[gooey]

Interesting...then shouldn't someone just re-do intertype relations based on subtype info?

[mu4]

Interesting...then shouldn't someone just re-do intertype relations based on subtype info?

I'm not sure exactly what the question is but duality is still duality, but D subtypes should match up well with N subtypes. And C subtypes match up with H subtypes.

It's another level of compatibility.