Compelling according to who? It's pretty obvious from sociological observation that in a social sphere of active energy, some people will tend to dominate the interaction with zest and ease, and other people will be shut off, distant and inert. The most important factors in this phenomenon being interest, mastery, opportunity and personality - however, psychological type is temperamentally related due to energy-information metabolism. There's EJ-EP-IJ-IP, so what DCNH really is is a formulation that temperaments exist within temperaments(mildly unrelated, this kind of fractal thinking may be related to Gulenko's Holographical form of thinking).
Originally Posted by Ashton
Gulenko to an extent goes into the reason for his postulation of the DCNH system of subtypes in this excerpt from his article:
1. Проблема внутритипных различий
Почему люди одного типа такие разные? Этот вопрос уже давно волнует каждого здравомыслящего соционика-практика. Почему два носителя одной и той же психологической системы, имеющей одинаковую структуру, демонстрируют в одной и той же ситуации столь непохожие образцы поведения?
Проведите простой эксперимент. Соберите 3—4 человека одного типа, неважно какого именно и специалист какой из школ их определил. Поставьте им какое-либо доступное задание (совместно решить интеллектуальную задачу, разыграть ситуацию и т. п.) и пронаблюдайте за их поведением. И вы увидите, что, несмотря на тождественность типов, одни из них будут более активны, другие более пассивны, одни более находчивые, другие более консервативные и т. д. Самое интересное, что, чем большее количество представителей одного и того же типа вы соберете, тем большее количество различий между ними обнаружите. Таким образом, глубину типологии можно наращивать и дальше.
The full article: http://socionics.kiev.ua/articles/types/sysdcnh/
In Gulenko's article on DCNH theory, he explicates the following dichotomous correlations: connecting-ignoring is related to dynamic-static; terminating-initiating is related to rational-irrational; contact-distance is related to extravert-introvert; these were not "spun out of nowhere". He identified properties that were caused by these dichotomies, properties which already existed in types as EJ-EP-IJ-IP, and he merely explained subtypes by an emphasis on a combination of the aforementioned dichotomies.
Even on strictly a priori grounds, DCNH readily falls apart. Since all Gulenko does is basically spin 3 new dichotomies out of nowhere, and assume by fiat that they must be valid in the way he says. Then goes on to fabricate 4 subtype orientations based on configurations of the 3 dichotomies he made up. Followed later by yet another
invented dichotomy, and a corresponding doubling to 8 subtypes.
Although the two theories are in the same vein, this is an irrelevant point to the matter of DCNH having merit and being worthy of study. I don't know why you felt to need to bring it up.
As if that weren't enough, he also grafts some vague notion of an "Energy Type" onto the whole mess, and lays claim that this somehow represents a whole new separate layer of type-dimension which coexists in tandem with one's "Information Type" (or Sociotype). Woah, what
Not exactly, basically you haven't provided any reason for why Gulenko's theory of DCNH should be discarded. All you did was describe what he did, there is no fault in invention and hypothesis, this is theory we're arguing with isn't it? So what's the problem? Your personal convictions aren't enough to justify your case.
Overarching point here being, that Gulenko fails to establish any cogent reasoning for justifying why anybody should take DCNH seriously. While the theory may indeed be "consistent within itself" as you proclaim, this is moot considering that the key foundations of the theory are entirely reliant upon disjointed and uncorroborated conjecture.
Well, then that is your preference.
Fine, call it generically presumptuous if you want. I prefer to assess the present utility of a theory for what it is, and discard it if I think its development trajectory is fundamentally flawed—as I suspect DCNH's is, given what I mentioned regarding its problematic foundations.
If you're going to declare another truth of reality it would help your case to demonstrate and justify that not only does DCNH need fixing, but that it could not be fixed even if anyone tried.
Senseless to fawn over "excavating potential" from something that can't be fixed.