Subtype Inconsistencies in DCNH

[gooey]

So, I'm confused about a number of things in DCNH and was wondering if anyone could help me understand.

First, I think I have a strengthened Fe (I'm IEI) which would make me a dominant type. BUT, it says here:---- http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...translation%29 ----that Creative types have an inclination towards mirror...My mirror is EIE whose first function is Fe. So how does that make sense?

Secondly, a creative's strengthened function is supposed to be Se. BUT, a creative is also "ignoring" rather than "connecting" according to the dichotomies. Wheras the dominant is the reverse. Shouldn't having better sensing make you more connecting as you are aware of your enviroment more?

Third, dominants are supposed to be the most like their type...but If you're an IEI, odds are more laid back "creative" sounds closer to home than a "dominantating" personality.

Thanks.

[EyeSeeCold]

DCNH as a static subtype system also contradicts the discreteness of functions and fixed system of types and could only exist as a referential model of energetic social orientation(dominating, creating, normalizing, harmonizing).

I don't know what they believe in the East but I agree DCNH seems very inconsistent.

Dominating IEI - Confident, directive, energetic, controlling. Fe > Ne ESFj/ENFj?
Creating IEI - Inspired, individuating, empowered, reckless. Ne > Fe ENTp?
Normalizing IEI - Insecure, anxious, compliant, disciplined. Ti > Ni INTj/ISTj?
Harmonizing IEI - Unmotivated, dependent, negligent, spiritual. Ni > Ti INFp/INTp?

[silke]

the trick to becoming unconfused is to ditch DCNH

[Ave]

DCNH=/ 2 suptypes.

Just because you are Fe in 2 subtypes theory doesnt make you D in DCNH, not sure where you got that idea, you could be any DCNH subtype.

[717495]

I've never used DCNH as it seems kinda overcomplicated to be useful, though I imagine it strengthens the temperament thus the associated function for that type. So for INTp ie.
D-ILI - <Te
C-ILI - <Se
N-ILI - <Fi
H-ILI - <Ni

So given examples of each type and their function emphasis, it's actually possible to type people this way.

I would probably be H or maybe C. Didn't think about it much.

[Saberstorm]

Somebody clairify the DCNH system for the EIE. In fact, it was the DCNH system that allowed me to settle down on EIE to begin with. I am similar to the IEI and ILI, and some say I am pretty Ti so that would be the LII. However, I am happy with being a Beta EIE C subtype.

Anyway, somebody who knows more than me such as EyeSeeCold or Polikujm, list how you think the DCNH subtypes are for EIE. Please, please, please.

[717495]

Lol, try asking KrigTheAwryKing. He knows all about this stuff, and is a mod so he's here every day.

[Absurd]

Lol, try asking KrigTheAwryKing. He knows all about this stuff, and is a mod so he's here every day.

Krig types me LSI so it is not advisable. Almost all alphas on here type me LSI - LIIs and SEIs alike. I have come up with my own system of typing. It's called foolproof. Everybody who types me LSI is actually alpha and there have been a few already.

[Krig the Viking]

Lol, try asking KrigTheAwryKing. He knows all about this stuff, and is a mod so he's here every day.

The 2-subtype system divides types into a Rational subtype and an Irrational subtype. DCNH further subdivides that into Extraverted subtypes and Introverted subtypes, resulting in:

Dominant = Extraverted Rational subtype
Creative = Extraverted Irrational subtype
Normalizing = Introverted Rational subtype
Harmonizing = Introverted Irrational subtype

For some reason, Gulenko gives these things different names. Contact/Distant = Extraverted/Introverted, Initiating/Terminating = Irrational/Rational, and Connecting/Ignoring = Dynamic/Static.

From there, the subtypes can be further divided into individual IEs (an Se-C-LII would display more Se in his behaviour than other LIIs), and even into a full set of 16 subtypes.

I've begun to disagree with Gulenko somewhat on the underlying nature of the subtypes. He calls them "Energy Types" and says they're an integral part of the psyche, with the traditional sociotype serving as "information input" and the Energy Type serving as "information output". In my opinion, the subtype is a later development in the psyche, less integral to the personality, a manifestation of the Jungian Persona which presents a "mask" to the world in order to cover up psychological insecurities and protect the Ego from the world.

Krig types me LSI so it is not advisable. Almost all alphas on here type me LSI - LIIs and SEIs alike. I have come up with my own system of typing. It's called foolproof. Everybody who types me LSI is actually alpha and there have been a few already.

When did I type you as LSI? I have no memory of this. If I ever suggested it, I've long since dropped it. I honestly have no idea what type you are; I find you impossible to read because I'm never quite sure if you're being sarcastic or earnest or what. The drawbacks of communicating via message board, I guess.

[Ave]

The 2-subtype system divides types into a Rational subtype and an Irrational subtype.

Really? I thought they divided them by which one of the two ego functions you simply prefer.

DCNH ...subdivides into:

Dominant = Extraverted Rational subtype
Creative = Extraverted Irrational subtype
Normalizing = Introverted Rational subtype
Harmonizing = Introverted Irrational subtype

For some reason, Gulenko gives these things different names. Contact/Distant = Extraverted/Introverted, Initiating/Terminating = Irrational/Rational, and Connecting/Ignoring = Dynamic/Static.

From there, the subtypes can be further divided into individual IEs (an Se-C-LII would display more Se in his behaviour than other LIIs), and even into a full set of 16 subtypes.

This is correct, you and Crispy know more about DCNH than I do, so I hate to sound like a know it all here just saying that in the two subtypes theory it is divided on function, whereas in DCNH it is divided on, extraversion/introversion, and irrationality/rationality.

[Saberstorm]

So then, as an EIE, how then would these subtypes think/behave? What functions and or Information Elements would they give an additional priority to?

EIE D subtype?
EIE C subtype?
EIE N subtype?
EIE H subtype?

[Ave]

So then, as an EIE, how then would these subtypes think/behave?

Noone knows for sure. There are no available descriptions of them at this point.

What functions and or Information Elements would they give an additional priority to?

EIE D subtype?
EIE C subtype?
EIE N subtype?
EIE H subtype?

Way I understand it, DCNH doesnt function on what information elements you prefer, 2 subtypes does. DCNH focuses on behaviors such as introversion/extroversion, it focuses on the behavioral(and not socionical = information processing) aspect of the types. So basically:

EIE-D behaves extroverted and structured*

EIE-C behaves extroverted and unstructured

EIE-N behaves introverted and structured

EIE-H behaves introverted and unstructured

*I replace "rational" with "structured" in big 5 to simplify.

[Leader]

There are no inconsistencies, because there are no subtypes.

[Krig the Viking]

Really? I thought they divided them by which one of the two ego functions you simply prefer.

Well, there are several different versions of the 2-subtype system. In one version it's the Rational or Irrational function of the Ego which is emphasized, in another it's all Rational functions or all Irrational functions, another version calls it Accepting/Producing instead of Rational/Irrational (although in effect they're the same thing). Furthermore, even those that agree on theory and terminology might disagree on their actual descriptions (Meged and Ovcharov's 2-subtype descriptions often differ from Gulenko's 2-subtype descriptions, for example). In my opinion, all this confusion is due to people unknowingly trying to fit 4 basic subtypes into a 2 subtype system; people get Rational/Irrational and Extraverted/Introverted subtypes confused.

So then, as an EIE, how then would these subtypes think/behave? What functions and or Information Elements would they give an additional priority to?

EIE D subtype?
EIE C subtype?
EIE N subtype?
EIE H subtype?

D-EIE emphasizes either Fe or Te. They tend to be very high-energy, very socially dominant, emotionally forceful, driven, and goal-oriented (eg: ******, MLK)
C-EIE emphasizes either Se or Ne. They also tend to be high-energy, but in a more impulsive and unpredictable way (eg: Salvador Dali).
N-EIE emphasizes either Fi or Ti. They tend to have mid-range energy levels, and tend to be more rigid and inflexible (eg: Bono).
H-EIE emphasizes either Si or Ni. They also tend to have mid-range energy levels, and tend to be more soft and fluid and easy-going (eg: Freddie Mercury*).

*Mercury's stage persona is C-EIE.

Even though N and H are introverted and hence low-energy subtypes, since EIE is a high-energy base type, EIE + Introverted Subtype = mid-range energy levels.

[Ave]

For anyonewho cares, I beleive I am H-EIE.

[Ave]

Well, there are several different versions of the 2-subtype system. In one version it's the Rational or Irrational function of the Ego which is emphasized, in another it's all Rational functions or all Irrational functions, another version calls it Accepting/Producing instead of Rational/Irrational (although in effect they're the same thing). Furthermore, even those that agree on theory and terminology might disagree on their actual descriptions (Meged and Ovcharov's 2-subtype descriptions often differ from Gulenko's 2-subtype descriptions, for example). In my opinion, all this confusion is due to people unknowingly trying to fit 4 basic subtypes into a 2 subtype system; people get Rational/Irrational and Extraverted/Introverted subtypes confused.

I beleive that most of us who claim two subtypes do not beleive in the version of all rational functions being emphasized, most places where 2 subtypes was popular(ie socionix and that crowd) beleived in the version where only the Ji/Pe or Je/Pi elements where emphasized.

[Krig the Viking]

I beleive that most of us who claim two subtypes do not beleive in the version of all rational functions being emphasized, most places where 2 subtypes was popular(ie socionix and that crowd) beleived in the version where only the Ji/Pe or Je/Pi elements where emphasized.

The Ji/Pe or Je/Pi elements of the Ego, you mean? That would make sense, given their belief that unvalued functions are not expressed in behaviour.

[Ave]

The Ji/Pe or Je/Pi elements of the Ego, you mean?

Yeah.

[glam]

Though if you're going to use subtypes, I'd say ditch DCNH for the time being and adopt a different subtype system. DCNH hasn't been vetted that well yet to know how useful it is and hardly anyone understands it.

the whole point of gooey starting this thread is precisely so she can try to understand it. it's stupid to tell someone not to try and learn about something just because "hardly anyone understands it". this is one of the only places on the internet where people interested in socionics can ask stuff like this, precisely to find out how useful DCNH (or any other theories/hypotheses) may or may not be. there are people like Krig here who are familiar with DCNH, there are DCNH threads and articles out there where people can learn about it, and maybe there are some people who are willing to post their real-life experiences and observations with the various subtypes, etc.

telling people not to learn and research is just advocating regression.

[Krig the Viking]

Krig types me LSI so it is not advisable. Almost all alphas on here type me LSI - LIIs and SEIs alike. I have come up with my own system of typing. It's called foolproof. Everybody who types me LSI is actually alpha and there have been a few already.

When did I type you as LSI? I have no memory of this. If I ever suggested it, I've long since dropped it. I honestly have no idea what type you are; I find you impossible to read because I'm never quite sure if you're being sarcastic or earnest or what. The drawbacks of communicating via message board, I guess.

You piqued my curiosity, so I went back over some of your old threads in the "What's My Type" forum, to see if I could figure out your type. You seem like a fairly obvious ILI. I'm somewhat baffled as to where this idea that you're an ST type came from. ILI explains why I so often find your posts difficult to comprehend (a known problem between Quasi-Identicals), your occasional aggressive tone lends support to you being an Se-valuing type, but on the other hand you seem quite sensitive to Fi-related matters (such as talking about a negative connotation of Holographic types treating members on here like they were baboons or guinea pigs in the other thread, something that would never have occurred to me). ILI seems like a fairly obvious and straightforward typing to me.

[Absurd]

You piqued my curiosity, so I went back over some of your old threads in the "What's My Type" forum, to see if I could figure out your type. You seem like a fairly obvious ILI. I'm somewhat baffled as to where this idea that you're an ST type came from. ILI explains why I so often find your posts difficult to comprehend (a known problem between Quasi-Identicals), your occasional aggressive tone lends support to you being an Se-valuing type, but on the other hand you seem quite sensitive to Fi-related matters (such as talking about a negative connotation of Holographic types treating members on here like they were baboons or guinea pigs in the other thread, something that would never have occurred to me). ILI seems like a fairly obvious and straightforward typing to me.

Well, there goes my cover.

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm not saying people shouldn't learn and research. I'm just skeptical how fruitful it's going to be investing time & effort into trying to understand a fledgling, weakly developed theory based on dubious premises.

What are those dubious premises? DCNH is not a fledgling theory nor is it weakly developed, it's consistent within itself(though, not as a static subtype system, mind you), it does explain general energetic temperaments, and there have been a fair amount of articles on it, not to mention more then a handful of Socionists use DCNH in typing and Socionics theory development. To be frank, your position is generically presumptuous; even going by what you said as being true of DCNH, a theory in its present state doesn't entail it will always be a lost hope of wasted resources, in fact that is exactly why there is theory development - to excavate potential.

[EyeSeeCold]

The systemic problem with DCNH is that no compelling etiological explanation is given for why such subtypes should be expected to occur.

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).


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/

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, then that is your preference.

Senseless to fawn over "excavating potential" from something that can't be fixed.

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.

[Krig the Viking]

I see Krig talking about it a lot, and he's said that Gulenko regards DCNH subtypes as "Energy Types."

Technically, Gulenko came up with the 4-subtype DCNH first, and then later expanded it to 16 subtypes and renamed them "Energy Types". In the process, he also added some ideas which, after careful examination, I don't see any basis for (such as changing the order of the functions, the whole concept of "energy metabolism" vs. "information metabolism", etc.). However, the basic idea of two types co-existing in the psyche (the Jungian Ego and Persona) seems borne out by what I've observed in people.

When I look at the differences between people of the same sociotype, I see certain patterns emerging which match what DCNH predicts. Since your school of thought is founded upon radical mistypings, Ashton, it's to be expected that you wouldn't see the same patterns. In fact, I suspect the primary source of your mistypings is due to the fact that you are unable to distinguish between Ego type and Persona type, resulting in type diagnoses that are a mishmash of the two. MBTI and especially Kiersey have similar problems.

[gooey]

I'm kind of with Ashton on this one...he makes some really good points as to why DCNH is either unnecessary or taking a BIG leap of faith assuming that another temperament exists within a temperament. Why should this be? Can't we just say some people are more extroverted than others? more irrational? etc. Either way, Krig, could you answer my original questions? I'm interested.

[Krig the Viking]

Either way, Krig, could you answer my original questions? I'm interested.

Oh, yeah, sorry. I thought about it, but I guess I didn't actually type it out.

So, I'm confused about a number of things in DCNH and was wondering if anyone could help me understand.

First, I think I have a strengthened Fe (I'm IEI) which would make me a dominant type. BUT, it says here:---- http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...translation%29 ----that Creative types have an inclination towards mirror...My mirror is EIE whose first function is Fe. So how does that make sense?

Secondly, a creative's strengthened function is supposed to be Se. BUT, a creative is also "ignoring" rather than "connecting" according to the dichotomies. Wheras the dominant is the reverse. Shouldn't having better sensing make you more connecting as you are aware of your enviroment more?

Third, dominants are supposed to be the most like their type...but If you're an IEI, odds are more laid back "creative" sounds closer to home than a "dominantating" personality.

Thanks.

The article you linked to was written by someone named Vera Borisova, who I haven't heard of before or since. For some reason, her descriptions combine elements of Gulenko's DCNH theory, and some other function-based subtype theory. She claims that Dominant strengthens the Base function, Creative strengthens the Creative function, Normalizing strengthens the Role function, and Harmonizing strengthens the Vulnerable function. But that's not Gulenko's theory at all -- Gulenko says that Dominant strengthens Fe and Te, Creative strengthens Se and Ne, Normalizing strengthens Fi and Ti, and Harmonizing strengthens Si and Ni. This occurs regardless of which function these information elements reside in. So Borisova is either misunderstanding Gulenko, or else she's inventing some other theory of her own.

In any case, the reason I translated her article was that, if you ignore the stuff about the functions, it's still a fairly good description of the 4 DCNH subtypes. Since then, however, I've translated Gulenko's own extended descriptions of the DCNH subtypes, which are probably a better source: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-(translation)

[gooey]

okay, this is my other problem with dcnh. when you say strengthened functions like Fe and Te, don't both of these take a backseat to my dominant function (ni)? Or are you strictly speaking about energy as opposed to information? and if you are strictly speaking about energy, doesn't this still throw out a lot of classical socionics understanding? I find it difficult to believe someone could have a strengthened Polr....honestly this would all be so much easier if someone made iei dcnh descriptions...ahem

[Ave]

Gooey I understand your question. It deosnt make sense to say things in terms of "strengthened" functions in DCNH. I posted a while ago about how different DCNH subtypes correspond to different cognitive centers of the brain: http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3660...post__p__24281

It doesnt answer your question, but it does simply say that DCNH subtypes simply correspond to different centers of the brain, which seems to be the case anyways, if you read my post. So maybe the DCNH subtypes exist as a prefence for certain lobes of the brain, rather then immediate usage of a fucntion in the here and now.

[Krig the Viking]

okay, this is my other problem with dcnh. when you say strengthened functions like Fe and Te, don't both of these take a backseat to my dominant function (ni)? Or are you strictly speaking about energy as opposed to information? and if you are strictly speaking about energy, doesn't this still throw out a lot of classical socionics understanding? I find it difficult to believe someone could have a strengthened Polr....honestly this would all be so much easier if someone made iei dcnh descriptions...ahem

Gulenko calls them "information type" and "energy type", but I don't think that's quite accurate. In my opinion, it's more useful to look at it as "inner type" or "core type", and "outer type" or "persona". Your inner type (i.e., your base sociotype) is how you think and process information internally. Your outer type is more like a system of learned behaviours, your "pattern" for interacting with the world. So a D-IEI with an emphasis on Fe will still have Ni as his Base Function internally, and Ni will continue to be the basis of his thought process, but his external behaviour will emphasize Fe more than other IEIs do. So it's an IEI consciously or subconsciously (more often subconsciously) trying to project the outward image of a Base Fe type like EIE or ESE. This results in more Dominant behaviour, more assertiveness, more forceful displays of emotion, etc.

A D-IEI with an emphasis on Te, on the other hand, still thinks like an IEI on the inside, but outwardly tries to project the image of a Base Te type like LIE or LSE. This results again in Dominant behaviour, assertiveness, but with a more logical and practical emphasis, efficiency, productivity, etc. However, since the function strengths are still determined by the underlying core type, a Te-D-IEI will never really be "strong" in Te, however much he tries to bluff his way through and project that image. It's like, a small-boned 4'5" man may be able to work out and become stronger, but he'll never be as strong as a big-boned 6'5" man can be.

Classical socionics focuses entirely on the Inner type, the core type, on how people think and process information. It tries to ignore and see through any outer behaviours, to get an idea of what's going on inside the mind. In this way, it has an advantage over MBTI and Kiersey, which don't distinguish between internal thought processes and external behaviour, and consequently diagnose types in an inconsistent and jumbled way. What DCNH and further subtype systems are doing is taking a look at all this external behavioural stuff, and classifying it into types as well.

[gooey]

interesting stuff...this is the best explanation i've heard. thanks! think you could break down a C-iei? i'm trying to figure out what my dcnh type would be. the only reference I have is a friend of mine who is also iei...he is more outgoing than me perhaps, reads more than i do, is more assertive towards authority figures, and goes up to people all the time to talk to them...i on the other hand, am outgoing in the sense that I "go out" more than he does but am inclined to shut my self off from the world during certain times...when learning about socionics for example, i was in in that mode for months trying to figure out my type..i'm also massively interested in philosophy..he isn't..all this makes me think i'm a c-type but i relate too much to the whole "goal itching in the back of his head thing" for the d-type...that's like the definition of me so i feel like i can't ignore it, hence why i've had trouble with this system

[gooey]

goddammit...ashton made another good point...this sucks! who to believe?!

[Krig the Viking]

I don't think Jung ever distinguishes either of those as types unto themselves. In the Jungian view, the Ego is more or less what one consciously regards as their identity, while the Persona is an outwardly-directed conscious adaptation to prevailing social environs; the Persona is part of the Ego but not necessarily coincident with it, though the lines between the two can blur to an extent, in some more than others.

Whereas type is conceived as something distributed across both the conscious + complementary unconscious aspects of the psyche; indeed, he cautions quite a bit against attributing type based on outward appearances and ostensible behaviors. Which would make the DCNH practice of "persona-typing" all the more suspect.

I concur for the most part with your description. For Jung, the Personality Type was associated with the Ego and possibly the Personal Unconscious, but not the Collective Unconscious. He cautioned against attributing type based on outward appearances and behaviours, because those things can be strongly affected by the Persona. For example, an EII businessman may try to project the image of someone who is more active, outgoing, and efficient. Is it really such a stretch to hypothesize that this EII businessman is actually trying to project the image of a different Personality Type, an LIE for example? It's entirely consistent with Jung's theory, in my opinion, and seems like a natural extension of it.

The only (possible) disagreement I have with Jung is that, based on my observations, I think the Persona is a bit more deeply-rooted than the impression one gets from his descriptions of it. It's my impression that the basic Persona forms during early childhood, and while it grows and develops like everything else as one matures, the basic form doesn't seem to change.

In Nature vs. Nurture, it seems to me that the Persona Type is the part of the psyche most affected by Nurture, one's upbringing and life experiences, while the Ego Type seems to be inborn, determined by Nature.

Oh come on now, you have no basis proving that as some kind of obvious given. I have just as much justification to allege that your approach is founded upon radical mistypings, and that's why you see these "certain patterns emerging" matching DCNH.

Well yeah, obviously. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong. That tends to be the case when people have mutually exclusive beliefs about reality. I'm not sure I see the problem here.

I think adding Persona Types to the mix just introduces unnecessary complications that are likely to be misleading, and inevitably gives too much interpretative leeway to rationalize unrealistic typings. I mean, even the basic 16 types are problematic enough in this respect. And while I'm okay with the basic 32-subtypes approach (2 subtypes per type), when you start getting into 64-subtype and 256-subtype models, it becomes too cumbersome to apply accurately. You're micromanaging too many individual differences at that point and attempting to explain too much with too great of specificity; it's beyond a predictive scope at which socionics typology can be expected to obtain meaningful results.

As theories grow into broader and increasingly all-encompassing contrivances, they are more likely to be wrong.

I couldn't care less whether DCNH and Persona Types make it easier or more difficult to diagnose type. The truth is all that matters. If Persona Types exist, then they must be accounted for. If Persona Types don't exist, then it's a waste of time to think about them. Based on my observations, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Persona Types do in fact exist, which makes the study of them a worthwhile pursuit.

That said, I find that being aware of DCNH and Persona types actually makes type diagnosis much easier. There's more of a learning curve, obviously, but by being able to classify behaviours related to the Persona, it makes it easier to distinguish between those behaviours, and the underlying internal thought processes that make up the core type. By doing so, you can also build up an understanding of exactly what the range of normal behaviour for each core type is. Subject A is moderately more outgoing than Subject B, but both claim to be LII. Is Subject A actually an Extravert, or does his level of outgoingness still fit within the range of possible LII behaviour? DCNH helps clarify the answer to that, which would otherwise be left up to a nebulous combination of intuition and guesswork.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I read Krig's post. It's like I can't connect any of this to something physical or relatable. I see myself as being all types depending on the situation. I am sort of heavily influenced by my environment, maybe everybody is that way. I can be dominant and confident and also shy and timid, depending on the circumstance. Socionic typing works better for me, because like Gilly said one time, the functions are already so intertwined in nature anyway.

For example: “Thanks for the lack of birthday congratulations. It was very nice, ladies and gentlemen.” Dominant would say: “It's my birthday! Quick, everybody congratulate me!” And no problem…

I get your point but I think this is a bad example. To me, a dominant type would say something Hollywood narcissistic-like that is hard to defend or argue against/confront, and would require a lot of wit and know-how if you want to debate it, whereas 75% of the population would agree with it out of fear (and also wanting to belong and be 'one of the cool ones') or would just sort of midwestern drool at it. Then another dominant type might challenge it and the way the two would see who would win or not would be a simple popularity contest, they'd gather the energy from as much other people as they possibly could.

This is essentially how politics work.

I like what Krig said about when a dominant type leaves it's like everybody else did.

[gooey]

Krig, I love you bud. You've been very helpful and kind to me...but I think Ashton (And others) are correct. What threw up a red flag for me were some strange typing's of IEIs you had like John Lennon and Michael Moore. If DCNH can be used to validate that these two are IEIs...then it simply doesn't work in my opinion. Added to this, types within types? It's kind of a stretch...can't we just say people are inconsistent? Also, DCNH not only moves WAY past Jung as Ashton stated above, but it sort of contradicts model A in some very key ways and has no real reason for existing that I can see.

The main thing though, honestly, is that I just don't see it. I can see how I've been all four of those "subtypes" at one point in time or another, depending on the situation. And I bet many people can as well, if they really think about it. The reason I think the 2 sub system is much better is that, thus far, every time I've looked at the people I've typed and checked out the 2 sub-descriptions, BAM! perfect fit. Only once have I met someone that could have been a "split" as they call it (literally a perfect combo of the 2 descriptions). Also, judging from various people's use of DCNH on this site and others (using lingo like "possibly D" or "perhaps N"), it just seems obvious to me that the system is a bit confusing, convoluted, and most importantly, not clearly visible in any way I can see...thus making it a bit worthless. I really like that you're passionate about it though, and are willing to study it so much and promote it to others. Unfortunately, I'm unconvinced.

[EyeSeeCold]

The reason I think the 2 sub system is much better is that, thus far, every time I've looked at the people I've typed and checked out the 2 sub-descriptions, BAM! perfect fit.

That's a problem, if it's a perfect fit every time.

[Krig the Viking]

Jung never said nor implied in any way that the Persona could be a type unto itself. Which means this sham you're proffering attesting to the "Jungian-esque" nature of 'Persona Types' is inconsistent with Jungian Typology.

Of course Jung never said nor implied such things. He also didn't say anything about quadras or inter-type relations. They're natural extensions of his theory, as I suggest persona types are.

The whole business of "type personas" is ridiculous supposition, because it means that an EII person "acting LIE", would necessarily possess accurate foreknowledge of what it's essentially like to be LIE, in order to put on a compelling LIE act. Adding to that, we have the rely on the perceptual acuity of the person's doing the type diagnosis, that the behaviors they believe they're seeing are really "LIE" behaviors." Again, another layer of ridiculous supposition.

I suppose it would all seem pretty ridiculous to someone who thinks the unvalued functions are not expressed in behaviour, yes. Your arguments would be quite convincing if I agreed with your foundational assumptions about the nature of the Information Elements. Since I don't, however, this discussion is about as productive as debating Intertype Relations with someone who uses the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. It just devolves into another boring debate about the basics.

So, the "truth" is all that matters, even if acceptance of this "truth" makes observation and verification of said "truth" more intrinsically difficult? Sounds like quite an epistemic tangle you've got yourself in there.

I find your argument perplexing. It's like arguing that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle makes quantum physics more intrinsically difficult to observe and verify, therefore Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle must not be true. Whether something is easy or difficult to observe and verify has no bearing on whether it's true or false.

Lo! One must wonder then what your magical methodology is for separating out "Persona Types" from "Socionics IM Types."

Still curious what your magic tricks are for separating out one's "DCNH Persona" from their actual Socionics IM type, without mistaking one for the other.

First you distinguish between a person's outward behaviour and appearances, and his internal thought processes. Then you categorize his internal thought processes, arriving at his core sociotype. Everything up to this point is identical to the normal process for diagnosing sociotype. The only difference is that you go a step further, and also categorize the person's outward behaviour and appearances which don't relate to his core sociotype.

Obviously, this won't work using your version of socionics, since we disagree on fundamental things like "What is Fi?" It's like trying to discuss the orbital velocity of Mars with someone who thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I imagine the feeling is much the same on your end, too. So what exactly is the point of this discussion?

Krig, I love you bud. You've been very helpful and kind to me...but I think Ashton (And others) are correct. What threw up a red flag for me were some strange typing's of IEIs you had like John Lennon and Michael Moore. If DCNH can be used to validate that these two are IEIs...then it simply doesn't work in my opinion.

For the record, my conclusion that they were each IEI happened long before I ever thought about what subtypes they might be. They're also fairly common typings, as far as I know. What do you type them as?

Added to this, types within types? It's kind of a stretch...can't we just say people are inconsistent? Also, DCNH not only moves WAY past Jung as Ashton stated above, but it sort of contradicts model A in some very key ways and has no real reason for existing that I can see.

How does it contradict Model A? I'm unaware of this...

The main thing though, honestly, is that I just don't see it. I can see how I've been all four of those "subtypes" at one point in time or another, depending on the situation. And I bet many people can as well, if they really think about it. The reason I think the 2 sub system is much better is that, thus far, every time I've looked at the people I've typed and checked out the 2 sub-descriptions, BAM! perfect fit. Only once have I met someone that could have been a "split" as they call it (literally a perfect combo of the 2 descriptions).

Interestingly, I'm just the opposite: I find the 2-subtype descriptions to be vague and sometimes contradictory, depending on whose descriptions I'm using. I find DCNH much more specific and useful.

Also, judging from various people's use of DCNH on this site and others (using lingo like "possibly D" or "perhaps N"), it just seems obvious to me that the system is a bit confusing, convoluted, and most importantly, not clearly visible in any way I can see...thus making it a bit worthless. I really like that you're passionate about it though, and are willing to study it so much and promote it to others. Unfortunately, I'm unconvinced.

We all have to draw our conclusions based on the evidence we have available to us. The evidence I have access to points pretty clearly to the validity and usefulness of DCNH, but I guess the evidence you're working from doesn't show the same patterns. I appreciate that you at least have an open mind to explore new ideas, at least. This forum would be a better place if everyone were like that...

[gooey]

thanks! Umm...well, Lennon is probably an ENFj...maybe ENTp, but very doubtful in my opinion. On second thought, a case for Lennon being IEI could be made... Moore is not an iei...I don't know what he is...but, not iei. Well, as far as it contradicting model A, I was pointing to the "strengthening" of certain functions that are supposed to be inherently weaker, such as an IEI having strong Te or whatever...I just don't see how that makes sense. And yeah, I know DCNH is supposed to be more based on energy not information, but the thing is, all these symbols (,,,, etc.) are primarily based on BOTH information AND energy. So how would someone have strong , not information-wise, but energy-wise? The two are, by definition, tied together.

Plus, the whole theory basically came about when it was noticed that people of the same type who are together in a room will have different roles when asked to do...whatever. This is hardly a surprise. I think people naturally adjust and adapt to other people and situations all the time...and this is basically what occurred in these little experiments they tried. Notice also, that Gulenko talks of how the more people of the same type you get into the room, the more different they appear from each other...hmm, interesting..hence...more subtypes! 8! then 16! then 32! 64!...I mean, it just seems that when it gets to that level of magnification...it's just obvious that people are just...different. Particularly if you can just keep going on and on and on forever practically. Gulenko even basically stated that DCNH is really only necessary when people of the same type are in a room together and need to get something done or whatever. Otherwise, I find it difficult to tell who's who. In addition to all of this, subtypes can lead to a very slippery slope in that they can be used to justify very bizarre typings..so i just feel, as a decent rule of thumb, trying to use the most basic form of typing is perhaps best.

[Radio]

Here's a simple way to understand DCNH.

D (contact, terminal, connecting) = EJ (extrovert, rational, dynamic)
C (contact, initial, ignoring) = EP (extrovert, irrational, static)
N (distant, terminal, ignoring) = IJ (introvert, rational, static)
H (distant, initial, connecting) = IP (introvert, irrational, dynamic)

So C-IEI is IEI with EP temperament, D-IEI is IEI with EJ temperament...

You can see where this is leading (hint: it's down the bog).

If you're IEI you are dynamic, irrational and introverted = IP temperament, period.

[EyeSeeCold]

Here's a simple way to understand DCNH.

D (contact, terminal, connecting) = EJ (extrovert, rational, dynamic)
C (contact, initial, ignoring) = EP (extrovert, irrational, static)
N (distant, terminal, ignoring) = IJ (introvert, rational, static)
H (distant, initial, connecting) = IP (introvert, irrational, dynamic)

So C-IEI is IEI with EP temperament, D-IEI is IEI with EJ temperament...

You can see where this is leading (hint: it's down the bog).

If you're IEI you are dynamic, irrational and introverted = IP temperament, period.

Sure, you've got it. These properties under DCNH theory are strengthened according to social role. Four IEIs together in one social sphere will be either more Ej, more Ep, more Ip, or more Ij.

What makes a type have a certain temperament(e.g. Ej) is fixed structurally, but that doesn't mean a person is always dynamically active in the physically energetic sense. What stays the same is the type of energy-information perceived, but not manifested or produced.

[gooey]

"If you're IEI you are dynamic, irrational and introverted = IP temperament, period."

This.