Correlating DCNH and MBTI: Capital J and Capital P

[mikesilb]

What are your thoughts about the following:

In a nutshell, couldn't D and N represent a certain type of order seeking in the outer world? Something akin to the Myers Briggs' J (note the capital J, not the lowercase j that signifies rationality).

Likewise, couldn't C and H represent a certain need for freedom seeking in the outer world? More akin to the Myers Briggs' P (again, not p that would signify irrationality)?

In other words, the 'initiating/terminating' dichotomy that Gulenko mentions in his articles may be another wording of the Myers Briggs P/J dichotomy (respectively).

To me, Socionics itself (not DCNH) might not dictate one's tendencies for organizational order or chaos. However, I wonder if this is perfectly represented within DCNH and correlates very well with the type of thing that the MBTI is all about (i.e., this concept of seeking order or freedom in the outer world).

I think that this also affects one's general flexibility/adaptability to new things versus a need to keep things relatively controlled and structured (in a way that an outsider could easily notice these characteristics).

Does this correlation make sense to you overall, or is it based on false logical/theoretical premises?

[Saberstorm]

I have not read anything about the "'initiating/terminating' dichotomy" as of yet.

Terminating could imply declairing or concluding something, or it could mean accomplishing something. So N declairs and D accomplishes? But in order to accomplish something you need to initiate it! That means it must be sought out (type C) and then there is also immediate feedback from the initiative - you must recieve a type of continually unfolding feedback? H?

It could work.

[mikesilb]

When I read Gulenko's initial article and Borisova's elaborations, it all of a sudden dawned upon me that the Ds and Ns look so much like the way that MBTI Js look like. In the same way, I see the Cs and Hs looking very much like the MBTI Ps. So a huge motivation for making this connections comes from an epiphany that I had after carefully rereading both of these articles.

Thus, I tend to think that for any Socionic type, you could have your organized and disorganized members [J/P] (irrespective of whether they are rational or irrational dominants [j/p]). I think that this would also jibe with DCNH representing 'persona types' (more behavioral) rather than 'information types' (more cognitive).

Saber, when you have a chance, check out all the articles on DCNH and let me know if after reading them, you find similar connections here. I'm curious if you concur from that particular vantage point. Thanks!

[Galen]

MBTI and DCNH are about equally as superficial in their methods, so you could be onto something. I consistently test as J in MBTI, and I'd always figured that if DCNH was at all a theory worth considering I'd be N.

[Nowisthetime]

Yeah, Terminal is J, Initiating is P, Connecting is Dynamics (IP & EJ), Ignoring is Static (EP & IJ), Contact is Object (E), Distant is Field (I)

EDIT: or exapanding to 8 subtypes: primary is external, secondary is internal.

or they correspond to these.

A D-ILE is more likely to type himself ENTJ in MBTI, but there is no definite rule, just maybe a tendency. I don't think it is possible to find any definite correspondance because MBTI is too fussy and confusing, the types are floating.

EDIT: I think what actually sometimes happens in MBTI is that they confuse the DCNH layer with the sociotype layer. People do that also sometimes when they try to find their type in socionis, but here it is possible to correct mistakes and eventually find the real sociotype

[InvisibleJim]

In a nutshell, couldn't D and N represent a certain type of order seeking in the outer world? Something akin to the Myers Briggs' J (note the capital J, not the lowercase j that signifies rationality).

Likewise, couldn't C and H represent a certain need for freedom seeking in the outer world? More akin to the Myers Briggs' P (again, not p that would signify irrationality)?

In other words, the 'initiating/terminating' dichotomy that Gulenko mentions in his articles may be another wording of the Myers Briggs P/J dichotomy (respectively).

It's possible Gulenko (via socionics) and MBTI theorise the same phenomenon with a different description.

Gulenko discovered the order of information flow between functions. According to him, function processing begins with the base function and proceeds through the creative, role, and vulnerable functions and back to the base

That's your MBTI type there. e.g.

ENTP - Ne - ego, Ti - creative, Fi - Role, Se - Vulnerable

Big picture (MBTI Ne) -> Obsessive detail (MBTI Ti)-> Distancing from personal relationships/ownership and find meaning in groups (MBTI Fe) -> Disinterest/detachment (MBTI Si - past memory/sentimentality) -> repeat

[mikemex]

MBTI is highly inconsistent, so you might as well avoid wasting time on it.

For example, according to MBTI your position in the judger-perceiver scale may change over time but in reality, that would imply a switch of the entire mental structure because an INFP for example, is supposed to be Fi Ne Si Te. INFJ, Ni Fe Ti Se. Obviously, unless you're suggesting that when you're close to the middle in the scale you switch your entire mental structure every saturday, we're just talking about plain bullshit.

[mikesilb]

MBTI is highly inconsistent, so you might as well avoid wasting time on it.

For example, according to MBTI your position in the judger-perceiver scale may change over time but in reality, that would imply a switch of the entire mental structure because an INFP for example, is supposed to be Fi Ne Si Te. INFJ, Ni Fe Ti Se. Obviously, unless you're suggesting that when you're close to the middle in the scale you switch your entire mental structure every saturday, we're just talking about plain bullshit.

Two things I have to comment about this:

1) I am not so sure that the MBTI fans would assert that a person would shift between types upon crossing the midline of a given dichotomy. I can totally see how upon crossing the J/P line, if the type would change this would totally mess up the theory/mental structure...but I am not so sure that the MBTI'ers would say that one's type changes at any point within a lifetime. However, one's positioning within a given type's dynamics will change (in the same way that one can shift towards one's Superego functions for a given type using Model A in Socionics).

2) However, with that beng said, for the sake of argument we could chuck MBTI for being an inconsistent, crappy theory. I am not necessarily against this in general. But, I still think that even if we did throw MBTI down the toilet, I still think that the concept of "being order seeking" and "being freedom seeking" would be generally useful terms towards describing certain behavioral traits. I think that DCNH carries that correlation where Ds and Ns tend to be more order-seeking (than Cs and Hs), while Cs and Hs tend to be more freedom-seeking (than Ds and Ns). We can chuck the MBTI jargon in favor of those more general terms if it makes more sense to do so.

[mikesilb]

Yeah, Terminal is J, Initiating is P, Connecting is Dynamics (IP & EJ), Ignoring is Static (EP & IJ), Contact is Object (E), Distant is Field (I)

I know that my thinking in this case has a bit of a reductionistic (bottom-up rather than top-down) flavor, but I really think we need to think about the correlations very slowly and meticulously. For example, there is nothing in MBTI that even remotely discusses dynamic and static, so making that connection to me feels like a risky venture.

What I am trying I do with this thread is start with J/P and to say that Ds and Ns have an inherent J-ness in that they seek outer world organization and order (and do not like an overly flexible, spontaneous arrangement), while contrastingly, Cs and Hs have an inherent P-ness (no pun intended ) in that they seek freedom, flexibility, and spontaneity around them (and will not like to be constrained by an overly controlled/structured atmosphere).

I may want to extend to E/I but I still need to be convinced that you can't have any extraverted Ns and Hs nor any introverted Ds and Cs. Obviously the theory states this connection, but I also want to intuitively sense that this is accurate. I feel better about J/P correlating to DCNH.

Again, I apologize for taking this literally one step at a time, but I feel more comfy doing that when comparing two theories constructed by different people under different contexts (in the same manner that I would feel also just as tentative correlating Socionics types to Enneagram types for the same reason). But if you see the rationale by which E/I perfectly connects to DCNH (connect/distance) or where EJ+IP/EP+IJ relate to dynamics and statics, I would certainly like to hear your thoughts about this.

[Nowisthetime]

I know that my thinking in this case has a bit of a reductionistic (bottom-up rather than top-down) flavor, but I really think we need to think about the correlations very slowly and meticulously. For example, there is nothing in MBTI that even remotely discusses dynamic and static, so making that connection to me feels like a risky venture.

I didn't connect it to MBTI, sorry for the confusion. I meant that these are the connections to sociotype aspects on a subtype level.

I may want to extend to E/I but I still need to be convinced that you can't have any extraverted Ns and Hs nor any introverted Ds and Cs. Obviously the theory states this connection, but I also want to intuitively sense that this is accurate. I feel better about J/P correlating to DCNH.

I don't think J/P (or irrationality/rationality) really correlates to DCNH, it's just they sort of correspond methaphorically or something. And the same thing goes for the other aspects. And sometimes there can be mistypings because of this.

I guess I have the same view as some others here: Don't compare with MBTI at all.

[FDG]

You may be onto something, however I see it as a form of circular process, rather than a simple layer; an example: a LIE-Creative may obtain ENTP as most frequent result on a MBTI test. On the other hand and synchronically, his "Creative" in the DNCH will be colored by his ultimately being a rational type, so it won't be comparable in characteristics to a typical IEE-Creative DNCH(*).
The layer are thus multiple, and well, the only way to sensically compare two persons is by first making a "ceteris paribus" assumption (whose difficulty renders the process an exercise in futility, more often than not).


(*)Example, a LSI or LIE creative may be "initiating" in DNCH but they will still generally have a tendency towards finishing what they start, due to rationality.

[mikesilb]

You may be onto something, however I see it as a form of circular process, rather than a simple layer; an example: a LIE-Creative may obtain ENTP as most frequent result on a MBTI test. On the other hand and synchronically, his "Creative" in the DNCH will be colored by his ultimately being a rational type, so it won't be comparable in characteristics to a typical IEE-Creative DNCH(*).
The layer are thus multiple, and well, the only way to sensically compare two persons is by first making a "ceteris paribus" assumption (whose difficulty renders the process an exercise in futility, more often than not).


(*)Example, a LSI or LIE creative may be "initiating" in DNCH but they will still generally have a tendency towards finishing what they start, due to rationality.

As a Creative (or Harmonizing as a backup), ESE, I am also a rational type that fits in this category. The thing is that as a rational type, I find myself internally driven to take care of any matter that I feel that it is in my capacity to do so. There is this larger sense of responsibility and obligation that exists here (Note that I am an Enneagram 6 as well...which is all about this quality).

At the same time, as a C (or H), I am going to be very adaptable towards the outside world. I smile a lot with others...I am generally a very friendly, open, and accommodating person. I want to be seen in this flexible, adaptable way. I like sharing humor and good times with others. I also am big on all types of theories and novelties (i.e. Socionics). I could engage in a good theoretical/intellectual discussion about different topics/concepts. So this flavors my -dominant nature.

So even within me (as a good example), I have both rational (j) and Creative (MBTI - P) going on. In other words, while I value a very open, flexible, surroundings around me (Enneagram - 7 wing), I internally am motivated to take care of any obligations that linger in front of me to the point that I will be concerned if I am not fulfilling whatever is in front of me (and/or if I am letting others down in terms of these obligations/roles) (Enneagram 6).

The question ultimately is whether there is a difference between the two measures. I tend to think that there is a fine-line/difference and that we just have to be a bit careful as to knowing where (dominant) rationality/irrationality separates from 'preferring order around me'/'preferring flexibility around me' (which is NOT reflective in the dominant Socionics function). Generally, I think that rationality and irrationality are more of an internal process of how you preferably tend to prefer to solve or address problems...irrespective of the amount of order or chaos around you. (In my case, I prefer a more direct, head-on solution to problems without adding too many variables or complexities...this would be in line with my EJ temperament). Contrastingly, I think that 'preferring order/flexibility around me' has to do with a certain organizational preference and demeanor that indicates that the person will either choose to organize/manage others within his/her environment for the sake of maximizing a goal (D), reduce the entropy of his/her environment (N), indulge in the matters that captivate or motivate him/her (C), or remain in a state that maximizes a sense of unity and harmony with his/her surroundings (This is my best attempt to explain this...If you have better explanations, I'm certainly all ears!)

I also think that the DCNH qualities surrounding order and flexibility are more readily visible than rationality/irrationality (which stems more in the individual's style of processing information). At the same time, DCNH has a greater superficiality in its apparent visibility and hence, deeper senses of whether a person truly embraces chaos and order in all aspects of problem solving can be better seen in the rational/irrational measure. But I do think that they are both important and complement each other. Yes, rationality/irrationality (IMHO) carries more weight...but I think DCNH dictates how large or small the margin really is. I also think that DCNH will make a C-ESE look quite profoundly different than a N-ESE (just as one example).

(By the way, FDG, I fully agree with you that a C-LIE (EJ temperament) would not be nearly as 'C-ish' as a C-IEE (EP temperament) due to increased rationality in the LIE. Makes a ton of sense!)

Anyway, I've rambled quite a bit but I hope that this resonates at all with some of your experiences. Let me know your thoughts about all this!

[mikesilb]

Is there no feedback because I wrote too long, because the interest in subtyping/DCNH may be low, or a few of the above reasons? Just curious.

Sometimes I get overly passionate on a certain topic and can write a dissertation on it. It would suck that this topic drops out because I wrote or analyzed too much.

Let me know! Thanks!

[mikemex]

Is there no feedback because I wrote too long, because the interest in subtyping/DCNH may be low, or a few of the above reasons? Just curious.

Sometimes I get overly passionate on a certain topic and can write a dissertation on it. It would suck that this topic drops out because I wrote or analyzed too much.

Let me know! Thanks!

Be patient dear Mike. We are still here, just relaxing...