DCNH subtype change.

[suedehead]

I think Gulenko talked about it in his recent interview. Have you ever experienced it?

I related to harmonizing a lot when I first started out, but lately since making some lifestyle changes it feels like I move between Normalizing and Creative. H only seems to describe me when I'm depressed. And outside of DCNH, I even see myself in the Se/contact-sub description a bit more now than I used to do, whereas before it seemed obvious to me that I was one and not the other. But idk, it's probably all bullshit.

[Amber]

I hope you get some answers from people who contest DCHN theory.

I'm indifferent to it, but I cannot say I identify with one subtype. In any case, I probably have traits of D and N.

[Words]

I think Gulenko talked about it in his recent interview. Have you ever experienced it?

I related to harmonizing a lot when I first started out, but lately since making some lifestyle changes it feels like I move between Normalizing and Creative. And outside of DCNH, I even see myself in the Se/contact-sub description a bit more now than I used to do, whereas before it seemed obvious to me that I was one and not the other. But idk, it's probably all bullshit.

I think Gulenko has been/is trying to move socionics types into different sub sets of types in a way to try to explain the individual differences of people within the same type. My opinion is good luck to him but with 7.2 billion people on the planet I'd rather do something else and leave socionics as it is in that regards

Well on that I wouldn't be surprised if you are doing a shift from one of these to the other, and I hope it is a good thing for you.

[FDG]

I personally don´t think DCNH theory is "real". There´s just too many layers to it. People can behave according to a completely different "type" in different environments.

[chemical]

There is a general idea to it: persona. Which roughly just represents the identity you adopt to adapt to circumstances. It isn't fake so much as an identity based on adaptation (if we think everything we are is somehow stable/innate, we're likely mistaken - there are both stable and less stable things, and we identify with both).

Though, I do think beyond persona, dcnh is getting at another thing, which Ananke and I were discussing earlier - it's that I think there is a difference between the actual cognitive processes and things we associate with them.

As a simple example of what we discussed, the idea of intuition often seems to suggest someone who is creative, openminded, idea-happy and innovative. Indeed, this is the gist of "N" as presented by the MBTI for those familiar. Now, as good or bad as this may be as an indicator, I'd say it does tend to get things that in a lot of people are relatively solid descriptions of them, but, are not exactly the cognitive processes. That is, "N" is not intuition as a dry, abstract process.

What helps, then, is to note that there are both say SLE who meet this "N" criterion and SLE who may meet the "non-N" and MBTI "S" criterion and by the way, what is considered MBTI ISJ starts looking a lot like things you find in some normalizing subtype descriptions. This is different from the general nature of how their cognition focuses in information priority. I think what our discussion got at is that DCNH "C" descriptions sound a bit like these "N" attributes.

(Some of the most innovative, creative artists have been introverted sensation types...they would not fit the comfort-seeking paradigm of Si, and this is where it's useful to remember the difference between the abstract definition "external dynamics of fields" and things we associate, like harmony, inner wellness, as a result of sensory stimulation - which is all stuff that corresponds quite well to harmonizing subtype Si..I'm sure some of the artists I speak of were something like C-subtype.)

The best takeaway I can give now is that DCNH sounds more like an accent in how you conduct yourself/your style than what information you see in what organizational framework. The cognitive processes like sensation, ethics, etc go one level more into the inner processes than things like how creative you are - it tells you what information a creative person may be seeing. Analogously, one could perhaps say that forms of cognition go even past the basic information elements, which is the view of point I think.

I would certainly say there are somewhat more innate things built into the dcnh descriptions, but some less innate things. Though that is consistent with persona - persona gets much more at sort of what you're like practically, and thus is an outgrowth of innate tendencies rather than something more abstract. Overall, taken as a whole, persona can and in fact often must shift with circumstance. To the extent that it does so enough to reflect one of the dcnh categories, dcnh can change.