Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: DCNH Convo I had with Socionics Britannica School

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default DCNH Convo I had with Socionics Britannica School

    So some of this might be not be relevant to everyone since it's centered around a question I asked for myself, but there's also lots of good, general DCNH info they told me, so here it is... I found their DCNH dichotomy descriptions very interesting, as well as the healthy/unhealthy subtype stuff.

    Hi : ) I know you're working on the translations of the DCNH brochures, and I'm wondering if you could clarify some things for me, if this is in the brochures.
    I find DCNH very hard to use because it's so relative. The dichotomies being a gradient makes it very confusing since lots of comparing to other people, especially of the same type, is needed, and that just ends up confusing me even more. No one seems to fall clearly into these dichotomies.
    I'm stuck between IEI normalizing and creative for myself. Could you clarify what an "extroverted introvert" and a "rational irrational" is really supposed to be like? I find those concepts so confusing.

    Absolutely, happy to do it
    Firstly Viktor has abandoned, extroverted extrovert, extroverted introvert... rational rational and irrational rational, due to the level of confusion it causes. Extrovert, Introvert, Linearity (rationality) & Fluidity (irrationality) are exclusively reserved for the core types. Whereas the new terms, Contact, Distant, Terminal & Initial are reserved for the subtypes. It is both more accurate and easier to understand DCNH as a separate system adding its own insights.
    Even though it originates from the reanalysis of the classic dichotomies, extroversion, introversion, rationality and irrationality, it changes the classic dichotomies realizing how they do not fit the types properly. Initially that is where the confusing extroverted extrovert.... etc came from, along with the pure type.
    Now for INFP Creative and Normalizing, the story gets more interesting. From the energy-model, INFx mutually have Temporal Intuition and Relation Ethics (T & R) as their strongest functions and that is reflected within all INFx subtypes. Therefore you will notice that INFP-C have the "normalizing traits": understanding ethical standards, order... the appropriate rules in a given environment.
    INFP-C have an independent, daring attitude which is reflected in desire for freedom to choose how they choose to operate within the standards. They do not want to be micromanaged or have various obligations placed upon them by third parties. INFP-N are the most controlled subtype, bound by personal obligations, a sense of duty in maintaining personal order. INFP-C are easily prepared to fight, naturally as contact types whilst, INFP-N are more likely to retreat, which is in line with the notion behind distant and contact.

    Now confusingly, INFP-C, adopt normalizing entirely when functioning at low levels of psychological health; they are neither daring nor independent; on closer inspection they can easily be mistaken for INFP-N. However what gives away the low-health INFP-C is the fact that they do not thrive under the normalizing behaviour as natural INFP-N do; they feel contrived instead of contempt at when maintaining the order, obligations, at the back of their mind a sense of fear, inadequacy lingers and remains the barrier trapping them in the deplorable state. Whereas INFP-N at low levels of psychological find themselves adopting the INFP-C traits, in the form of reckless endeavours, the suboptimal creative subtype behaviour.

    (Definition of Terminology, Beta brochure)

    Subtype dichotomies
    11. Contact – a feature drawing personalities to tense situations; predisposition to danger, facing challenges, activity
    12. Distant – feature withdrawing personalities from tense situations; predisposition to balance, inner control
    13. Initial – feature orientating personalities to easily undertaking new activities; predisposition to being at one with what comes to you
    14. Terminal – feature orientating personalities to bringing whatever has begun to completion; predisposition for controlling one’s world

    Core type dichotomies
    25. Extroversion – a carefree organic approach, to how one understands the world; leads to being largely taken by the information surrounding them. It results in a much broader set of interests, though without the "depth", a sense of heightened inter-connectivity, seen with introversion.
    26. Introversion – a theme colouring how one understands the world; it affects energy patterns therefore introverts only devote to action in line with their ''themes''. All their understanding is in line with their “themes”, thoroughly thought out hence their interests are narrower but deeper.
    27. Linearity (rationality) – Linearly take information, "work a plan",
    28. Fluidity (irrationality) – Take information coming to them, collecting gradually developing their understanding.

    Thank you so much! I appreciate all this wonderful information. It seems that INFP-C fits me more, except for the "easily prepared to fight" part. I usually retreat from conflict, mediate, or otherwise react diplomatically. I don't like getting angry. However, I prefer freedom and don't like to be micromanaged and don't feel bound by obligations. I'm much more about "doing what I want to do" and "following my passions" than doing what "has to be done" or "supposed" to be done by some standards. So this probably makes me Creative, correct?
    One more thing, as I read back through the info, why would INFP-N take on INFP-C traits when unhealthy? I thought when unhealthy subtypes go down a level, so INFP-N I figured would act like an unhappy INFP-H.
    And lastly, if you have any resources about the energy model you mentioned you could share I'd appreciate that. What you said about INFx makes sense to me cause I know the base and the background functions are the strongest in Model A, but I don't know much about the energy model. Thanks again for all your help : )

    We have been debating that actually, our evidence shows that the original hypothesis by Gulenko does not match reality. Dominants actually do not adopt negative Creative subtype traits which is something we have been observing in our case study.
    What we find is that when Dominants get threatened, which is usually the case when fighting Creatives and then realizing that they are impossible to control, with their very stubborn, independent attitude. They instead adopt Harmonizing traits leading them to passively try to find their footing and reconnect with the group as mutually connecting types.
    Equally Harmonisers, adopt negative Dominant traits becoming overtly aggressive and domineering when unable to find their balance. Dominants and Harmonizers adopt each other's traits when unhealthy, just as Creatives and Normalizing .
    Glad to help, the fighting aspect is true, "the diplomacy" is merely the clever aggression for creatives. We mention that more developed, Creatives, learn to circumvent the negative side of their uncompromising attitude via such diplomacy. That does not at all negate the underlining fact they are uncompromising, holding their interests firmly.

    No, your writing is fine and thanks again for this info! It's very useful. I'm more sure of being Creative subtype than ever now.
    One last little question and I'll stop bothering you: What about the Connecting/Ignoring dichotomy? Does Gulenko still use that? And if so how is it defined now?

    The connecting ignoring dichotomy is another good and vital one, it is actively used by Viktor; we have also been developing and expanding it. We think group and utilitarian are possibly better terms for the dichotomy.

    Group (connecting) subtypes, Dominant & Harmonizing are more socially influenced than utilitarian (ignoring) subtypes Creative & Normalizing. Group subtypes are more agreeable, adapting themselves to the group compared to Utilitarian types who are independent.
    Dominants have moderate agreability, they always maintain the balance of adapting to the group and controlling it, both objectives are important to them. Whereas Harmonizers have pronounced agreability, they totally adapt to their group's mentality and everything; just adapting to the group is important.
    Normalizers have moderate utilitarian behaviour as their primary focus is on their interests, they are not really concerned with others. On the other hand, Creatives are the most pronounced utilitarian behaviour, they focus on their own interests, understanding firmly fighting for them. What makes their brand of utilitarian behavior pronounced is their contact orientation, the predisposition to challenges, which is not the same as Normalizers distance, inner balance approach.

    Last edited by Kissum; 12-08-2014 at 04:21 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    76 Post(s)
    1 Thread(s)


    What's socionics Britannica is that like encyclopaedia Britannica?

  3. #3
    Contra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    55 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    This is pretty interesting stuff. I've definitely been interested in getting more info on DCNH considering how sparse it is now. I think a broader subtype system makes far more sense than the simple accepting/creative subtypes. Also, I'm probably ILI-C based on this.

  4. #4
    Poster Nutbag chips and underwear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    my own personal bubble
    EII > LII
    58 Post(s)
    1 Thread(s)


    Being a hufflepuff harmonizing subtype sucks. I want to be creative!
    EII - INTj - Dostoyevsky -

    No, it's not a typo!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts