Subtypes and crossing between different systems

[Contra]

Possibly an easy question: how does one apply different subtype systems such as DCNH and Accepting/Creative subtypes to the same type? What i mean, is that, say, in the case of an ILI, can one be both Dominant and Ni sub or Creative and Ni sub or must they both be extraverted or introverted? Do they apply to such different aspects of the type that they can be complete opposites and it won't matter? Are the two subtype systems exclusive of one another? My intuition is that the answer to this question has never been clearly defined by the Russians or anything "official" so I'm interested to see what the members here think.

[The Exception]

I've wondered that too.

I would speculate that ILI-H would have the strongest tendency towards the accepting ILI-Ni subtype. In H subtypes, the Ni (along with Si) are strengthened, consistent with ILI-Ni (accepting)
Likewise, I think ILI-D would have the strongest tendency towards the creative ILI-Te subtype. With D, Te (and Fe) are strengthened, consistent with ILI-Te (creative)

With ILI-N and ILI-C, things might look a little more iffy but with these I think ILI-N lines up better with ILI-Te and ILI-C better with ILI-Ni. This could be explained with accepting/producing- an extension of accepting/creative. In accepting subtype, all of the odd numbered functions are strengthened in addition to the base function. In producing subtypes, all of the even numbered functions are strengthened, not just the creative function. In ILI-producing, the strengthened functions are Te, Fe, Fi, Ti. In ILI-N, you would have Ti and Fi being strengthened- producing functions. I think it's most apparent these functions would be strengthened but there would also be some strengthening of the other two producing functions: Te and Fe as well.

Likewise ILI-C strengthens accepting functions Ne, and Se and less obviously Ni and Si.

Another way of putting it would be rational/irrational subtype tends to stay the same in both systems. ILI-Te (rational) correlating with D and N; ILI-Ni (irrational) correlating with C and H. From what I've observed, this is usually the case but I've seen exceptions. For instance ILE-Ti identifying with C DCNH subtype.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I'm ESI-Se and ESI-H, which is admittedly a weird pairing. I just chalk it up to the limitations of the former.

[Pookie]

ILI Ni - Dominant; seems improbable, if only for the fact that if Ni is true, in DCNH it seems more likely that the the "N" or the "I" would transfer, thus making normalizing or Creative an option, to compliment the obvious presumption of Harmonizing. Just seems like a stretch intuitively. But maybe not, maybe that person would just be fixating entirely on their two ego functions, at the expense of all other development. In that case both could work.

There is no official right or wrong answer, but intuitively it makes sense that the two systems do not correlate directly. So any combination is possible.

[Phantom Shadow]

Intriguing, I was just pondering this a few weeks ago. I feel like there would be some sort of correlation, but question comes down to how do correlate the systems while keeping everything equal and balanced.

[Pookie]

Correlation here seems backwards.

We use Thinker or Feeler to split 1 group(everyone) into 2 groups. Extroverted or Introverted creates 4 groups. And so on. The purpose of this is to divide. To account for differences.

Correlating Ni subtype to X only serves the purpose of reducing the spectrum. Reducing the spectrum isn't necessary, because if you want the spectrum smaller you can just exclude a dimension(DCNH, or Subtypes entirely, or Enneagram, etc...). If the purpose is to account for differences, why would we do anything to limit the spectrum? Everything should be about creating more dimensions.

[Aylen]

[The Exception]

No wonder why my never got along with

[chemical]

I think one thing we've discussed before is this concept that there are many "planes" on which these codes defining the 16 types come in.

Personally I never found too much reason to think that these "planes" are all somehow the same, but rather seem like various dimensions, adding complexity upon complexity. They might not be independent, in the sense there could be correlations, but conceptually they appear to be independent enough.

The way I'd decide the regular sociotype is through information preferences more strictly. Whereas DCNH seems to be where you're really getting at something more like personality rather than information. For instance, how dominant, driving and goal-oriented someone is definitely is a hallmark of what could be called personality, as is someone's sense of immediacy to push out a creative product. This, I admit, is something of an "in the spirit of" interpretation rather than necessarily a direct one.

I'm within the camp that actually says dcnh seems to conflict less with the spirit of socionics than does the vertical subtype system justifications one commonly sees, as the latter use Jungian justifications, ones which appear to be clearly incompatible with socionics. For instance, they claim that the Ne-subtype of IEE should have strengthened Te/Ti on account of the Jungian idea of intuition opposing sensation more than feeling. But, socionics information metabolism does not strictly follow Jungian dichotomies in determining strength. In particular, e.g., a IEE's closest equivalent in Jung or the MBTI would have sensation the weakest, whereas in socionics the weakest used function is Ti.
What socionics is doing is complicating Jung's idea of one inferior function, and instead splitting inferiority into two categories: a not-valued one and a sought out one where one is very suggestible.
Those familiar with Jung will recognize that Jungians smashed these two concepts together. Gulenko gets into this in his discussion of MBTI/socionics differences.

However, you can use the 2-subtype system from the standpoint of accepting/producing or something instead, and it'll follow more closely the socionics doctrine - I'd say it still matters because you're changing the justification as to what is being grouped together, and thus one's archetype changes, that is, you look for "more accepting" or "more producing" rather than "more intuitive" for example.

The way I like to use 2 subtype systems personally is to go more with categorizing the focus on a certain kind of information - I'd view the so-called "creative" subtype as more mixed, and the accepting subtype as the purer focus on the first information element.

[Contra]

The way I'd decide the regular sociotype is through information preferences more strictly. Whereas DCNH seems to be where you're really getting at something more like personality rather than information. For instance, how dominant, driving and goal-oriented someone is definitely is a hallmark of what could be called personality, as is someone's sense of immediacy to push out a creative product. This, I admit, is something of an "in the spirit of" interpretation rather than necessarily a direct one.

I think I generally agree with you. The way I've seen DCNH, and I think Elina's conversation with Socionics Britannica kind of confirms this, is that DCNH, for whatever reason, has a large effect on group dynamics. Dominant types are group organizers, Creatives break groups up, Normalizer support existing groups, and Harmonizers help to start groups up (?). This also helps when you relate Contact, terminal, Distant, and initial. I think the attitude to groups is more of a consequence from the personality alteration of DCNH, and I do think it's clear that the DCNH has a real effect on personality and, accordingly, intertype relations. At least more than the accepting/producing subtypes which seem to alter information preferences.

[chemical]

For what it's worth, I do think DCNH wasn't intended to be broadly a description of personality, and definitely specific to group dynamics, but part of me thinks this is just the beginning - the question of "why do two instances of the same type have such different group behavior" is just a precursor to more generally asking, why are two instances of the same type so different in personality? And the reason for that to me is that 16 broad information metabolism blueprints is barely enough to categorize types of information, let alone personality associations we make to those types (e.g. static intuition with a restless orientation to newness).

[The Exception]

I think I generally agree with you. The way I've seen DCNH, and I think Elina's conversation with Socionics Britannica kind of confirms this, is that DCNH, for whatever reason, has a large effect on group dynamics. Dominant types are group organizers, Creatives break groups up, Normalizer support existing groups, and Harmonizers help to start groups up (?). This also helps when you relate Contact, terminal, Distant, and initial. I think the attitude to groups is more of a consequence from the personality alteration of DCNH, and I do think it's clear that the DCNH has a real effect on personality and, accordingly, intertype relations. At least more than the accepting/producing subtypes which seem to alter information preferences.

Dominant: contact, terminal, connecting
role: group leader/organizer

Creative: contact, initial, ignoring
role: idea generator, reformer

Normalizing: distant, terminal, ignoring
role: enforce rules, see to it things get done correctly

Harmonizing: distant, initial, connecting
role: keep the harmony in the group I guess? Get along with people, accomodate differing needs/viewpoints.

[yeves]

The way I'd decide the regular sociotype is through information preferences more strictly. Whereas DCNH seems to be where you're really getting at something more like personality rather than information. For instance, how dominant, driving and goal-oriented someone is definitely is a hallmark of what could be called personality, as is someone's sense of immediacy to push out a creative product. This, I admit, is something of an "in the spirit of" interpretation rather than necessarily a direct one.

How do you reconcile typing by "personality traits" and typing by "information metabolism"? Why is DCNH exempt from the groundwork on which socionics was built? I'm genuinely confounded by the origin of subtypes and why do the DCNH ones get an exemption comparatively to other subtypes.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ion-Metabolism

I'm within the camp that actually says dcnh seems to conflict less with the spirit of socionics than does the vertical subtype system justifications one commonly sees, as the latter use Jungian justifications, ones which appear to be clearly incompatible with socionics.

How does it "conflict less" when DCNH isn't based on the same cornerstones as are the main 16 socionics types, and describes personality while never explaining what is the I.M. basis for its descriptions?

[chemical]

How does it "conflict less" when DCNH isn't based on the same cornerstones as are the main 16 socionics types, and describes personality while never explaining what is the I.M. basis for its descriptions?

For what it's worth, the key word was "spirit" since I take the ideas from these things as and how I please, so if you're going to read my explanation, you're forewarned that I'm totally uninterested in defending the exact letter of either dcnh or socionics.

So that said, my bias is to not try too hard to reconcile personality and information - I do not believe they are getting at quite the same thing, although there are associations one can make.

Getting into what I think DCNH does, well first off, I see it as a certain type of strengthening pairs, much as vertical subtypes, only this one is about Ej, Ij, Ip, Ep - the temperaments, rather than about dichotomies like N/S and F/T.
And the reason I find this strengthening pattern conflicts less with the sociomodel is that they've made a conscious choice to say, e.g., a ILI's opposition in strong/weak and confident/painful functioning is felt in terms of Ip vs Ej, where the latter manifests in Fe-polr. This is why, unlike with Jung, where the weakest function uniformly is sensation for an introverted intuitive type, the weakest here is feeling instead (at least with respect to mental functioning).
The other thing I think that is quite congruent between the spirit of dcnh and socionics gets into the fact that socionics clearly isn't to me a pure information theory - there's no question its practice is blended with personality. Now, someone may eschew parts of it and select only the information theory, but I don't get the sense that's how practice is being conducted. And when I look at personality-to-information associations, where can I seem to find them? If I look at an ILE profile, what I see is stuff like orientation to newness, curiosity, and so forth, for example, as how their Ne lead manifests.
So my take on dcnh is that, whatever it really originated as for, there's something to the idea of treating the idea of strengthening these personality-associated-to-information facets independent of the main type. And thus it provides a welcome complement to the main information type one deals in, but while remaining quite with the spirit of where I see the most common socionics-profile personality-to-information associations made.

[chemical]

None of this should be taken as a defense of either socionics or dcnh by the letter, and I don't really use them that way myself personally.