DCNH census

[Not A Communist Shill]

If you are uncertain how to vote, then perhaps return to the thread at a later point!
It is possible for vote for more than one option in each section, but that is not ideal.

Two things to vote on:

• Vote depending on what your DCNH subtype is!

• Vote depending on how that subtype relates to your Socionics type! ( ↓ ♆ Sea Below ↓ ⚓ ) (I believe it to be a point of interest, which may be of some relevance to how people perceive the DCNH subtypes, at least when reading of them.

Basically, each of the DCNH subtypes fits in one of these four groups:

• Your dominant temperament (in my case, if I am EII, this would be IJ)

• The temperament of your dual (in my case: EJ)

• The temperament of your conflictor (in my case: EP)

• The Otter one (in my case: IP)

(If you don't know, read the following links to find out):
Wikisocion: System of DCNH Subtypes (general overview)
DCNH subtypes by Vera Borisova
Gulenko's Descriptions of the DCNH Subtypes

I personally I find this article the most useful, although you may disagree. Go straight to section 3.1 to 3.4 (the rest is rather difficult to read): Compatibility and Duality
(Section 3.1 = Dominant; 3.2 = Creative; 3.3 = Normalizing; 3.4 = Harmonizing)

[Jeremy8419]

Too late for fancy formatting! Weeners!

[ouronis]

Harmonizing. New and improved, now with poll!

Actually probably Creative. Whoops

[Contra]

I think I'm Creative, but not sure. I can see myself within any of these and it's hard to tell if I'm Creative or Dominant because they'd necessarily be watered down.

[Jeremy8419]

They're supposed to take effect in group settings, probably going up in how apparent they are with group size and frequency. Due to being involved with a lot of groups through my career, the N is extremely obvious over time. Generally speaking, I maintain Fi sub-split of N 75% of the time and Ti sub-split of N the other 25%. As group size goes up, the Fi sub-split is virtually always in effect.

[The Exception]

I thought I was harmonizing but I'm having doubts once again about my subtype. I don't like conflict normally and seek comfort. Kind of SEI like. But I feel like I could be N subtype with enhanced Fi. I seem to have a strongly developed Fi role function for an LII and often get mistyped as EII. I could also be C-Ne, I seem to use Ne alot, sometimes I feel like I use it more than Ti, yet I'm still LII. I just don't feel like I'm as hardcore with the Ti as some LII's.

I don't like this idea that functions have to be strengthened in pairs. I strengthen Ne but not Se. Si but not Ni. Fi but not Ti. So if you go to 8 subtypes, H-Si, N-Fi, or C-Ne. All I know I that I'm not D subtype.

Here is a pictorial depiction of my DCNH subtype:

[Jeremy8419]

I thought I was harmonizing but I'm having doubts once again about my subtype. I don't like conflict normally and seek comfort. Kind of SEI like. But I feel like I could be N subtype with enhanced Fi. I seem to have a strongly developed Fi role function for an LII and often get mistyped as EII. I could also be C-Ne, I seem to use Ne alot, sometimes I feel like I use it more than Ti, yet I'm still LII. I just don't feel like I'm as hardcore with the Ti as some LII's.

I don't like this idea that functions have to be strengthened in pairs. I strengthen Ne but not Se. Si but not Ni. Fi but not Ti. So if you go to 8 subtypes, H-Si, N-Fi, or C-Ne. All I know I that I'm not D subtype.

Here is a pictorial depiction of my DCNH subtype:

Normalizing vs Harmonizing. Balanced-Stable vs Reflexive-Adaptive.

You may be thinking of the Creative portion of SEI/IEI as Fi.

[ghost of forum past]

They're supposed to take effect in group settings, probably going up in how apparent they are with group size and frequency.

If this is true, I'm Creative in the context of working in a group. Left to my own devices I'm more serious and focused.

[Jeremy8419]

If this is true, I'm Creative in the context of working in a group. Left to my own devices I'm more serious and focused.

Premise is, if there are 16 people, including yourself, of your own type in a group, each will slowly transfer into the 16 different types. I think a lot of people involved in this get confused by the closed-group they create with others online. I view all of this through the context of how people are within the general level of Society.

[Aylen]

So IEI harmonizing is just IEI (no subtype) with predicted function preference? I guess I am that one more than the rest and that is what others into DCNH have told me. I have read all 4 IEI descriptions in another thread that @HERO posted awhile back so all 4 in various situations but natural state is harmonizing.

[uncivilized]

I relate most to the creative subtype, but with some elements of the harmonizing one. If these subtypes exist, it could explain why so many people have difficulty nailing down their type. It seems some of these could cause a thinker to be mistaken as a feeler, etc? I've seen these roles at play in groups; subtypes are an interesting subject.

[Sol]

it's not Socionics. it's baseless Gulenko's fantasies

[chrys]

I am not sure whether I am Normalizing or Harmonizing.

The first dichotomy, Contact vs Distant, is the easiest one for me to decide on.
The other two... well normally I would say I am Initiating and Connecting but this could easily be a result of me having Generalized Anxiety Disorder/Social Anxiety Disorder.

With an anxiety disorder, I am constantly distracted and unable to keep at something for long, and constantly changing environment would definitely something I'd be quite aware of.

But at the same time, I do cope with anxiety by disconnecting, so I can just as easily say fuck everything and dissociate from everything around me if I so wish, if I am in the right mindset.

Basically I can achieve certain levels of awareness by acknowledging what realms I do or don't or should or should not have control over. Is someone about to stab me? Oh well this isn't my body anyways I'll just ignore that. Okay not the best example since that is not something that has happened but that's how I generally cope with anxiety.

I'll have to read into it more I guess.

[Pookie]

A LII Normalizing subtype would be noticeably better in one of the Ji elements and noticeably worse in the other Ji element. Time spent focusing on Fi(thus a higher proficiency with Fi) = Less Time spent focusing on Ti, and vice versa. This is relative to the "normal" LII type(the average composite) by which the archetype is defined by, or attempts to define.

[chrys]

According to the article you deemed as most useful, there's no way I'm Normalizing whatsoever. Even Creative is better fitting. Yes, Harmonizing clearly fits me.

[The Exception]

A LII Normalizing subtype would be noticeably better in one of the Ji elements and noticeably worse in the other Ji element. Time spent focusing on Fi(thus a higher proficiency with Fi) = Less Time spent focusing on Ti, and vice versa. This is relative to the "normal" LII type(the average composite) by which the archetype is defined by, or attempts to define.

I think I might me more Fi focused and less Ti focused than the average composite LII. This is in spite of Ti being my base function.

I've also read though that functions are strengthened in pairs in regards to DCNH subtype, so increasing Fi increases Ti.



==

[Pookie]

I think I might me more Fi focused and less Ti focused than the average composite LII. This is in spite of Ti being my base function.

I've also read though that functions are strengthened in pairs in regards to DCNH subtype, so increasing Fi increases Ti.



==

I can see Fi increasing Fe, but i'd like to see the source that says Fi increases Ti. My understanding is that if one is on then the other is off. You cant use the two at the same time as they are essentially antithetical to each other in process. Our element strengths grow as we get older because we spend more time using and developing them with practice/application. It doesn't make sense to me that they would grow with each other if using one essentially shuts down the other, limiting the practice and application of the element.

[Aylen]

So IEI harmonizing is just IEI (no subtype) with predicted function preference? I guess I am that one more than the rest and that is what others into DCNH have told me. I have read all 4 IEI descriptions in another thread that @HERO posted awhile back so all 4 in various situations but natural state is harmonizing.

Everything I assumed in the post quoted was wrong. I got confused by all the different ways people tried to explain it to me. No two people explained it the same way and it seems some were just as confused as me. I do not suggest using this theory to type yourself initially. It will probably confuse you and lead to mistyping. I think that was my problem with it from the beginning. Once you know your type then it is interesting to explore.

Granted I have not studied it or even really looked into it much until recently. I am not willing to say it is all nonsense or an excuse for people not using their base function, anymore. People are complex but we already know this. I am glad I didn't look into this until I had a good grasp on the functions If you are Ni base you are still Ni base. That does not change.

I was very skeptical of all this because I could see myself in all 4 descriptions. Then I had a long voice chat with @Deer Woman who happens to see me as a Dominant IEI-Ni subtype. The way she explained it was just so easy to understand and I was onboard with her assessment of my subtype. It made a lot of sense. I don't really want to paraphrase her because she says it so well but basically a dominant subtype would be able to dominate interactions with their base function? Not that everyone in the room will respond to it well. She also explained why I might see myself in the harmonizing type due to the concept of disintegration. A dominant subtype could disintegrate into a harmonizing in certain situations. I am not knowledgeable enough in this theory to comment further but she is.

1. Dominant

I came, I saw, I conquered.

The brightest, most vivid subtype -- within the limits of type, and in general.

Most similar of all to his type's description. Nuance: the Dominant introvert is more extraverted (especially not in a socionics understanding, but in Eysenck’s understanding, i.e. lively, sociable, and outgoing), but still displays pronounced characteristic features of his type. If the normal introvert, upon getting tired of communicating, will just go "hide in a corner", the Dominant will drive everyone away and still be grumbling loudly, saying, "Everyone keeps walking around here!"

He is the most realized, especially in the socio-cultural sphere; I think that most famous people, i.e. well-known actors, writers, politicians, etc. fall into the Dominant subtype.
In a group he is also the most (bright, strong, intelligent -- depending on the base type). The logical is "the most intelligent", the ethical is the most excitable, the sensor occupies the most space. That is, the sphere of his "achievements" and the specific way in which he attracts attention to himself and becomes the leader depends on his type. Dominants take the leadership explicitly, especially if they are ethical, sensing, or extraverted. Logical-intuitives do not always deliberately seek to lead, but must: "so that no idiots can order me around".

If the Dominant leaves the room, the impression created is that not just one person left, but a large portion of the people.

Among people of the Dominant subtype, if they are stuck in one group, there is strong competition, even if their intertype relationship is quite comfortable, and there is no serious "reason for fighting".

The easiest way to say it is that the Dominant, firstly, pulls attention to himself, and secondly, "gives orders". Furthermore, he is blunt, if he uses some sort of manipulation, it is rather crude. Usually he just says what he needs from you. It infuriates everyone except Normalizers. In commanding and giving orders, Dominant does not just give out the task, but also his confidence -- he provides the energy to perform that task. It is possible to "go a long way" on his energy, simply join his initiatives and help him implement them (but, of course, go only in the direction where the Dominant needs you to).

Strangely enough, the Dominant responds calmly to minor quibbles, to requests (from Normalizing) to adhere to a specific order. And they may even actually adhere to it! If there is no Normalizing nearby, the whole tangled mess is sent to the furnace or into the trash, and all matters.

In his 1st function the Dominant works "at full steam" and even more. In that sense, it's not just hidden somewhere processing information -- in Dominant it is evident at all times. If this is Te, he is not just busy all the time: he is working on three jobs, and in between speaks and teaches others what they should do. If, however, he does not work, he thinks and does various actions in his imagination, and then, once again, speaks about it, aloud and loudly, with confidence and an air of authority. (For this display, you need to multiply the usual manifestations of the base functions times three)

If, say, the Dominant is Hamlet [EIE], it is not just emotions, but such emotions from which the whole group "get excited" [Translator's Note: the word here is actually "колбасит" or "sausage", which apparently has some weird slang meanings in Russian], while Hamlet "generally does nothing" and sits quietly.

Dominant Yesenin [SLE] manages to command what you do.

Dominant Balzac [ILI] is energetic and rudely sarcastic.

Dominant Dostoevsky [EII] is sort of "an iron fist in a velvet glove": after a demonstration of softness and ethics emerges an equally demonstrative condemnation and desire to "educate".

VS

4. Harmonizing

Most important is the weather in the house…

Lively and visible enough; however, in comparison with the classic type description he is “suspiciously” nice. It appears that the negative features of type have no relation to the harmonizing subtype.

Soft and delicate; although these qualities are somewhat limited by the capabilities of the type. That is, harmonizing ethics - this is truly a very ethical person. He always wants to make sure that all is well. Logicals too. But with logicals for some reason it turns out “he wanted it to be better, but it turned out as always”.

In contrast to the Normalizing/Dominant dyad, Harmonizing and Creative are comrades with a “delicate structure of the soul”. Especially, of course, Harmonizing: sensitive, suffering, touchy, altruistic, self-sacrificing.

Like Dominant, he is a connector, that is, he establishes necessary connections with the environment. But where Dominant does so crudely and directly, Harmonizing does so by careful manipulation (he is capable of multiple combinations of manipulation, for the purpose of making another person become well.).

Monitors social desirability and conforms to it. (“The gentleman is that man who calls a spade a spade, even having stepped on it in the darkness…”) This is especially true of gender stereotypes. Moreover, if Harmonizing has armed himself with a gender stereotype, then he does not simply behave in accordance with it, but brings it to the ideal. This is the Ideal Man (“I've gone to earn money for my beloved! ”) or Ideal Woman.

For Harmonizing to do something “for himself” -- he does not really want to do it. Now, if it's for a loved one, then -- whatever you want.

Always ready to help, to meet you halfway, thereby inconveniencing himself. In general, he frequently lives with a sensation of discomfort and stress, and does so consciously. That by itself does not have sufficient value for him. But behold if we do something not very pleasant for someone else - that will be a ponderous Good Deed. Therefore Harmonizers are often doing something with a painful function. When people talk about PoLR as the “secondary creative”, this is about Harmonizing.

Can't stand it when anyone argues or scolds. Here again he tries to help, to fix the situation, since this very thing makes him feel badly.

Has an idea of how he must behave, so that others will not feel badly. Evaluates those around him from the point of view of the ethics of their behavior, and seeks to educate them. Suffers greatly, if he himself has committed an act which is not irreproachable.

Harmonizing finds it difficult to insult people “head on”, to accuse a man, even if he deserved it. Harmonizing either tries to express his displeasure and resentment delicately somehow, or he keeps silent and sulks. Even when it is already obvious that he thinks poorly of someone, he comes across something like this: “I think poorly of you, but for the sake of our good relationship, I will not say anything about it”. As a result, a “delicate hint” from harmonizing can prove to be much more offensive than a direct “hit”.

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…

Or another situation -- a guest has walked in street shoes further than the home owner would like. Dominant puts a stop to this business at the root: you will not have time to enter, you will immediately be told where to remove your boots. (“Where do you think you're going?” they can also say.) Normalizing will mutter to the side: “And why is it that everyone walks in their boots past my wonderful green custom bristly rug, which is is the size of the entire lobby?” (and he himself will rearrange all the shoes to where they must go). Creative - it is not at all certain that he will notice anything; or he will notice, but consider it too unimportant to say anything about it. But Harmonizing will keep silent out of delicacy, but will remember: how could this guest enter in boots, the fiend?!


This article was originally published in forum thread: Subtypes: The Empirical Portrait (translation) started by Krig the Viking View original post

• Categories:
• Socionics,
• DCNH,
• Subtypes

By these descriptions I am more dominant than harmonizing. Harmonizing and creative seem more like the Fe subtypes now that I have read them carefully and not the 0 subtype I initially thought harmonizing might be.

I actually liked hearing Deer Woman's perspective on this. She not only has a good grasp on this stuff but she takes it to another level which resonated with me. Hopefully she might do her own article at some point. <3

[chemical]

I think dcnh has some utility as addendum for temperament-related things, so that they don't get overly associated with the more cognitive aspects of type.
So for example, if someone is passive and self-submerged, this to me indicates more H than it does a cognitive Ni or Si orientation.

The gist of this is that what people often never understood is persona isn't a "fake mask", it is more like a vital thing layered on top of the ego, which is not equal to it (and is dangerous to over-identify with), but which should be in good harmony with it nonetheless. Jungians of repute have even written to the effect that the persona/ego balance can be helpful in forming the type.

As for my DCNH, I tend to believe it is H.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The distribution of the votes is interesting (although based on a limited sample). I wonder if it is an example of people who type themselves as an extroverted type (for example) typing far more readily with "extroversion" than any other trait (and similarly with those who type as an introverted type in regards "introversion": that would of course would not explain however why people are not choosing the subtype that correlates with their self-identified temperament.

[HERO]

I read the descriptions and I think I relate to the Creative subtype more than the other ones.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yes, the self submerged aspects in me makes me think that I'm ILI sometimes.
I still think is closer to ignoring. However LII makes little sense since the of LII borders IEI and I have some issues with that.

When it comes to ITR alpha > gamma. Specifically I find SEE's OK most of the time while some issues may come to surface with ESI's.

I think objectively IRL H makes most sense.

[Tallmo]

I'm Normalizing


There are no pure types in the sense that there is always another layer that "confuses" the picture.

No DCNH subtype is more "true" to the main type. Because the main type is always more or less "distorted" by DCNH

That being said, DCNH actually helps us concentrate on the actual main type and disregarding the DCNH phenomenon.