Which Gulenko's (DCNH) subtype are you?

[Singu]

Unfortunately, Gulenko's subtypes are not very well known or used, even though they could be useful in determining the differences and nuances between the identical types. They are kind of enneagram-ish, so there might not be so much of a need to rely on enneagrams and its subtypes (so/sx e8 etc.) to determine the differences in types.

So, which subtype are you?

Dominant: Bossy, gives orders, dominant, vivid, EJ-like
Creative: "Creative", eccentric, "social last", EP-like
Normalizing: Anal-retentive, orderly, IJ-like
Harmonizing: e9-ish, passive, peaceful, comforting, IP-like

Read the full descriptions:

Dominant subtype

• Strengthening the linear-assertive functions , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D).
  
  [These functions are strengthened precisely in pairs, since they possess close energization (another way of saying they complement each other).]

• Strengthening function forms demonstrative-artistic behavior. Corresponds to primary domination through emotional pressure, the skill to inspire or frighten. Primary domination in animals is connected to bright colors, cries, expressive mimicry and gestures.
• Strengthening function forms the lingering behavior. This method of domination is secondary. This is the business leader, who persistently and emphatically gets his own way.

Both these models of behavior are frequently encountered together, being combined through the role mask. This bears out the fact that domination, although it is manifested through two varieties, is nevertheless a one-piece process.

• Dominating, along the primary axis generates the intragroup role of the motivator (psychologists call this the informal leader), and along the secondary axis role - the engine (formal leader).

 

I came, I saw, I conquered.

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

This subtype has greatest similarity to its type's descriptions. A nuance: Dominant subtype introvert is more extraverted (particularly not in a socionics understanding, but in Eysenck’s understanding, i.e. lively, sociable, and outgoing), but still displays pronounced typical features of his type. If a typical introvert, upon getting tired of communicating, will just go "hide in a corner", the Dominant subtype will drive everyone away and still be grumbling loudly, saying, "Everyone keeps walking around here!"

This subtype is the one most likely to self-actuate, 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 this subtype is also the most (bright, strong, intelligent – depending on the base type). The logical type - is "the most intelligent", the ethical type - is the most excitable, the sensing type - takes up 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 main type. Dominant subtypes take the leadership explicitly, especially if they are ethical, sensing, or extraverted. Logical-intuitives do not always deliberately seek to lead, but feel that they must: "so that no idiot can order me around".

If the Dominant subtype leaves the room, an impression is created is that not one person but most of the people have left.

Among people of the Dominant subtypes, if they end up in the same group, there arises a strong competition, even if their intertype relations are quite comfortable, and there is no serious "reason to fight".

The easiest way to say it is that the Dominant subtype, 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. This infuriates everyone except Normalizing subtypes. In commanding and giving orders, the Dominant subtype does not simply provide a task, but with his confidence he provides the energy needed to perform it. It is possible to "go a long way" on his energy, by simply joining his initiatives and helping him implement them (but, of course, go only the way where the Dominant needs you to go).

Strangely enough, the Dominant subtype calmly responds to minor quibbles, to the requests (of Normalizing subtype) to adhere to a specific order. And even actually adhere to it! If there is no person of Normalizing subtype nearby, the whole disorder or mess gets sent to the furnace or into the trash, and that's all.

The 1st function the Dominant subtype works "at full steam" and even more. In that sense, it's not just hidden somewhere processing information – in Dominant subtype 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 during the breaks he talks and teaches others what they should be doing. If, however, he isn't working, then he thinks of various actions in his imagination, and then, once again, talks about it, aloud and loudly, with confidence and an air of authority. (To imagine this, multiply the usual manifestations of the base function by three.)

If, say, we're dealing with the Dominant subtype of Hamlet (EIE), this is not just emotions, but such emotions from which the whole group is seriously wound up, while the EIE is not even doing anything, sitting quietly.

The Dominant subtype of Yesenin (IEI) manages to command what you should do.
The Dominant subtype of Balzac (ILI) is energetic and rudely sarcastic.
The Dominant subtype of Dostoevsky (EII) is a kind of "an iron fist in a velvet glove": after a demonstration of softness and ethics from this person emerges an equally demonstrative condemnation and desire to "educate".

Creative subtype

• Strengthening of the mobile-flexible functions leads to the appearance of a creative subtype (C).

• Strengthening function forms excitable behavior. This treats creativity as primary and instinctive. It gives nonstandard, rapid solutions during extreme, critical (for survival) situations.
• Strengthening function forms affective-labile behavior. This is secondary creativity, connected to intellectual fantasy, nonstandard ideas, directed not towards output based on dead-end situations, but to the solutions of future problems.

Both these functions frequently work together as two sides of a united innovation-introductory process.

• Creative, along the primary axis acquires for itself the role of contactor, and on the secondary the role of group innovator.

 

Everyone wants to be unique. I'm not like that.

The Creative subtype, conversely, is the least similar to its main type description. It is the most flexible subtype. There is a strong inclination toward "Mirror" type, as though the 1st and 2nd functions have switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the extravert to the introvert. And in general, all characteristic type features seem to be diluted and watered down for the Creative subtype.

It seems that for Creative subtype the intertype relations are also "watered down" – as he conducts himself "outside the box" by the standards of his type.

Creative subtype, one way or another, finds himself in the sphere of ideas and creativity, and this doesn't have to be something artistic – it may well be scientific or a hobby; generally, a creative element is introduced into any pursuit, otherwise the Creative subtype feels uninterested. If someone else's result or product comes into his hand, the Creative subtype will remake, "improve it", think it over.

For Creative subtype it is easiest to show and realize himself over the 2nd function, but in principle, other variants are possible.

On another note, if the result or product of the Dominant subtype is immediately demonstrates and "hyped up" – the Creative subtype can easily create "for himself", to write knowing his writing won't get published, or for a narrow circle of those for whom it may be needed or interesting.

The Creative subtype is not very discerning of various social-relational games, but he doesn't protest if he gets pulled into such a game.

He easily takes off, "a person with eccentricities", capable of an unusual and generally foreign to his sociotype actions (for example, an LII who doesn't only go hitchhiking himself, but also takes his wife and children along for the trip).

The Creative subtype is not interested in anything besides that which is truly interesting to him – in the sense that he ignores everything else (passively or actively). Including people (for Creative subtypes of logical types: "those people are like wooden poles"). May actively renounce something if it hinders him personally. By these means, Creative subtype "slips by", since a renounced topic is not important to understand because it's outside the scope of his interests.

Creative subtype attitude towards norms or standards is negative or indifferent, which is especially clearly displayed on the aspect of role function: that is, a person of Creative subtype does not strive to abide by "generally accepted" standards. (Julia (Balzac) was genuinely surprised at my attempt to wash the fruit bought at the market – what for? At my explanations "So that they are clean", and that "I may eat unwashed fruit, but they should be given to a small child" Julia just waved her hand dismissively.)

Normalizing subtype

• Strengthening of the balanced-stable functions gives a normalizing subtype (N).

• Strengthening function gives alarming-over-anxious behavior. This is the primary-axis setting, which does not require formal commitment to traditional rules.
• Strengthening function leads to the formation of formal-pedantic behavior. It is secondary in nature in response to the satisfaction of common group needs. It is based on regulation, instruction and official laws.

Both these models of behavior can act together, strengthening each other. Conscientiousness and pedantic relation to one's responsibilities are considered two sides of normalizing behavior.

• Normalizing along the primary axis is the conscience of the group, and along the secondary its coordinator.

 

Normalizing subtype, truly, tries to order everything that is within his sphere of direct action or influence. "All the pot handles must point to one side" – this quote from the autobiography of Khmelevskoy (about her husband) ironically but accurately characterizes the Normalizing subtype. However, the sphere of ordering has a clear boundary: that which is inside is "mine", "that with which I can identify with". "My house," "my job," etc. This "mine" must stay in a specific order, that is introduced by the Normalizing subtype. This order may or may not be visible to third-party observers. Regardless of this, any violation of order is perceived as troubling, much like a pebble in the shoe.

Things that symbolize order - compartment trays, cases with partitions (for screws, for example), sets of identical items (jars of spices, dinnerware), drawers, cabinets, holders, organizers - delight the Normalizing subtype.

Any activity the Normalizing subtype begins with establishing order, structure, designation of boundaries, methods and deadlines. He is very efficient and diligent. He is not afraid of monotonous work, "nit-picking", polishing and finishing work begun by someone else. It is difficult for him to start on a task, but once he "gets into it" the rest proceeds much better. It is much more pleasant to work when "the end line" is visible, when the bigger part has already been accomplished.

If there is no opportunity to "bring order", the unsettling feeling can be dispelled by means of moving the "mess" beyond the borders of what is "mine". "Other people have a right to as much as much disorganization as they wish, and it's none of my business." This happens when someone else has the right to the territory or activity, or when the activity is shared but the partner who opposes organization. Then the Normalizing subtype goes into "whatever you say, I will do" mode, by force of his will erasing the image of mass chaos from his awareness.

In general, leaving the situation is a common way for Normalizing to solve the problem. Normalizing subtype's method of fighting and expressing protest and disagreement - passive observation and inaction - are designed for the Dominant subtype; however, this may also be a sign of lack of energy (interest, time, etc.). In this case the Dominant subtype will add more energy, and then it becomes clear either the Normalizing subtype does what the Dominant subtype wants from him, or he will leave his influence and move away.

In comparison with other subtypes, Normalizing subtype is dull, inexpressive, boring. But balanced and "thick-skinned", as the Normalizing-Dominant pair is in general. Doesn't easily take offense or show initiative. His motto is: "Let's see how you will show yourself."

He analyzes, weighs, estimates all the plusses and minuses. In relationships he by default leaves much to the discretion of his partner, though he makes notes to himself of the type "shouldn't try to resolve business questions with this person", "this information is not to be trusted", etc. Thus, negative relations the Normalizing subtype formulates as: "Don't associate/become tied to this person!"

Does not strive to participate in competitive struggle, is not ambitious. This does not mean that he doesn't grow as a person and develop further – he fully develops and improves, for example, in professional work; he is diligent and strives to do his job as well as possible. However, the realm of ambitions he leaves to the Dominant subtype, not even trying to compete with him (or with anyone in general). He prefers to be second.

Cleaning for the Normalizing subtype is means for removing discomfort. When "something is wrong", he begins to clean up his living space (the main thing here is not "to wipe off dust and mud", but "to arrange things in their places").

With logical types of Normalizing subtype it is especially noticeable how each thing has its place in their houses, and by default gets put there. The "order" of ethical types is more difficult to track down; however, try moving anything from place to place in Normalizing subtype's apartment, and immediately - by the reaction of owner - it will become clear that these things weren't put there haphazardly. Moreover the person of Normalizing subtype will not curse or scold, but he will simply immediately move everything "as it should be". Although he might perhaps frown.

The Normalizing subtype calls for carrying out norms and rules that have to do with his own role function (other types, of course, also adhere to norms of their role function, but with Normalizing subtypes this is more noticeable, especially requiring the same from others). For example, Normalizing Dumas (SEI) is adamant in his wish that guests do not arrive late, Normalizing Balzac (ILI) will make sure that everyone washes their hands before eating, and Normalizing Jack (LIE) calls for control over emotions: "We were worried, but that's enough!"

Harmonizing subtype

• Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions engenders a harmonizing subtype (H).

• Strengthening function is responsible for the formation of asthenoneurotic behavior. This is primary, vital harmonization, connected to the value of solid comfort.
• Strengthening function forms shut-off, self-submerged, up to autistic behavior. This is secondary harmonization in terms of a spiritual-mental plan.

Both these models of behavior are equivalent, i.e. they are frequently developed together and strengthen each other. It is well known that for the meditation of the mind it is necessary to relax the body.

• And finally, primary harmonization leads to the role of decorator, and secondary to the role of expert.

 

Most important is the weather in the house…

Quite lively and recognizable by his main type's description, however, in comparison with the classic type description he is "suspiciously" nice. It seems that the negative traits of a sociotype have no relation to the harmonizing subtype.

Soft and delicate; although these qualities are somewhat limited by the capabilities of the type. That is, an ethical type of Harmonizing subtype is usually a very ethical person. He always wants to do something so that everyone is well. Even a logical type, but with logical type for some reason it turns out to be "he wanted to do best, but it turned out as always".

In contrast to the Normalizing-Dominant dyad, Harmonizing and Creative is a complementary pair with a "delicate structure of the soul". Especially, of course, the Harmonizing subtype: sensitive, worrying, touchy, altruistic, self-sacrificing.

Like the Dominant subtype, the Harmonizing subtype functions as a connector, that is, he establishes the necessary links to the environment. But where Dominant does so crudely and directly, Harmonizing does so by careful manipulation (he is capable of manipulation that provides multiple moves, for the purpose of making another person become well).

The Harmonizing subtype monitors social desirability and conforms to it. ("A gentleman is that man who calls a cat a cat, even having stepped on it in darkness…") This especially applies to relational and gender stereotypes. Moreover, if the Harmonizing subtype has armed himself with a gender stereotype, he doesn't simply behave in accordance with it, but moves it closer to an ideal. This is the Ideal Man ("I'm going to earn money for my beloved!") or an Ideal Woman.

The Harmonizing subtype doesn't really want to do something "for himself". Now, if it was for a close person, then – anything they wish. Always ready to help, to go for agreements and compromises, often thereby inconveniencing himself. Often he lives with a sensation of discomfort and stress, and consciously goes for this. If something is coming together on its own - this isn't sufficiently valuable to him. But if he does something for someone else, that's he didn't wish to do - this will be a significant Good Deed. Therefore Harmonizers are often doing something with their painful function. When people talk about PoLR as a "secondary creative function", this is about Harmonizing subtype.

The Harmonizing subtype cannot stand it when anyone argues or scolds, or disharmonizes their environment somehow. Here again he tries to help, to fix the situation, since it makes him feel badly.

He is well aware of how he must behave so that others won't feel badly. Evaluates those around him from the point of view of the ethicalness of their behavior, strives to educate them. Worries and feels himself bad if he has committed some unethical act.

The Harmonizing subtype finds it difficult to insult people "directly", to fault and accuse a person even if he/she has deserved it. He either tries to express his displeasure and resentment delicately, or he keeps silent and sulks. Even when it is already evident that he thinks poorly of someone, it is put across something like this: "I think poorly of you, but for the sake of our good relationship, I won't say anything about it". As a result, a "delicate hint" coming from harmonizing can be much more offensive than a direct "attack". For example: "Thank you for the lack of birthday congratulations. It was very nice, ladies and gentlemen." The Dominant subtype would have said: "It's my birthday! Quickly, everybody congratulate me!" And no problem…

Or another situation - a guest hasn't taken off his shoes at the entrance as the home owner would have liked. The Dominant subtype puts a stop to this business at the root: you won't have time to enter, you will immediately be told where to remove your boots. ("Where are you going? Stop! - they will say.) The Normalizing subtype will mutter to the side: "Why is it that everyone walks in their boots past the green rug, which is is the size of the entire lobby?" (and he himself will put the shoes where they must go). The Creative subtype might not notice anything; or he will notice, but consider it too unimportant to say anything about it. But the Harmonizing subtype will keep silent out of delicacy, but will remember: "how could a guest enter in his shoes, is he a bad person?!"

DCNH subtypes descriptions: DCNH Subtypes: Empirical Portraits by Vera Borisova
Gulenko's detailed analysis of the DCNH subtypes: System of DCNH Subtypes

--
How did these subtypes came to be? Through these dichotomies:

Three pairs of dichotomies

First dichotomy: contacting/distancing.

The first pole of this dichotomy represents the predominance of the need for contact and interaction, and the second pole represents the need to distance. Clearly expressed extroverts, as well as extroverted introverts, fall into the "contacting" category. Clearly expressed introverts, as well as introverted extroverts – those extroverts who avoid intensive contact – fall into the distancing category. The scale of vertness is thus split into four inner gradations.

Second dichotomy: terminating/initiating.

I understand "terminating" as the ability to finish what was started and a tendency towards ordering/regulation, and "initiating" as the opposite tendency to initiate and to easily move on to something else, with an accompanying disorder in matters and affairs. As you see, this is a concretization of the already familiar to the reader dichotomy rationality/irrationality. It would be incorrect to think that pristine order reigns in the house of any person of rational type, that this person very clearly plans everything, and that any person of irrational type throws around his things and gets burdened by planning. In reality, between two of these extreme poles there are two more intervening gradations.
Clearly expressed rationals and orderly irrationals belong to the "terminating" pole, while clearly expressed irrationals and disorderly rationals belong to the "initiating" pole.

And the third additional dichotomy is connecting/ignoring.

The basis for this scale is assumed to be the level of sensitivity to changes in the environment. Connectors are very sensitive to such changes, whereas ignorers, as the name suggests, are capable of not paying any attention to this. This polarity is the subtype refinement of the classical dichotomy static/dynamic.

Combining these three scales, we obtain the following four subtypes:

• Contacting, Terminating, Connecting - Dominant Subtype (D);
• Contacting, Initiating, Ignoring - Creative Subtype (C);
• Distancing, Terminating, Ignoring - Normalizing Subtype (N);
• Distancing, Initiation, Connecting - Harmonizing Subtype (H).

	Contacting	Distancing
Terminating	Dominating subtype (connecting)	Normalizing subtype(ignoring)
Initiating	Creative subtype (ignoring)	Harmonizing subtype(connecting)

--
In a true Socionics fashion, there's also a "subtype ITR":

Subtype duality: Dominant-Normalizing, Creative-Harmonizing
Subtype benefit: Dominant > Creative > Normalizing > Harmonizing
Subtype supervision: Dominant > Harmonizing > Normalizing > Creative

[Singu]

From the description, I think the Normalizing subtype fits me the best... I like things like order, law, properness, etc. which are more focused on Ti and Fi. Also interestingly, the Dominant-Normalizing "duality" description is also pretty accurate. For some reason, I am intensely attracted to these Dominant subtypes (though not romantically, of course), and I think they are attracted to me as well. I can't really explain why other than to say that they draw me in, and when we get together then we become a very good pair and work together well.

[Syynth]

Compared to other LIIs I have stronger Te and Se, and weaker Ne and Fi.

Possible subtypes:
Dominant (+1)
Creative (-1 + 1)
Harmonizing (+0)
Normalizing (-1)

So I'm probably the dominant subtype. Compared to the other LIIs I know, I am more impatient and willing to boss people around. Might have something to do with having an LSE father.

[Jake]

The Harmonizing subtype fits me best (EII-H), which may be why I thought I was IEI. I'm not sure if I'm convinced that this system works in reality though. I haven't met too many other EIIs.

[Chae]

Creative... But don't like the system for reasons that @AbZero can explain to ya in depth.

[mclane]

My opinion on this theory is that from what I've observed, it seems to work. People have a default mode of operation out of these four. Intertypes also seem to occur as described by the theory.

don't like the system

Why?

[Singu]

I'm not sure about the "supervision" and "benefit", but Dominant-Normalizing pair "dual" seems to work for me.

[ashlesha]

I can't place myself.
-I think I'm contacting + terminating, which would make me dominant, but, I also think my Te and Fe are kind of weak even compared to other Fi leads and I'm not especially inclined towards leadership.
-I think I'm hard to place in one type, and i have unusual interests, which would make me creative, but I'm not an innovator/idea generator.
-Normalizing superficially seems to fit, but I'm already ij and I'm not really an anal tightass compared to some ijs.
-Strengthened Ni and Si makes sense, but I don't relate to the description at all...I'm not that self effacing or conflict averse. I probably am compared to other ESIs, so the description there could just be overly generalized.

[Attis]

None seem to fit me. I relate about equally to all of all of them. Roughly half of a given description fits me, and half does not. I don't relate to one subtype description above the others.

[ashlesha]

I guess with a gun to my head I'd go with harmonizing even though distancing +initiating doesn't make sense. Not really a fan of this.

[Singu]

In a strange way, @Maritsa actually kind of seems Dominant... lol.

The Dominant subtype of Dostoevsky (EII) is a kind of "an iron fist in a velvet glove": after a demonstration of softness and ethics from this person emerges an equally demonstrative condemnation and desire to "educate".

[FDG]

Personally, just personally, I do not think DCNH is "real", I've seen people taking different "DCNH" social roles depending on the environment they're placed in.

[niffer]

Harmonizing

[Bertrand]

Personally, just personally, I do not think DCNH is "real", I've seen people taking different "DCNH" social roles depending on the environment they're placed in.

I feel this way too, but would expand it to subtype in general, a lot of it is context dependent (at least from the outside looking in). that said, people anchor more heavily towards certain modes (so people 1st try to "be dominant" or whatever if the situation allows for it), where it seems like others are more flexible (will more quickly shift out of a mode if the environment is not receptive). I think it has to do with variety of life experience in accumulating a deep understanding of oneself and different situations and then flexing based on that. then again, that could just be Te/dominant just trying to get their way in one more kind of way (Te/Fe/Ne seems like the ultimate in flexibility)

people have long called me a extroverted introvert, and I identify with parts of all the descriptions, but I think dominant fits me best, and based on my understanding of subtype itself I would say its a very "dominant" (in the DCNH scheme of things) way of looking at things

it doesn't really surprise me that most people seem to type dominant, since I think personality theory tends to attract strong personalities (in the sense of accentuated extroverted judging) in general (not saying it attracts Ej egos but that the Ej elements of any given type into personality seem to stand out--I think this forum is a great example. people seem willing to conflict in a way you don't see elsewhere, but I find it kind of cool actually--there's way less pressure to conform to some agreed upon community standard, although in broader terms there is still such a thing, perhaps its more accurate to say the standard has been broadened by precisely the kind of freer judgements derived from understanding a broader range of perspectives in principle... in other words people are quicker to fight, but quicker to accept that people will fight, and to some degree thats ok--which is cool)

[The Reality Denialist]

So
IxI are autistic
xII demonstrate autism
IxE ignore autism (but secrecy in their home are full blown autistic savants)
xIE create with autism
xSI are mobilized by autism
SxI are role playing autism
xSE are vulnerable to autism
and SxE are seeking autism

[Singu]

Personally, just personally, I do not think DCNH is "real", I've seen people taking different "DCNH" social roles depending on the environment they're placed in.

Hm, but isn't this already taken into consideration/observed by Gulenko?

Models of behavior in autonomous groups

The four subtypes named above can be observed experimentally. This is done with the aid of the observation of the behavioral modes of four participants in autonomous groups of identical types. Dominant will manage the leadership role better than others, Creative – the generator of ideas, Normalizer – the finisher, Harmonizer – the corrector.

The SHS (School of Humanitarian Socionics) working group checked the presence of these informal roles in a whole series of experiments, carried out for a period during 2006. If a group consists of not four, but three people, then one person takes on two roles. Most frequently, leader along with generator of ideas and finisher with harmonizer, since these types are nearer in terms of power engineering. Although in life, any, even improbable, combinations are encountered.

But if the small group consists of different types, then the distribution of roles begins to influence not only subtype, but type factors as well. Our observations testify, however, that the main type, due to the close distance contact, gets pushed into the background.

It seems like they're trying to devise a system that's somewhat similar to enneagram's instinctual variants:

The next step - isolation of eight subtypes

This task becomes urgent when the group increases to 7-8 people. For distinguishing eight subtypes we add an additional scale - primary/secondary, which reflects the hierarchy of personal needs.

It should be noted that theoretically there must be seven such dichotomies (including the three already known dichotomies). However, the description of the entire spectrum of subtype dichotomies is not the object of this report.

Any type of behavior that has as its priority the satisfaction of common group needs can be both primary and secondary. Primary needs are needs of a concrete, current nature (food, health, shelter, family, intimacy and so forth). Secondary needs are deep, lofty (a quick promotion, social status, spiritual peace, knowledge and so on).

[Olimpia]

[ashlesha]

What is the meaning of the "model a connection" column? Would a dominant ESI have a strengthened base function on top of having strengthened Te/Fe?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I am definitely Harmonizing. But I am a little pissed they made the Si harmonizers sound so much cooler and better than the Ni harmonizers.

[Olimpia]

What is the meaning of the "model a connection" column? Would a dominant ESI have a strengthened base function on top of having strengthened Te/Fe?

According to that overview, ESI could only be either Creative (Se subtype) or Normalizing (Fi subtype).

I am not exactly sure what the Model A connection means, either. It seems like it is a comparison between the DCNH subtype and how it functions similarly to a certain function in Model A. I wouldn't go so far as to say that a certain DCNH subtype actually strengthens the specific function or vice versa.

[Singu]

What is the meaning of the "model a connection" column? Would a dominant ESI have a strengthened base function on top of having strengthened Te/Fe?

From the description, the rationale seems to go like this:

Dominant: Uses the most natural and comfortable function for himself, which is the Dominant function, thereby giving him a lot of confidence and dominance (at the expense of his weaker functions). So perhaps the Te/Fe-base Dominant subtype is the most stereotypically "dominant" and overbearing type...

Creative: Wants to do things for the hell of it, so he tends to use his Creative function the most.

Normalizing: Wants to make people adhere to norms and rules, so he focuses on his Role function.

Harmonizing: Tends to focus on using functions that cause him pain (self-sacrificing), so he tends to focus on his Vulnerable function.

--

To me, it makes sense to see the Dominant subtype that way, because it seems like the Dominant subtype is the subtype that seems most likely to seem "being himself/herself" the most, at the expense of their weaker functions of their types. The only difference is that introverted Dominant subtypes are more extroverted.

But I mean, it's also kind of bullshit that have more to do with personalities than Socionics. I think they're just kind of stereotypical differences in personalities.

[FDG]

Hm, but isn't this already taken into consideration/observed by Gulenko?

But I personally would like more "stability" in this typing before really considering the theory as valid. Gulenko may recognize that DCNH subtypes vary with different groups, but that's akin to a train company recognizing that its trains are always late imho. OTOH socionics / enneagram seems to be much more invariant wrt different groups, at least according to my experience.

[Deer Woman]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1138046
I feel like this is a great breakdown of the DCNH system and actually makes it applicable to real life. A friend and I traded ideas for months until he systemized it all and posted it on here.

I'm Creative sub. Don't think Enneagram should be correlated with DCNH, however it does seem like Harmonizers have a pretty high correlation to 9 (either core or fix), 1/8 for Dominant and a less notable 7 (core/fix/wing) for Creative.

[flames]

I thought it was confusing and overblown until I read more and didn't think it was so connected to types, but I always thought Creative fit me most.

[The Exception]

Dominant: Uses the most natural and comfortable function for himself, which is the Dominant function, thereby giving him a lot of confidence and dominance (at the expense of his weaker functions). So perhaps the Te/Fe-base Dominant subtype is the most stereotypically "dominant" and overbearing type...

Well, yes, I use the base function alot and I'm confident in its use, but not at the expense of the weaker functions. I'm also not the 'overbearing' type.


Creative: Wants to do things for the hell of it, so he tends to use his Creative function the most.

I don't really do things 'just for the hell of it', there is usually a good reason why I'm doing something.


Normalizing: Wants to make people adhere to norms and rules, so he focuses on his Role function.

Yes, I do that, and I heavily focus on my Fi role to the point where people mistype me as EII.


Harmonizing: Tends to focus on using functions that cause him pain (self-sacrificing), so he tends to focus on his Vulnerable function.

Why would I want to cause myself pain if I didn't have to? I do think about an focus on my vulnerable function alot though, mostly worry and anxiety about it.


Maybe normalizing subtype? But I read the full DCNH descriptions and I feel like I could be any subtype except for D.

It's alot more straightforward in the 2 subtype system.

To me, it makes sense to see the Dominant subtype that way, because it seems like the Dominant subtype is the subtype that seems most likely to seem "being himself/herself" the most, at the expense of their weaker functions of their types. The only difference is that introverted Dominant subtypes are more extroverted.

But I mean, it's also kind of bullshit that have more to do with personalities than Socionics. I think they're just kind of stereotypical differences in personalities.[/QUOTE]

[Singu]

Well I think these subtypes are just another of saying "More EJ-like, more IJ-like" etc. I mean I'm an irrational type, but I also like things like orderliness, plans, rules, etc. And I like to enforce those norms and standards, so I may seem more like an IJ at times ("everything has to be in order!"). So what does that mean? I don't know, maybe it doesn't really mean anything, and this is all just bullshit.

My general impression is that Dominant-Normalizing types are a bit "harsher", more "thick-skinned", more rigid and inflexible and Creative-Harmonizing types are more fluid and soft ("be like water"). But maybe those are just personality differences than anything.

[Persephone]

Well I think these subtypes are just another of saying "More EJ-like, more IJ-like" etc. I mean I'm an irrational type, but I also like things like orderliness, plans, rules, etc. And I like to enforce those norms and standards, so I may seem more like an IJ at times ("everything has to be in order!"). So what does that mean? I don't know, maybe it doesn't really mean anything, and this is all just bullshit.

My general impression is that Dominant-Normalizing types are a bit "harsher", more "thick-skinned", more rigid and inflexible and Creative-Harmonizing types are more fluid and soft ("be like water"). But maybe those are just personality differences than anything.

I am not particularly into DCNH but N is what would fit me the best. I believe it's what makes others type me as EJ or IJ.
Totally relating to thick-skinned or just honest with more established boundaries.

[The Exception]

I think I'm self-submerged autistic subtype on that chart above.


Dominant: Bossy, gives orders, dominant, vivid, EJ-like

This isn't much like me, although I can be occasionally bossy, I suppose.

Creative: "Creative", eccentric, "social last", EP-like

I'm not particularly 'creative' or 'eccentric' even though I'd like to be. I'm likely SO first or second.


Normalizing: Anal-retentive, orderly, IJ-like

Orderly yes, but not anal-retentive, I don't think.


Harmonizing: e9-ish, passive, peaceful, comforting, IP-likeYes, this one is definitely the most like me.

[The Reality Denialist]

Overall xP-like.

[summerprincess]

99% sure Dominant subtype! It sucks because I'm too blunt!

[Pookie]

I find the bit about Si and Ni developing together in harmonizing types to be counter intuitive and kinda backwards from how elements typically develop. Is there more of an explanation on that subject. From my personal experience as an Ni-H, It doesnt work that way with me at all.

[Tigerfadder]

In reallife I seem to be going for D first but if that does not work out im fine with H. At internet I might go for C and later on N.

[Spermatozoa]

I am a C (Creative subtype). This thread has helped me understand myself a lot better, as the C description strongly resonates with me. This theory also explains why I don't necessarily feel at home with many of the LIE descriptions, though I remain convinced that it is my true type. To quote:

The Creative subtype, conversely, is the least similar to its main type description. It is the most flexible subtype. There is a strong inclination toward "Mirror" type, as though the 1st and 2nd functions have switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the extravert to the introvert. And in general, all characteristic type features seem to be diluted and watered down for the Creative subtype.

I am a 2Ni, maybe 3Ni LIE subtype. I have remarked many times about how typing myself can be somewhat confusing for both of these reasons: some people have remarked on my use of Ni, which they feel is more instinctive and natural than Te. I feel that these observations have some merit, because I will conjure vivid images and sounds without often fully noticing, and I also have a tendency to change my plans and methods often, which does somewhat annoy me (my goals, however, hardly ever change). My energy also comes from intimate contact, and social interactions do not drain me as long as they're interesting. They can also amplify my creativity by giving me new ideas. I also have a mischievous, playful nature and mental spontaneity, all of which are atypical for an LIE - I will often ask "what if?" questions for amusement, brainstorm easily and read very, very quickly. By contrast, I can struggle with hard logic and will readily get overwhelmed by too many questions and alternatives from others at once, as I prefer to create these myself.

It seems that for Creative subtype the intertype relations are also "watered down" – as he conducts himself "outside the box" by the standards of his type.

Creative subtype, one way or another, finds himself in the sphere of ideas and creativity, and this doesn't have to be something artistic – it may well be scientific or a hobby; generally, a creative element is introduced into any pursuit, otherwise the Creative subtype feels uninterested. If someone else's result or product comes into his hand, the Creative subtype will remake, "improve it", think it over.

I am a singer and composer so this would make sense as well. However my way of composing is rather intuitive and sequential, rather than sensational or emotional. I enjoy music theory, though I will get bored going over the same content twice and need to discipline myself to do this. Often when I hear the beginning of a snippet of music, I'll latch onto that idea and develop it in my own way. Likewise with home brewing, I will take an existing recipe and create different variations.

For Creative subtype it is easiest to show and realize himself over the 2nd function, but in principle, other variants are possible.

True.

On another note, if the result or product of the Dominant subtype is immediately demonstrates and "hyped up" – the Creative subtype can easily create "for himself", to write knowing his writing won't get published, or for a narrow circle of those for whom it may be needed or interesting.

I disagree with this. I don't create for myself but because I want to succeed.

The Creative subtype is not very discerning of various social-relational games, but he doesn't protest if he gets pulled into such a game.

Yeah I suck at social stuff.

He easily takes off, "a person with eccentricities", capable of an unusual and generally foreign to his sociotype actions (for example, an LII who doesn't only go hitchhiking himself, but also takes his wife and children along for the trip).

I frequently switch into behaviour that would be more typical of another (mad, loopy brainstorming and jumping of creative ideas) and, especially when drunk, of EIE (heavy flirting and hitting on women). When energized, I will often do this for its own sake because I value unpredictability and want to surprise.

The Creative subtype is not interested in anything besides that which is truly interesting to him – in the sense that he ignores everything else (passively or actively). Including people (for Creative subtypes of logical types: "those people are like wooden poles"). May actively renounce something if it hinders him personally. By these means, Creative subtype "slips by", since a renounced topic is not important to understand because it's outside the scope of his interests.

This is an unfortunate problem and again it has led to issues with my typing. I do have real trouble devoting attention to a task which I find boring; these are mainly routine tasks like tidying my room, doing the dishes, driving lessons, planning my day (really, I do prefer winging it - my defined plans tend to be more general and long-range), and so on.

Creative subtype attitude towards norms or standards is negative or indifferent, which is especially clearly displayed on the aspect of role function: that is, a person of Creative subtype does not strive to abide by "generally accepted" standards. (Julia (Balzac) was genuinely surprised at my attempt to wash the fruit bought at the market – what for? At my explanations "So that they are clean", and that "I may eat unwashed fruit, but they should be given to a small child" Julia just waved her hand dismissively.)

Another common problem. The most obvious way this will materialize is in my indifference to social etiquette, which outrages SLI/SEI in particular. Whereas I, to be perfectly honest, just don't see how it is useful. I don't understand how anybody benefits. An example: my family bought some pizza, but when we got home my mother went to the toilet. She took over five minutes and my father insisted on waiting until she came back. I said the pizza was getting cold, and it was her own fault for not thinking of going to the toilet earlier. He lost his shit and said I only care about myself. I said, well, I care about being efficient. (Whether I actually am is another story.)

I also have a strong tendency to learn in my own way, and not follow an existing process from beginning to end, because again I will get bored and lose patience. I love cutting corners and tend to have a hit and miss lifestyle with flashes of sudden brilliance and big leaps forward (like this afternoon, where I got a hell of a lot done e.g. three different types of suspensions, I started a piano sonata and learned about two fucking awesome new modes, I also had massive insight into how I can improve myself), followed by long fallow periods which are quite unproductive.

[chrys]

Hmmm.... I feel anal and anxious about certain things like Normalizing type but I really really hate myself for it so I try to avoid verbalizing my anxiety of things that don't seem right and are out of place since it could bother people. I'd rather be Harmonizing, but I'm not sure if I am.

[ashlesha]

I'm just going to settle on harmonizing.

[The Reality Denialist]

I have hardest time being dominating. It is not that I can not be one when I have to.
I'm not necessarily type who values it either so...

N-type shows appreciation towards D-type.


It leaves C and H. I think I'm more self submerged type who kind of appreciates creative manifestation. Hence H. In a way this bit funny as I do things my own way etc.

[squark]

In group projects (where these subtypes show up most clearly) I'm primarily (nearly always) creative, occasionally to rarely normalizing, rarely to almost never dominating, and never harmonizing.

[ApeironStella]

A toss between Harmonizing and Creative, really. While sometimes I can be quite bullheaded in group projects/settings, it is fairly rare and unless the topic or people there interest me, I am mostly withdrawn and let whoever wants to talk do their thing. I don't like Dominant people as much, I often butt heads with them. I am leaning more towards creative as it recently came to my attention that in our student group, they usually leave speaking for group to me since I can spin some sentences/bullshit that sounds like we actually thought about it on the fly if given just a bit of time to prepare them as well as I am not particularly afraid of speaking them, especially if there are others nervous on the group. (I actually do get strength from others being worried, in a weird way.)

I also do value Harmonizers very much, which is likely why I sort of try to fill that role too whenever I can, but it doesn't feel as natural? It feels stiffer. If I just let myself be, I am often drawn a lot more to paying attention to fictional things, creating things and I often do it for a rather small audience. (I would only show my translations to my mother since I would translate them for her and occasionally for my at the time best friend IEI friend. I never shared any of them online or with anyone else despite spending hours on them to make them as perfect as possible)

I also do zone out on world whenever I am "in the zone". Be it talking with someone about something I really love or reading something bugging my mind/interests me, I never realize what is going on around. Also, it would make sense with "being mixed with their mirror" to some extent as well since a few friends commented that I don't seem as hard as usual LII descriptions I showed them while I still end up returning to a base worldview in the end.

So Creative, probs.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

Creative sounds about the best But I haven't given it much thought

[dot]

I most likely am IEI-D.. Fe sub most likely (with IEI-C being a second close call then H and then N).
Since Victor Gulenko suggested the subtypes might not even be stagnant I think I might fluctuate between D and C. H might have played a part in certain times of my childhood. But D makes sense from the moment I was born, lol. The only thing I am not sure of is the connecting thing aka being sensitive to the environment when it coms to change.. since I feel I am pretty adaptable looking back on my life, not being swayed by change. Maybe because I am Ip first of all?