How is the D Subtype "More Like Their Own Type" Than Any Other?

[Stellafera]

I've been looking at DCNH and am fairly sure that I'm a dominant subtype IEI, but I'm a little perturbed by this:

Most similar of all to his type's description.

Wouldn't harmonizing IEIs be the "most like their type description" due to the emphasized Ni? Certainly it seems the most suitable for the stereotypical waifish and elegant IEI.

[Bertrand]

its just a different knob that gets turned up, its sort of like brightness v contrast. harmonizing turns down contrast, dominant turns up brightness (this is an imperfect analogy but you get the idea). if you think of description as being a portrait then turning up brightness accentuates the picture more than turning down contrast, which begins to dull the sharpness. in other words, its a category error to associate IEI with harmonizing. they mean different things, such that harmonizing doesn't make IEI more of itself because IEI is not harmonizing within the meaning of DCNH "harmonizing." Neither is dominant for that matter, the point is DCNH categories don't accentuate one type according to D C N or H, rather D brightens all types, in their characteristic manner. Your problem is you're associating IEI with harmonizing in the DCNH sense of the word up front so its weird for Gulenko to say this because it runs counter to your understanding, but when you really understand DCNH in terms of contact/distance terminate/initiate and connecting/ignoring you see how the meanings are completely distinct. You could say harmonizing IEI is more of IEI only if you identify harmonizing as the primary characteristic of IEI, which actually militates toward you privileging harmonizing as prior to base type, which implies you could be a H type of any type and just think you're IEI because you haven't sorted them out properly. In other words, if harmonizing makes an IEI more IEI then it also makes ESI more IEI and so on. At some point you should think about maybe people you're identifying as IEI are actually just H types of myriad kinds if that is the case. I actually think its for this reason that DCNH accounts for compatibility almost as much if not more than base type, precisely because its that important. For example in law school I see a room represented almost equally by all 4 quadra but with a predominance of normalizing type which is precisely why many of them are there and why they can all get along, because despite different quadra they're all very much on the same page albeit across a different layer than base type that allows them to all cooperate, which is probably why N is so common and desirable in society to begin with. You might say that as society progresses into a "tolerant" society that integrates all quadra, N becomes increasingly important and N values themselves are probably "filled" with notions of tolerance and cooperation. Gulenko says DCNH is sort of the shell where ego meets persona and this makes sense, its sort of the buffer through which society and the person meet, so of course N is the most likely consequence. it is in this sense that D types are the most "beta" or most "gamma" etc, the ones most likely to linearly assert their base type and embody and even compete (Se) over their base values. Harmonizing is actually a little different than N in this context, N has harmonizing connotations in terms of "getting along according to prevailing values of society and enforcing and passing them along"--Harmonizing does something different than N types with internalized notions of societal harmony. It actually harmonizes which is a creative act, not an act of rule-following, which is where the difference lies

[wasp]

the harmonizing subtype doesn't share the negative features commonly associated with their sociotype, which already puts them out of the running for the most accurate representation of their sociotype because no sociotype exists without their respective negative features (holistically speaking)

the dominant subtype shares the negative and positive features of their sociotype, but their negative and positive features are amplified tenfold by the sheer intensity of this subtype, so in that sense it's like they squeeze every ounce of usage from their ego functions (especially their leading function)

[Mudlark]

@Bertrand To what extent and by what mechanism do the functions then correspond* to any given subtype? I've only seen them explained in that light, so I don't see the connection between your analogy and the system. Is it that each subtype has a meta-understanding of how society should function that superficially resembles the usual values associated with the functions they correspond to?

[Pookie]

The Dominating Subtype would be very much like the Creative subtype. And very much unlike the Base Subtype. Harmonizing would be very much like the Base Subtype, and very much unlike the creative.

I think its sloppy wording, probably due to the translation.

[Stellafera]

its just a different knob that gets turned up, its sort of like brightness v contrast. harmonizing turns down contrast, dominant turns up brightness (this is an imperfect analogy but you get the idea). if you think of description as being a portrait then turning up brightness accentuates the picture more than turning down contrast, which begins to dull the sharpness. in other words, its a category error to associate IEI with harmonizing. they mean different things, such that harmonizing doesn't make IEI more of itself because IEI is not harmonizing within the meaning of DCNH "harmonizing." Neither is dominant for that matter, the point is DCNH categories don't accentuate one type according to D C N or H, rather D brightens all types, in their characteristic manner. Your problem is you're associating IEI with harmonizing in the DCNH sense of the word up front so its weird for Gulenko to say this because it runs counter to your understanding, but when you really understand DCNH in terms of contact/distance terminate/initiate and connecting/ignoring you see how the meanings are completely distinct. You could say harmonizing IEI is more of IEI only if you identify harmonizing as the primary characteristic of IEI, which actually militates toward you privileging harmonizing as prior to base type, which implies you could be a H type of any type and just think you're IEI because you haven't sorted them out properly. In other words, if harmonizing makes an IEI more IEI then it also makes ESI more IEI and so on. At some point you should think about maybe people you're identifying as IEI are actually just H types of myriad kinds if that is the case. I actually think its for this reason that DCNH accounts for compatibility almost as much if not more than base type, precisely because its that important. For example in law school I see a room represented almost equally by all 4 quadra but with a predominance of normalizing type which is precisely why many of them are there and why they can all get along, because despite different quadra they're all very much on the same page albeit across a different layer than base type that allows them to all cooperate, which is probably why N is so common and desirable in society to begin with. You might say that as society progresses into a "tolerant" society that integrates all quadra, N becomes increasingly important and N values themselves are probably "filled" with notions of tolerance and cooperation. Gulenko says DCNH is sort of the shell where ego meets persona and this makes sense, its sort of the buffer through which society and the person meet, so of course N is the most likely consequence. it is in this sense that D types are the most "beta" or most "gamma" etc, the ones most likely to linearly assert their base type and embody and even compete (Se) over their base values. Harmonizing is actually a little different than N in this context, N has harmonizing connotations in terms of "getting along according to prevailing values of society and enforcing and passing them along"--Harmonizing does something different than N types with internalized notions of societal harmony. It actually harmonizes which is a creative act, not an act of rule-following, which is where the difference lies

This would largely make sense to me except on the point of these subtypes being apparently associated with "stronger" Te/Fe/Se, "stronger" Ni/Si, etc. Why bring up the information elements if DCNH isn't *really* connected to them?

It's also not so much that I see IEIs as Harmonizing (if I encountered one, I would probably mistype them as SEI). When I describe the "waifish, elegant" IEI, it's in somewhat derisive terms; it's the sort of thing I see in descriptions and think "that's not like me at all, that's a stereotype", but harmonizing IEIs seem like they would actually match it. I was wishing speculating I was an EIE a while back because I liked the language around them better, but it seems most aspects of that appealing sexy language were all wrapped up in Dominant subtype. Who wouldn't want to be a high-energy ambitious social success machine? I certainly like to pretend I am.

[Bertrand]

@Bertrand To what extent and by what mechanism do the functions then correspond* to any given subtype? I've only seen them explained in that light, so I don't see the connection between your analogy and the system. Is it that each subtype has a meta-understanding of how society should function that superficially resembles the usual values associated with the functions they correspond to?

my understanding that subtype is a "spontaneous return" to those corresponding subtype functions. so it means as information is processed down the regular chain of IM (keep in mind DCNH goes with model G), subtype means a kind of quantum possibility of spontaneous return at any given point to "check" on that aspect. The check occurs at the level of granularity of the base type, but that the check occurs at all, is what subtype is (the commensurate increase in "usage" means it gets "filled", albiet at the appropriate level of resoultion to a greater degree than otherwise would be the case as well). I'm not sure if that answers your question, but lets take it from there

[Bertrand]

This would largely make sense to me except on the point of these subtypes being apparently associated with "stronger" Te/Fe/Se, "stronger" Ni/Si, etc. Why bring up the information elements if DCNH isn't *really* connected to them?

It's also not so much that I see IEIs as Harmonizing (if I encountered one, I would probably mistype them as SEI). When I describe the "waifish, elegant" IEI, it's in somewhat derisive terms; it's the sort of thing I see in descriptions and think "that's not like me at all, that's a stereotype", but harmonizing IEIs seem like they would actually match it. I was wishing speculating I was an EIE a while back because I liked the language around them better, but it seems most aspects of that appealing sexy language were all wrapped up in Dominant subtype. Who wouldn't want to be a high-energy ambitious social success machine? I certainly like to pretend I am.

as to this keep in mind that descriptions are coming from people for whom "waifish, elegant" etc mean different things in their mind... I would only rely on descriptions while holding in my head at the same exact time my perception of the person making the description in order to inform precisely what I think was meant by those words. In that sense "waifish, elegant" may only mean "what appears as waifish, elegant in the mind of an LII--which is not what I personally think of as waifish/elegant"; inasmuch as that is the case I tend not to associate IEI with any such descriptions, rather I associate the underlying typer with such descriptions (and then draw my own conclusions as to whether they're really waifish or what have you by my standards). Its better to think in terms of strict analytic Ti categories of DCNH in order to get a grip on it all. In other words, I would say ignore those outward descriptions and focus on the analytic framework gulenko established in order to parse things, otherwise its just another kind of potential category error. gulenko is very self contained and more power to him

[Hope]

I know there is a text which tries to associate information elements with DCNH subtypes, but I dont think its really suitable that way.

What I get is that each letter corresponds to certain "role" each person plays, marking subtle differences in the approaches and responses to situations. I see it as a variant of tone for each "color" (type). So maybe this color wheel its useful as analogy:




Now lets suppose the IEI its purple and the base color (the first one from top/sides to center) its what is portrayed in descriptions. Now, if I'm going to describe purple I'd probably talk more about this:




Than this:



...even when both are in the range of purple.


Its like what Bert was saying.

In my case, I think I fit most with D because I think I've kind of "strong" personality, even when its not the same than for example an Se type. Because we are different types so our "color" is different. I do fit a lot with bunch of descriptions, for example the Beskova female SLI portrait is very very similar to me even in details, for example I hated school especially as I got older, I hated physical activities at school, I dislike precarious conditions of subsistence (like camping) and other similar activities (even when I enjoy outsides), I cook very quickly, etc etc.

[Audacious]

This would largely make sense to me except on the point of these subtypes being apparently associated with "stronger" Te/Fe/Se, "stronger" Ni/Si, etc. Why bring up the information elements if DCNH isn't *really* connected to them?

IME, "stronger" means I'm more willing to use those functions at full blast (within the limits of the dimensions) than other members of my socionics type. I see the same thing in people of other types.

I found a DCNH subtype description page for Beta Quadra. https://pastebin.com/tkzbx3rj I don't know where it's originally from. I also don't know if it's accurate. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you can see all the IEI DCNH descriptions. Here's what they had to say for IEI-D. What are your thoughts?

IEI

1. Dominant subtype (code DHD) Lyric mocking

• Prototypes . People subtly mocking the shortcomings of the existing system .
• Characterized by impulsiveness , sometimes abrupt in their actions . Initiated proceedings quits, but after a while returns to them. Internally restless, contradictory desires . He has come in sharp drops mood - from laughter to tears and vice versa. Warmly proves their ideas. Advice perceives only calmed down . Follows them only until the next emotional outburst .
• Likes to talk about various unusual events or emerging events. Sensing the danger , his anxious mood transmits to others. And at the same time does not lose faith in the victory , can reassure desperate , give them an emotional boost. Anguish [moral] he is closely connected with the physical . [Values material things?]
• Do not succumb to sudden exacerbations. In extreme situations, admiration or surprise of surrounding his fearlessness in danger . Does not obey the pressure force , capable of rigidly insist on his .
• Tends to practicality and thrift , but regular rhythm of work for a long time does not stand up . Often wasteful and neekonomen , under the influx of emotions can buy extra stuff . Low value on people who are ******dly in the details.
• Often ironic and sarcastic , but even unpleasant things prefers to present jokingly with a smile. Very is in need of praise and encouragement , sensitive about criticism of their work. Offended if his efforts go unnoticed. Tends to lead to personal relationships.

[at sirac son of sirac]

I've been looking at DCNH and am fairly sure that I'm a dominant subtype IEI, but I'm a little perturbed by this:



Wouldn't harmonizing IEIs be the "most like their type description" due to the emphasized Ni? Certainly it seems the most suitable for the stereotypical waifish and elegant IEI.

It's not that it is Ni on it's own, the idea is that for harmonizing, the three introverted 'passive' functions are emphasized in a type, which for harmonizing is Si, Ni and Fi.

For dominant, it's the extraverted functions that's emphasised in a type - Te, Se, Fe and Ne.

So, it is not like the two subtype system you refer to, for instance Ni being emphasized in eg Ni-IEI, but it's multiple functions, 3 or 4 resulting in a certain type of behavior - described as 'harmonizing', 'dominating' etc.

So, the reason the overall type profile is most pronounced in the dominant type, is because all their characteristics are magnified - because they are using all their extraverted functions, of course, a type is still a type, so the result is their type is magnified showing more characteristics of the type description.

[The Reality Denialist]

(Well, I think personally that in some cases there is a blend of secondary sub.)

It is a way to convey that the type is out there doing it's things. If we assume that according to Gulenko that D is the rarest type and normalizing is the most common therefore it is truly bit paradoxical way to put it.

Then we can refer to Jung's descriptions and use it or IE descriptions as a reference point.

So yeah I think I'm bit like my mirror (as creative) in some aspects - but I really think that my logical skills are less refined and grounded.

[Stellafera]

I found a DCNH subtype description page for Beta Quadra. https://pastebin.com/tkzbx3rj I don't know where it's originally from. I also don't know if it's accurate. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you can see all the IEI DCNH descriptions. Here's what they had to say for IEI-D. What are your thoughts?

Prototypes . People subtly mocking the shortcomings of the existing system. That's just passive aggressive...?

Characterized by impulsiveness , sometimes abrupt in their actions . Initiated proceedings quits, but after a while returns to them. Internally restless, contradictory desires . He has come in sharp drops mood - from laughter to tears and vice versa. Warmly proves their ideas. Advice perceives only calmed down . Follows them only until the next emotional outburst . As much as I hate to admit it, yes. I've been criticized for this. I can be pretty touchy.

Likes to talk about various unusual events or emerging events. Sensing the danger , his anxious mood transmits to others. And at the same time does not lose faith in the victory , can reassure desperate , give them an emotional boost. Anguish [moral] he is closely connected with the physical . [Values material things?] Very much so. This part seems to tie into my enneagram type.

Do not succumb to sudden exacerbations. In extreme situations, admiration or surprise of surrounding his fearlessness in danger . Does not obey the pressure force , capable of rigidly insist on his . Eh, depends on the situation. In some senses I am stubborn, but I'm also very malleable to pressure. This description somewhat contradicts the "impulsiveness" one.

Tends to practicality and thrift , but regular rhythm of work for a long time does not stand up . Often wasteful and neekonomen , under the influx of emotions can buy extra stuff . Low value on people who are ******dly in the details. The first and second parts seem to contradict somewhat. First sentence is very much accurate, second not so much. I love the feeling of having money moreseo than using it, so I can be pretty thrifty. I'm assuming the last one is about nitpicking? I'm can't say I hate nitpicking, I do it too and I'm glad for people who are careful and attentive.

Often ironic and sarcastic , but even unpleasant things prefers to present jokingly with a smile. Very is in need of praise and encouragement , sensitive about criticism of their work. Offended if his efforts go unnoticed. Tends to lead to personal relationships. Yes, all of the above.

[Pookie]

It's not that it is Ni on it's own, the idea is that for harmonizing, the three introverted 'passive' functions are emphasized in a type, which for harmonizing is Si, Ni and Fi.

For dominant, it's the extraverted functions that's emphasised in a type - Te, Se, Fe and Ne.

So, it is not like the two subtype system you refer to, for instance Ni being emphasized in eg Ni-IEI, but it's multiple functions, 3 or 4 resulting in a certain type of behavior - described as 'harmonizing', 'dominating' etc.

So, the reason the overall type profile is most pronounced in the dominant type, is because all their characteristics are magnified - because they are using all their extraverted functions, of course, a type is still a type, so the result is their type is magnified showing more characteristics of the type description.

Id like to see a source for that, because im pretty sure that is not right at all.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Id like to see a source for that, because im pretty sure that is not right at all.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1250976

[The Reality Denialist]

Gulenko, according to Google, uses Renata Litvinova as an example of D-IEI.

IEI



I don't understand Russian.

Wikipedia: Renata Litvinova

Harmonizing example: Oleg Mityaev
Creative example: Sergey Zverev
Normalizing example: Georgiy Vitsin

[schwiftyrickty]

Just thinking "out loud" here, don't take me too seriously.

I've been trying so hard to wrap my mind around DCNH subtypes. I also had similar thoughts to the OP. If Te and Fe (and apparently Se now) are accentuated in IEI and usually IEIs are really weak in at least Te and Se, how can they be more like the description of IEI when the description is based on which elements are typically strengthened? Unless you were to claim that the descriptions tend to favor the dominant subtype. Which would make little sense since the dominant subtype is supposedly the rarest. Only thing I can think of is because they may be more in your face about their values and their type is simply easier to spot since they are vocal.

So if this is flawed thinking, is it also false to assume that the dominant suptype is going to appear more EJish compared to others that type? This made more sense when it was just Te and Fe that was strengthened. If that was the case I could justify the fact that I consider myself IEE but I have more of an IP temperament because if I am IEE I am probably harmonizing subtype. Or an IEI that was dominant would be clearly IEI because they are Ni dominant and Te PoLR but might appear more like an EIE on the surface because they are kind of on the fence about rationality/irrationality and introversion/extraversion. And with regards to my own type, I am clearly irrational but most people don't believe I am extraverted even though deep down I believe I am. I test INFp a lot on tests that are purely dichotomy based but clearly have the same values and strengths of an IEE, and I'm 99.9% certain I'm not beta.

And in the case of certain types, especially introverted ones, you'd think certain subtypes would be waaay more common than the others. SLIs for example are usually not what you would consider irrational and a lot of them would argue that they are not "perceivers". So most of them are probably normalizing. And EIIs probably more often relate to MBTI descriptions of INFP, so they'd usually be harmonizing. The ones that actually test as INFJ are more likely to be normalizing and if they mistype as ENFP they are probably creative.

If this has no basis in reality and I'm totally misunderstanding the whole point of DCNH, I'm going to need to start from square one lol. It kind of seems too out there and complex to be real, but I've just been privately using it as a way to justify the contradiction some people have between their apparent four letter code and their actual socionics type.

[Tallmo]

Just to add some stuff to what's already been said:

Yes, that's the impression I get from observing people: D subtype has the strongest base function. The "DCNH functions" are a different phenomenon, they seem to be "emergent phenomena", "awareness" or something like that. They are more "on the surface".

So think about the DCNH functions as a separate layer or disconnected phenomenon. Then there is no confusion.

The harmonizer on the other hand is more floating in his functional use.

Normalizers are often in the Role.

It seems to me that DCNH describes 4 default constitutions according to the task of dominating, creating, normalize or harmonize.

Functionally domination is best carried out by being in the base function, which takes up the most psychological space. Plus Fe/Te "strengthening".

Normalization on the other hand happens easily in the Role + Ti/Fi "strengthening".

and so on

You could say that DCNH in theory describes how strong adaption happens. It fucks up the types But that's sometimes necessary.

Compare D-LSI with N-LSI

Superficially the N-LSI seems to be the stereotypical LSI, but if you compare many people it is actually the D-LSI that shows the Base more. Because a lot of the N-LSI behaviour is simply normalization, not necessarily connected to the LSI type.

Its about comparing alot of people and separating the layers from each other.

[Chae]

Perhaps because the D subtype is the most driven? That means they'd express the working towards a goal via their base the most. And contact subtype increases their realization in the world as an authentic type.

[Bertrand]

Just thinking "out loud" here, don't take me too seriously.

well you gotta consider although DCNH may accent things that seemingly "contrast" with base type, like Te/Se in a IEI, those functions are still bounded by dimensionality and preference in terms of information aspect (role, mobilizing, etc). DCNH is more how the type is viewed from within the role they naturally take within the group as energy generator/information producer, etc. D accentuates that role by increasing its output (extroverted functions). Thus IEI becomes more of what they are because of how they accentuate, when viewed from group-role, what they already do (produce energy, i.e.: do their peculiar "IEI" ethical thing).

There's a lot going on in DCNH and I think the issues comes up from Gulenko easily being able to view things from different angles and switch back and forth so he doesn't hammer home that there is context switching going on and people then operate under assumptions that he's sort of pulled the rug out from under. I think he is definitely accurate and super insightful but I can see how it is confusing. My advice is when considering anything with DCNH don't try to relate it back to your previous notions on subtype or even base type, but start with the dichotomies Gulenko (initiating/terminating, etc) sets out and think in terms of taking on group roles. I think if you begin from the ground up with Gulenko's system rather than trying to fit it over a pre existing one it makes a lot more sense

here's another great article that lays the groundwork for the idea