Looking for information on the subtype duality of these two, as well as the behavioral differences between creatives and harmonizers.
Harmonizer × Creative subtype dynamics DCNH
Looking for information on the subtype duality of these two, as well as the behavioral differences between creatives and harmonizers.
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
Have you watched videos of these couples? John lennon and Yoko ono are C × H.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
On itOriginally Posted by Tallmo
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
Thank you so much. Wow. I love John Lennon and his overall view of the world (RIP).
Okay so he's obviously the C and Yoko's H. I've just watched their interview on the Dick Cavett show. John is really talkative (though I'd say he's so-last) and keeps interrupting Yoko but she doesn't seem to mind. He's also really egocentric (in a nice way, funnily) and she doesn't seem annoyed by this, she actually goes along with it. Also she seems really fascinated by him, his sarcasm, his humour. "He's always making me laugh, even when I'm serious." She very rarely talks about herself even when personal questions are asked, and always finds a way to get John into the topic. Which I find quite weird lol. I'm not really picking the right C-H dynamic from the interview, just mentioning my observations.
Last edited by Shytan; 03-16-2018 at 10:48 AM.
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
Yes, the main type is of course always a factor so one has to watch LOTS of C x H couples in order to make some generalizations.
Some more couples: Roman Polanski and Emmanuelle Seigner CxH (I don't know if there are any videos)
Sasha Baron Cohen & Isla Fisher CxH
When Cohen was the Borat charatcter he made an interview with this lady at a dating agency (Sharlene). I think she might be H-LSE. Tell me what you think, but I think this is a good example of CxH interaction. He is hilarious and she tolerates it really well. (link goes right where it begins)
If you go back and watch the video from the beginning there is Jenny, who probably is D-IEE.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Also check out discussion between Jonathan Haidt & Jordan B Peterson (H x C)
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Another thing to look into
There is this series called "The way of the dream" by jungian analyst Marie-Louise von Franz (C-LII) interviewed by Fraser Boa (Harmonizer, possibly LII)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFkY...BQIb1iQpYqswVr
Last edited by Tallmo; 04-01-2018 at 08:08 AM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
On it
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
brb watching all 9 hours
https://youtu.be/SFkYteu4vRQ?t=8045
Last edited by Bertrand; 04-01-2018 at 12:07 AM.
I do think this subtype duality has something to it--possibly even more than sociotype duality. DCNH subtypes are hard to analyze systematically/put into words though. Articles about them are not as well fleshed out, and I think it's pretty hard to identify people's subtypes unless you're close to them or have spent a lot of time thinking about DCNH.
Like we discussed briefly via DM, I'm EII-H, and I'm fairly certain the two most important people in my life (other than my momma) are C. I've felt "closest" to others at various points in time, but these two are the ones that have lasted/will last across time and space. One is my romantic partner (LII-C), with whom I plan to live for the rest of our lives, and the other is my best friend from college (EII-C), who is the only other person whose location I'd take into consideration when deciding where to live (my momma is happy to follow me). I was also very close to two EII-N's, but I feel like their lives have been swallowed by their LII-D romantic partners... One, I will still try to keep in touch with occasionally, but the other, I think we've drifted apart for good.
It's pretty cute when LII-C, EII-C, and I hang out together, actually. Even though neither usually opens up quickly to new people, they felt completely comfortable with each other after basically one weekend. With most introverted friends who haven't known each other for long, I have to hang out with them one at a time or at least limit group time, but LII-C and EII-C get along as effortlessly with each other as they do with me.
I think they both kind of like rambling to me, but LII-C pointed out that he and EII-C both independently arrived at a specific technique for talking with me. I didn't notice before, but it's true--they both do a blurb of a ramble and then pause significantly, looking at me, waiting to see if I have something to say. If I don't say something, they do another rambling blurb. They do this because they must have subconsciously noticed that I have things to say even if I'm not interrupting them, and they want to hear them/give me a chance to speak. Most people do not notice and do this.
They are more prone to dark humor, especially about death, while I try to get them to admit they like life and promise me that they'll live forever/as long as possible. I do think they are spectacularly low self-pres. LII-C is so/sx like me, while EII-C is sx/so. I'm not particularly good at sleeping, but EII-C is constantly sleeping like 3 hours a night to study for med school. LII-C had a bad drinking habit for a while, though he's quit it on my behalf. He's also pretty assertive/aggressive in situations that I think are unnecessary--like if a stranger on the street is about to bump into him on purpose, he'll plant his foot so that he can put his full weight into checking the person. But he's also more assertive than I am in situations that call for it, like he'll ask people to switch seats on airplanes, and I don't think he'll let a broker take advantage of us when we look for an apartment.
They're both much more into politics than I am. I like knowing what's going on in the world, but LII-C follows the news religiously and EII-C used to do the same until she managed to quit for the sake of her mental health. I like hearing their thorough, detailed takes on stuff and telling them random strong beliefs I have that may/may not be very well informed.
Overall I think we three are prone to excesses--in worrying, or frustration with certain people/events/systems, or anger (I'd say I show more anger than EII-C does, though probably not LII-C)--and they are moderating forces on me, and I on them. There's some kind of natural ebb and flow that we subconsciously feel. We instinctively know when to push a bit vs. when to just listen.
@Tallmo, could you expound a bit on what you mentioned on another thread that Creatives sort of feast on the Harmonizer's souls. I found that fascinating.
It was a joke. Or could it be true? I just said it because H seems to be the most soulful subtype
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
@Saoirse This made me smile becaue it sort of reminds me of me and my best friend (who I type as LII but I can't honestly know for sure). We have a communication style which involves obscure refferences to each others' interests and shitty puns. This is sort of unique, and I don't/can't do this with anyone else besides herself. We always joke about "wanting to die" and then revert to ironic use of wholesome memes. Again, something that I don't really do with a lot of people.
It's like we shit on life, yet value it at the same time. She is also pretty juvenile and prefers a more serious yet humorous atmosphere. "Drunken-loud" humour is not her style. Think of Terry Pratchett.
The downside is not being able to talk about other topics with her because I feel like she can't and won't take them seriously.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Another couple: Paul Auster (H) and Siri Hustvedt (C)
I didn't find any good videos with both of them, only this one. But there is at least some discussion in it.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote