Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: New trying at DCNH

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    SLE.Wait...Shit, EII
    Posts
    328
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I found this :

    Must we not acknowledge to ourselves, we artists, that there is a strange discrepancy in us; that on the one hand our taste, and on the other hand our creative power, keep apart in an extraordinary manner, continue apart, and have a separate growth; I mean to say that they have entirely different gradations and tempi of age, youth, maturity, mellowness and rottenness? So that, for example, a musician could all his life create things which contradicted all that his ear and heart, spoilt for listening, prized, relished and preferred: he would not even require to be aware of the contradiction! As an almost painfully regular experience shows, a person's taste can easily outgrow the taste of his power, even without the latter being thereby paralysed or checked in its productivity. The reverse, however, can also to some extent take place, and it is to this especially that I should like to direct the attention of artists. A constant producer, a man who is a "mother"in the grand sense of the term, one who no longer knows or hears of anything except pregnancies and child beds of his spirit, who has no time at all to reflect and make comparisons with regard to himself and his work, who is also no longer inclined to exercise his taste, but simply forgets it, letting it take its chance of standing, lying or falling, perhaps such a man at last produces works on which he is then quite unfit to pass a judgment: so that he speaks and thinks foolishly about them and about himself. This seems to me almost the normal condition with fruitful artists—nobody knows a child less well than its parents and the rule applies even (to take an immense example) to the entire Greek world of poetry and art : it never "knew" what it had done.
    Nietzsche

    thread named "Nietzsche on the Creative Subtype" (it was a serie of thread where ppl identified some part of nietzsche quote as defining subtypes of ppl, I found the same for harmonizer)

    I recognize myself as fuck on this on the part Ill detail after esp. on my work on music (I'm not calling myself an artist thought)

    meaning Ive some taste in music, Ive things I find very great, Ive a hierarchie of like, but my creation don't have the same "style" of my taste, so I tend to end in a perfectionnist behavior trying to make things to my taste, at some point I can abandon myself into the way I'm creative and whatever the result then publish it. I'm not really satisfied as it don't correspond to my real taste and what I tend to identify somewhat as "myself", but whatever in some way. I finally ended to succeed in some way to push things to the limit and succeed to do something that I can say "that's like I'm" but with difficulties and I'm not winning at this each time.

    I thought this behavior for someone trying to do something was normal ?

    In this way I'm definitelly creative subtype (I read the same stuff for harmonizing but didn't relate at all)

    I don't do music that much anymore now but that's like I worked it, but I plan to continue it when my situation stabilize
    Last edited by noaydi; 01-16-2019 at 03:34 AM.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    SLE.Wait...Shit, EII
    Posts
    328
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm deciding to stop to think anymore about DCNH. It's quite simple, there is 0 situation I can say clearly what I'm. Perhaps it can be observed from the exterior of myself but myself can't determin it anyway. This theory is annoying for me.

    I was beginning to think myself as dominant or creative and now the more I read the more I even don't know if I'm creative, dominant, normalizing or harmonizing. I'm just INFJ and okay with that.

    At first I just thinked I was dominant because I had a life goal that I had hard time to reconcile with reality (something wich was clearly writed in description), when things not going in my interest is hard to adapt for me. Plus I have character and open my mouth. Then I thought creative because my goal is mainly about creativity (got some idea into my domain then wanted to accomplish it). Then as I tend to try to be correct I thought normalizing. Then as my goal is something geeky/specialist/expert and I took the position of motivator/making things happen for other in the same interest and for my goal and ultimately motivating myself in the same way I thought harmonizing (things wich Ive recently read).
    I just can't decide and I stop reading about this. I don't think this theory is very valid, especially since you can for example decide to do some resilience and act the same way (harmonizer taking command in their "expert" domain) for other things in life, wich can make you another type at the end. Perhaps I just don't understand the stuff, but model A is far simpler.

    For that I'm relating only into my goal into music, I didn't reflect atm in other aspect of life, where anyway I majorly fail (so probably harmonizer). I just know that in my family I'm as much accomodating, speaking too much about my problem, saying simply what I want. So I just dunno.

    DCNH probably exist in some way but better is to not think about it, it seem to add major confusion in everything.

    If I wanna very choose I could be harmonizer, especially since I'm accomodating even for ppl of other quadra when they are doing objectively bad stuff from my proper point of view even if I try to push a little my view. But this really don't correspond to my temperament wich is quite.... Loud and "directive". It's basically like I'm feeling in all case wich is probably not possible.

    Input of other are still welcome at this point but I begin to abandon a little this question, after all this is not a main point in socionic.

    DCNH is perhaps not something you can determine since you aren't fully dualized.


    If you keep it simple :

    dominant : extraverted & organized : not sure
    creative : extraverted & disorganized : why not
    normalizing : I'm not sufficiently in the "right way" to be one + I'm not that introverted, or at least I think.
    harmonizing : introverted and disorganized : introverted is the problem. I don't know about wich kind of "introvert" they speak about, but basically Ive no problem oppening myself.

    This is just brainfucking myself
    Last edited by noaydi; 01-18-2019 at 11:41 PM.

  3. #43
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,197
    Mentioned
    207 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noaydi View Post
    I just can't decide and I stop reading about this. I don't think this theory is very valid, especially since you can for example decide to do some resilience and act the same way (harmonizer taking command in their "expert" domain) for other things in life, wich can make you another type at the end. Perhaps I just don't understand the stuff, but model A is far simpler.
    That's what many people find unconvincing about DCNH. There seems to be domains in life, or certain companies, where people can act differently, and not just me, I know many of them.
    On the top of my head a couple of guys wo seemed "dominant" subtypes in sports, and now have a "normal" job and seem "normalizing" while being on the job. Others who are kind of normal guys with a standard life (harmonizing? normalizing?), but when placed in a very strict hierarcycal setting can look "creative".
    Myself, I've been in groups were the dynamic forced me to be on the sides, acting introverted and agreeable, to avoid making too many waves (harmonizing? normalizer?), and in groups were I can take charge and decide everything for everyone (dominant?). I have to admit I strongly prefer the second ones, lol.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    SLE.Wait...Shit, EII
    Posts
    328
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You succesfully summed up what Ive done recently on discord, 2 years ago at work, in music, in relationship, etc.
    The problem is that even if type exist, they have their proper domain. It seem strange to think that a dominant for example will domine everything in the word, even if you consider it's on the limit of their type. If a subtype theory should be invented, then you should speak too about different type of intelligence (some wich are imo unrelated to function), etc.

    An INFJ with a strong "natural intelligence" will take the lead when it come to stuff of nature, etc, but could appear harmonizing in social situation, normalizer in work, creative in hobby. You can still add DCNH over that if you are forcing a little the stuff, but imo it's not that important.

    After that it's perhaps clear for example that their are role you aren't best into : for example, I took the role of coordinator recently but I was strongly biaised by my proper agenda, so experienced massive difficulty and wanted to escape this quickly (inhability to maintain harmony even if trying), but didn't due to my agenda (keeping a friend and keeping a girlfriend -not fully romantically-). If you take only the "Ive a importang goal that I try to accomplish aspect, then I'm dominant. But if I want to accomplish it I'm forced to be creative. I took the role of "harmonizer" creating a new group about music for motivating everyone creating including me for this reason.

    Things are not clear cut. If there is a Ti problem, it's that they always try to make things clear cut forgetting the fact things are more dynamics than it appear for them.
    Last edited by noaydi; Yesterday at 12:31 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •