Gulenko's DCNH 4-subtype system

[machintruc]

This system stipulates there can be 4, 8, or 16 subtypes, and Reinin-like dichotomies for those subtypes. It explains on the intertype relations on the DCNH system.

[web:cee519b360]http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fsoci onics.kiev.ua%2farticle%2fsysdcnh%2f[/web:cee519b360]

[tcaudilllg]

Strengthening stuff, what is he talking about? How do you strengthen a function? If he's not referring to what Steve said, then I call bullsh**.

But I really can't tell what he's talking about.

[FDG]

I think this stuff is awesome. A-w-e-s-o-m-e.

[tcaudilllg]

The problem I have with this is that they are nowhere making clear that socionics does not account for information exertion. They are still acting as though it does, and relying on the subtype theory as a means of accounting for the further differences between people. They are relying on the subtype theory, very likely, to explain something that it has nothing to do with.

The problem with socionics today is that people see signs of the functions, and try to fit all of these signs into model-A. They just don't fit.

[Jarno]

hmm that are a lot of subtypes.

It's way to difficult to examen this in reality if I have to do it within a lifetime...

[FDG]

The problem I have with this is that they are nowhere making clear that socionics does not account for information exertion. They are still acting as though it does, and relying on the subtype theory as a means of accounting for the further differences between people. They are relying on the subtype theory, very likely, to explain something that it has nothing to do with.

The problem with socionics today is that people see signs of the functions, and try to fit all of these signs into model-A. They just don't fit.

Whoa. Since when have you started being reasonable, tcaud?

[tcaudilllg]

After thorough review of this article, I can say definitively that it has no relation to information exertion as a factor of distinct type.

[tcaudilllg]

Gggggggh.. Gulenko... Dec 17th 2006... published this....

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10710


This is trouble. This is the beginning of a long, long conflict. He does not have it in him to work with that level of power. He doesn't understand... no, they did it. They stole it. They must have.

[tcaudilllg]

All right, let me make one thing perfectly clear: the world is going to change, and it will change as I -- as liberalism -- dictates. If any of those arrogant sycophants (Expat, Joy, etc.) have anything to say about it then they'll just say it, but it won't matter. I will lead this change, nothing can stop that.

And all those who would attempt to stop me, are due for an exit. I am confident the world's liberals will stand with me in this endevor. Let us, collectively, ostracise, condemn, and thwart those arrogant imbeciles who think that "you have to do things as our institutions say, or your dreams won't come true." Rest assured, we'll have our dreams at your expense.

Stand against us in our implementation of the consequences of the dual-type theory -- of a new world in which behavioral psychology is trained to meet the needs of respective agendas and everyone's exerted agendas are respected (so long as they are not pathological); where people work in the fields that meet their dreams and desires instead of barely making ends meet due to whatever "circumstances", and the process of your purge from the U.S. Senate -- you will be routed next year -- (though we'll leave the conservatives in place) will seem insignifant compared to the worldwide revolution we shall engage in partnership with reform.

The old ways of evil and despair are dying, and those who will seek to save them will perish with it. This is the cause, the heart of truth, of liberalism.

[KSpin]

Communism then?

[tcaudilllg]

Communism then?

Not really. Remember we are respecting hidden agenda. Those who want money shall have it. We won't do anything with capitalism -- it's an ENTj idea, and a good one -- but we will reform its implementation to reflect the dual-type theory.

But yes, there will be equality. The consequences of the dual-type theory are staggering... they hold the keys to most all of the mysteries of our history. Even to religious questions. Indeed, type is determinant of not only whether or not a person seeks to become a religious leader, but of what character their religion takes. To sum it up, there are roles for EVERYONE. To condemn someone to a life where they perform jobs they feel unsuited for, that do not capture the dreams sown by their exerted agendas.... "because they weren't lucky, because they didn't get the chance", is not just wrong, it is evil. And anyone who argues otherwise, too, is evil.

[KSpin]

My agenda is to enlighten everyone. People that believe in a religion are unenlightened.

[tcaudilllg]

My agenda is to enlighten everyone. People that believe in a religion are unenlightened.

I mean guys like this:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...1-8d944f7b9192

[KSpin]

The sort of person that is strange and different just for the heck of it?

[Logos]

My agenda is to enlighten everyone. People that believe in a religion are unenlightened.

Why?

[mikemex]

Communism then?

Not really. Remember we are respecting hidden agenda. Those who want money shall have it. We won't do anything with capitalism -- it's an ENTj idea, and a good one -- but we will reform its implementation to reflect the dual-type theory.

But yes, there will be equality. The consequences of the dual-type theory are staggering... they hold the keys to most all of the mysteries of our history. Even to religious questions. Indeed, type is determinant of not only whether or not a person seeks to become a religious leader, but of what character their religion takes. To sum it up, there are roles for EVERYONE. To condemn someone to a life where they perform jobs they feel unsuited for, that do not capture the dreams sown by their exerted agendas.... "because they weren't lucky, because they didn't get the chance", is not just wrong, it is evil. And anyone who argues otherwise, too, is evil.

Theory will never change people. I believe that's a very deeply held alpha value, but quite unrealistic. Thing is, there is a lot of people who doesn't give a shit about theory, at all.

You can observe the events of history to figure out what's the real way to make things happen: politics, plain arguments that everyone can understand, and not complicated theories that only a few with lots of spare time can master.

Don't believe me? It has already happened. Remember Gandhi? He did what he did because he was a Ni dominant, and thus member of the dominant quadras (beta/gamma). An alpha like you, or a delta like me, can't do much to change the way of thinking of gammas and betas speaking alpha and delta language. You see, it seems obvious to me that you suffer from the same mistake as me: I hate betas as much as you hate gammas. However, I try to fight it and be objective, because no person, regardless of type, is free of defects... and no person is devoid of virtues either. They just happen to have lots of influence over the world and we all suffer from their defects.

So I invite you to come back to objectivity and understand that the problems of our world are a result of us all. It's how we are, it's our nature. Treating everyone like an alpha, trying to get them to reason and understand complex arguments, it's unrealistic, to say the less. Some people are not convinced with arguments; they are just convinced with a smile. Don't be so arrogant to expect that everyone else speaks your language. If you really want to make a change, you have to learn theirs.

[machintruc]

My agenda is to enlighten everyone. People that believe in a religion are unenlightened.

I'm Catholic, and I don't feel unlightened.

[tcaudilllg]

Communism then?

Not really. Remember we are respecting hidden agenda. Those who want money shall have it. We won't do anything with capitalism -- it's an ENTj idea, and a good one -- but we will reform its implementation to reflect the dual-type theory.

But yes, there will be equality. The consequences of the dual-type theory are staggering... they hold the keys to most all of the mysteries of our history. Even to religious questions. Indeed, type is determinant of not only whether or not a person seeks to become a religious leader, but of what character their religion takes. To sum it up, there are roles for EVERYONE. To condemn someone to a life where they perform jobs they feel unsuited for, that do not capture the dreams sown by their exerted agendas.... "because they weren't lucky, because they didn't get the chance", is not just wrong, it is evil. And anyone who argues otherwise, too, is evil.

Theory will never change people. I believe that's a very deeply held alpha value, but quite unrealistic. Thing is, there is a lot of people who doesn't give a shit about theory, at all.

You can observe the events of history to figure out what's the real way to make things happen: politics, plain arguments that everyone can understand, and not complicated theories that only a few with lots of spare time can master.

Don't believe me? It has already happened. Remember Gandhi? He did what he did because he was a Ni dominant, and thus member of the dominant quadras (beta/gamma). An alpha like you, or a delta like me, can't do much to change the way of thinking of gammas and betas speaking alpha and delta language. You see, it seems obvious to me that you suffer from the same mistake as me: I hate betas as much as you hate gammas. However, I try to fight it and be objective, because no person, regardless of type, is free of defects... and no person is devoid of virtues either. They just happen to have lots of influence over the world and we all suffer from their defects.

So I invite you to come back to objectivity and understand that the problems of our world are a result of us all. It's how we are, it's our nature. Treating everyone like an alpha, trying to get them to reason and understand complex arguments, it's unrealistic, to say the less. Some people are not convinced with arguments; they are just convinced with a smile. Don't be so arrogant to expect that everyone else speaks your language. If you really want to make a change, you have to learn theirs.

By way of the dual-type theory, I already have learned theirs, thanks.

The people your are talking about will do what we (logical types) tell them to, even as they do today, because it's not their domain to question it due to their poor apprehension of structure. Who are these people? Extroverted feelers. INFjs won't scoff this idea; hell, they think that one should perfect methods of emotional expression the same way INTjs perfect ideas. INFps have been waiting for this idea for a looooong time. Just last night, I read a record of exchanges between Einstein and Freud: no doubt, this very hypothesis -- and its accompanying concept of transcendent functioning -- are what they were waiting for. Logical types are thoroughly on board.

http://www.idst.vt.edu/modernworld/d/Einstein.html

You're speaking, mikemex, for a deplorably low percentage of people. Mikemex, I don't think you understand what a hard life is really like. I've done hard jobs, I've worked under ruthless employers who didn't care whether I was comfortable or not whether I was comfortable or not on the job. And I've felt the pressure to endure these conditions regardless. You speak for a small, insignificant minority Mikemex. I have learned a lot from your function analyses, Mikemex; but take an INTj's advice and stay out of this argument.

[Exodus]

The people your are talking about will do what we (logical types) tell them to, even as they do today, because it's not their domain to question it due to their poor apprehension of structure.

You are assuming that people will take your theory for granted. Enforcing equality is impossible; it's been tried.

And since when do logical types tell ethical types what to do?

You're speaking, mikemex, for a deplorably low percentage of people.

I think you're wrong.

[tcaudilllg]

The people your are talking about will do what we (logical types) tell them to, even as they do today, because it's not their domain to question it due to their poor apprehension of structure.

You are assuming that people will take your theory for granted. Enforcing equality is impossible; it's been tried.

And since when do logical types tell ethical types what to do?

You're speaking, mikemex, for a deplorably low percentage of people.

I think you're wrong.

It's been tried by crazies. A purely logical, non-ideological approach can work. Another thing, we should take all the hidden agendas into account. Maybe some people need to be more equal than others. If these people provide compensatory information for their supraequality, then why not .

This should be approached very carefully, gradually. ...I hope to have this system in place at least in part by the time I'm a granddad.

Here's an idea: why not give all Nobel prizes to ENTps and ESTps? They like the recognition, right? What does an INTj, or an INTp, need for a Nobel prize, or any prize? Why would either want to stand up in a room and address a group of people who didn't get the prize despite making their own contributions to science in a way that was meaningful for them? What terrible .

[Creepy-bg]

The people your are talking about will do what we (logical types) tell them to, even as they do today, because it's not their domain to question it due to their poor apprehension of structure.

You are assuming that people will take your theory for granted. Enforcing equality is impossible; it's been tried.

And since when do logical types tell ethical types what to do?

You're speaking, mikemex, for a deplorably low percentage of people.

I think you're wrong.

It's been tried by crazies. A purely logical, non-ideological approach can work. Another thing, we should take all the hidden agendas into account. Maybe some people need to be more equal than others. If these people provide compensatory information for their supraequality, then why not .

are you also planning to indulge the people who need to take down those who are more equal than others?

[tcaudilllg]

Do such people exist? (who are not pathological?) Let's remember now: they are equal and not equal at the same time.

[Exodus]

It's been tried by crazies. A purely logical, non-ideological approach can work.

In what sense is your approach not ideological? You have so much faith in your theory that you think it can reform the entire world. That's ideology.

It's a delusion to think that you can approach social matters purely logically. Human nature has to be factored in.

This should be approached very carefully, gradually.

OK.

Here's an idea: why not give all Nobel prizes to ENTps and ESTps? They like the recognition, right? What does an INTj, or an INTp, need for a Nobel prize, or any prize? Why would either want to stand up in a room and address a group of people who didn't get the prize despite making their own contributions to science in a way that was meaningful for them? What terrible .

You're ignoring the psychological effect of knowing that it was biased. Plus, fulfilling an Fe hidden agenda is a lot more than winning a Nobel prize. This is the mistake you make again and again: attributing every specific detail of a behavior or event to personality type. Socionics is not nearly so developed, and I don't think your theory is either, especially considering your research methods (which have never been described IIRC).

[Creepy-bg]

Do such people exist? (who are not pathological?) Let's remember now: they are equal and not equal at the same time.

yes they do. And I don't see how that drive would be any more (or less) pathological than the drive to be more equal than others.

[anndelise]

Maybe some people need to be more equal than others.

supraequality

why does this more equal and supraequality thing sound like an oxymoron to me?

[Creepy-bg]

Maybe some people need to be more equal than others.

supraequality

why does this more equal and supraequality thing sound like an oxymoron to me?

very Animal Farm aren't they...

[tcaudilllg]

Do such people exist? (who are not pathological?) Let's remember now: they are equal and not equal at the same time.

yes they do. And I don't see how that drive would be any more (or less) pathological than the drive to be more equal than others.

Let's ask ourselves who would desire this. HA: not , might or might not, wouldn't, wouldn't, wouldn't, wouldn't, wouldn't.

So the question is, would (healthy) HA people desire to be "more equal than" others?

[mikemex]

By way of the dual-type theory, I already have learned theirs, thanks.

Yeah, psychological theories are like mornings.

The people your are talking about will do what we (logical types) tell them to, even as they do today, because it's not their domain to question it due to their poor apprehension of structure. Who are these people? Extroverted feelers.

I'm ENFp, one of those devil extroverted feelers you're talking about. I didn't know I ate people alive. I must install a camera in my bedroom, maybe I become Mr. Hyde by night.

INFjs won't scoff this idea; hell, they think that one should perfect methods of emotional expression the same way INTjs perfect ideas. INFps have been waiting for this idea for a looooong time. Just last night, I read a record of exchanges between Einstein and Freud: no doubt, this very hypothesis -- and its accompanying concept of transcendent functioning -- are what they were waiting for. Logical types are thoroughly on board.

Ethicals waiting for things like this? Come on. It's logicals who were waiting for it. Ethicals understand people without any manual and without any effort.

You're speaking, mikemex, for a deplorably low percentage of people.

Sorry.

Mikemex, I don't think you understand what a hard life is really like. I've done hard jobs, I've worked under ruthless employers who didn't care whether I was comfortable or not whether I was comfortable or not on the job. And I've felt the pressure to endure these conditions regardless.

I got my first job at the wonderful age of 12 and I made the wonderful amount of $20 a month, giving people flyers on the street. At 14 I was working for $80 a month assembling computers and left the job because my boss scammed me because he didn't want to give me 5% of commission for a printer I sold (which means like $20 of today money). Later, at 16, I got the wonderful job of appearing in child parties inside a cartoon suit (don't know the name in english). Then I got a job at 17 and left it when my boss (which happens to be my uncle) didn't want to hold his word about becoming partners to produce electronic books (it was a project far better than those funny PDF books).

So don't tell me I don't understand. I've been exploited since I was a child and have contributed economically to the household income (although more symbolically than anything) since then. I didn't live a prosperous childhood, at all. I left school at 14. That's probably why I gave up about the external world and started to "make the mind a comfortable place to spend time on".

You speak for a small, insignificant minority Mikemex. I have learned a lot from your function analyses, Mikemex; but take an INTj's advice and stay out of this argument.

I wonder if you got my argument, at all.

There is no type, or quadra or any other label you wish to put into people that you can blame for the problems of the world. We all contribute to the problem and blame others because it's easier for us to judge others than to judge ourselves. But it's prejudice, pure and plain prejudice and changing its name it doesn't turn it any better.

Thing is, if socionics should serve any purpose, it would be to make people to understand that differences exist to be complimentary and not mutually exclusive. For example, ISTj, my conflictor, would argue that I'm the origin of the evil of the world because I don't put enough effort to fulfill my duty (because I'm a low willed procrastinator) and because I'm a "rebel" (=always changing the established and well proven systems) and such. Thing is, I don't like it, but there is a lot of truth in it.

You're trying to reach simple conclusions about a world which is very complex in nature, and there is where you and all other logicals fail. You say capitalism is an ENTj thing, and I'm with you about it, but when I go out to the reality and see my friends (I'm friends with some ENTj) your simplistic view of the world becomes ridiculously apparent. Both of my ENTj friends are extremely good at business, but both of them are socialist, one is a nostalgic communist and the other promotes cooperativism. Point is, ENTj on paper will never be the same as ENTj in person.

My father, which is LII and a genius, educated me. I've developed over the years the ability to reason, to be critical, to be analytical. I might still commit mistakes from time to time, but I'm proud about being an ethical and not a logical, because that makes me reasonable. Give me both ethical and logical arguments and if they are well backed up, I'll agree with you. Give ethical arguments to a logical and more often than not you'll be misunderstood.

My point is that socionics will not have a value of everyone until we find a way to apply it and demonstrate to even the most conservative that it provides sound advantages over what exist today. An please don't get me wrong, I'm still Ne driven and thus I consider that things such as socionics are an end by their own and not a mean to reach anything. However, that's my personal opinion and is not universal, so, for the simple sake of democracy lets get concerned about the more pragmatic views.

As I write my father is downstairs writing one of his essays about ethics. What he doesn't seem to understand is that such theoretical material never reaches the hand of the plain men in the first place. It is needed a bridge between the abstract thinker and that person who cleans the street, and there is where the purpose of the other types of the socion become apparent.

We are both inventors, I myself hold two patents on major technologies such as motor vehicle components (motor, brake system, transmission, etc). I also have inventions in the field of energy production distribution and storage, telecommunications, computing, firearms... and keep adding each week to the list. However, as wonderful as it sounds, it requires a different kind of intelligence to integrate such inventions into the system (call it selling them if you wish) than the kind of intelligence needed to produce them. So we're stuck, with inventions that are worth more money than what most of you would believe.

I, being delta, am sightly more connected to reality than my dad is. He patented a compressor 20 years ago and the patent expired before he could make a penny out of it. He makes the same mistake as you: think that just because something is wonderful and useful it will sell itself.

That's the sad thing about being alpha: you see a lot of wonderful things, and are constantly frustrated that other people don't see what you do. But successful alphas, say, Al Gore, have done what they did because they stopped talking their own language and started talking that of others. They try to convince with arguments, sure, but they also make friends who are influential among groups they are not. And that's politics, my friend.

Here is what we need now: socionics already works; who in the hell really know how it works, but types have been identified already and we know that it is quite reliable. So it's time to start making the wheel of the socion to turn. If it doesn't go beyond the alpha sphere, it will not have an effect in society, and it will remains as a beautiful idea, but with lots of dust above it, like my dad's patent.

Understand the socion, understand politics. Alphas must communicate with betas, betas with gammas and gammas with deltas and deltas must provide input for alphas, to complete a new cycle. It's just a matter to choose who in the neighbor quadra will take the baton from you.

If you observe history, this already happened. I'm not sure if Carl Marx was INTj, but his work is certainly alpha. A less talented intellectual but more talented politic like Lenin took the baton from him and with others won a revolution promoting the new concept. It all ended in a big shit, because the first step of communists was to pursuit anarchists (order <-> anarchy), who were their natural rivals. However, if instead of staying in beta, the idea of socialism had passed to gamma, it would probably had become democratic, giving an opportunity to deltas to refine the details and implement it.

So here goes:

INTj -> ESTp -> ISFj - >ENFp @
ENTp <- ISTj <- ESFp <- INFj @
ISFp -> ENFj -> INTp -> ESTj @
ESFj <- INFp <- ENTj <- ISTp

There is the list of ambassadors, people who speaks the language and knows the culture of the "locals", but still can understand you. Want an ESFp politician to take your ideas in consideration? Do it through the proper channels. But remember that you can't expect others to do you will every time. In a negotiation you must offer at least as much as you wish to ask. Politics, you know, is the obscure art of those dammed ESFp who know how to give each one what they want and thus to create consensus. Who knows that one doesn't speak all languages, and thus influences people through others.

So, what, are you going to stay there and sit down until a miracle happens? Or will you contact FDG? I don't like his humor, but I think he's intelligent and probably a good person. Maybe you can give him some ideas and he'll make the wheel to turn.

[tcaudilllg]

You've obviously not considered the dual-type theory in the least. I'm not saying anything else about this to you, and your comments are irrelevant.

[mikemex]

You must be careful if you decide to live in the edge of knowledge, because you face the risk of losing your objectivity. The more you deny those who counter your ideas, the higher the probability that you're wrong. You can still be right, but more than one bright man, even genius, fell into that trap and ended up with ridiculous absurdities. You see, Einstein said that god didn't play the dice, and ended up being a professional player.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm willing to run that risk. Whatever will keep from , for now.

[anndelise]

I'm willing to run that risk. Whatever will keep from , for now.

so much for equality, eh

[tcaudilllg]

I'm willing to run that risk. Whatever will keep from , for now.

so much for equality, eh

?

[Hugo]

Gulenko created a 4-subtype theory. The internal laws of the quadra itself operate in a similar way. The subtypes per socionics type are:

Leader
Emphasizes a need for contact with others, systematic behavior and adaption to change.
The equivalent of the Exxj of a quadra.

Creator
Emphasizes a need for contact with others, non-systematic behavior and is burdened by change.
The equivalent of the Exxp of a quadra.

Normalizer
Emphasizes a need for distance from others, systematic behavior and is burdened by change.
The equivalent of the Ixxj of a quadra.

Harmonizer
Emphasizes a need for distance from others, non-systematic behavior and adaption to change.
The equivalent of the Ixxp of a quadra.

[Kristiina]

That's an interesting theory. It seems to have more interal logic than the 2-subtype theory. The problem with our typical 2-subtype theory is that it's impossible to say that someone has either more program or more creative function. Those functions operate together. Creative function is used to achieve the goals of program function. But with the 4-subtype theory it won't say that you have more of either one of those functions. It just tries to give a better explenation to the differences between people of the same type.

I'd be the Normalizer (IJ) of the ENFj type.

[Jarno]

That's an interesting theory. It seems to have more interal logic than the 2-subtype theory. The problem with our typical 2-subtype theory is that it's impossible to say that someone has either more program or more creative function. Those functions operate together. Creative function is used to achieve the goals of program function. But with the 4-subtype theory it won't say that you have more of either one of those functions. It just tries to give a better explenation to the differences between people of the same type.

I'd be the Normalizer (IJ) of the ENFj type.

Well the 2 subtype theory is more easy to spot in real life (although that's the only theory that I know)

I've got not much doubts that the 2 subtype theory is incorrect.

[detail]

It's clear to me that a 4 subtypes model works more accurately than a 2 subtypes model but the problem is that to this day, no one seems to know what is the fundamental process that makes subtypes exist, so we can only build 4 subtypes models that work intuitively but that are not actually correct. I posted such a model a while ago but it's not different than other models in that it only works intuitively which means it's nothing more than an arbitrary way of picturing the fact that there are 4 subtypes being perceived. What we should do instead is build a 4 subtypes model that contains only each type's 4 different subtypes descriptions and work from there until something more consistent with reality enables us to build a real working model.

[Hugo]

"Sub-Duals" would be:
- Leader & Normalizer
- Creator & Harmonizer

[Kristiina]

I was wondering about that.

It makes things complicated. I'm EnfJ and my dual is IstJ, but my subtype is IJ (normalizer) and the perfect dual's subtype is EJ (Leader), so who would do what in the relationship. Who is the extroverted one, who has new ideas... There must be a better way to explain the subtypes. I can't have ENFj and normalizer behavior at the same time... it's quite confusing to imagine. I was thinking that maybe it could be eplained by how forcefully typelike the behavior is.


PS! Do you have something mixed up? EJ is not burdened with change and EP is burdened with change. It would fit static/dynamic dichotomy, but not typical Ep vs Ej behavior.

[Hugo]

In my opinion socionics type represents your information metabolism and subtype represents your behavior.