DCNH subtypes by Vera Borisova: Dominant, Creative, Normalizing, Harmonizing

[chip]

Nah I don't think this kind of version of the theory makes sense, why would only static types be creative or normalizing and only dynamic types be dominant or harmonizing? All that it says is "Ji functions are normalizing, Je functions are dominant, Pe functions are creative, Pi functions are harmonizing". That's rather simplicistic, in my opinion.

I assume they derived extroverted-introvert and introverted-extrovert from different degrees of interaction. I indicated each subtype with their corresponding function and that can be slightly misleading because the original article utilizes diagrams to illustrate the manner inwhich dominant interacts with normalizing, etc. The emphasis is not on defining type by function, i.e. static, dynamic, etc., nor definining relationship by function but on how each individual type interacts and given their interactions with one another, certain patterns of behaviour emerges that can be organized into intertype relations disregardless of presumed behaviour that we see in socionics. Hence the rift.

I'll do my best to recall the traits of each type to breath more life into 'this version of the theory'. Take for example the dominant type. For both the logical and ethical types they are more aggressive in behaviour and more critical in their statements. They will assume a position of authority and leadership or try to gain such a position. They behave with disregard for the rules and can even act against the law. For dominants who are introverts, they will not presume leadership roles but certainly remain well aware of who is in control.

The normalizing type is regarded as acting in the interest of society/community/group/etc. The logical type has an aptitude for logical analysis better than all other types. The ethical type is characterized as being highly anxious as to what behaviour fits in with the group. The normalizing type reminds the dominant to obey the rules and the law.

The creative type is characterized as being the most independent minded. They frequently are ingenious with their creations and there is an internal harmony or symmetry within their creations. Their behaviour changes frequently. I can't remember the sensory type too well. The intuitive type is known for fantasies that have an intellectual bent. They also show signs of consideration for the well being of others which the harmonizing type greatly appreciates. They often do not follow through with their plans, i.e. career.

The harmonizing type is characterized as being 'clingy', they can get into a relationship that they can not get themselves out of. They often consider themselves condemed in some way. The feeling types of the harmonizers are the most ethical of all the types. The sensory types pay great attention to their asetheticism, the intutive types do as well but to a lesser degree. The intuitive types can have trouble with autistic behaviour - not sure what that means in a literal sense. From experience I'd guess they say and do things without really comprehending but don't quote me.

If that is too simple then I'd suggest taking a look at the original article because it is worth reading. The manner inwhich I'm interpreting socionics.com and DCHN subtypes is a certain types interaction defines their intertype relationships - functionality of type is not equitable to explain interaction and therefore define intertype relationships. Interaction is the source of knoweldge in psychological typing and bywhich we can determine the intertype relationship; functionality is meaningless without interaction. I'll stop here.

[Absurd]

Haha. This is good. Thanks, Krieg.

[The Exception]

The harmonizing type is characterized as being 'clingy', they can get into a relationship that they can not get themselves out of. They often consider themselves condemed in some way. The feeling types of the harmonizers are the most ethical of all the types. The sensory types pay great attention to their asetheticism, the intutive types do as well but to a lesser degree. The intuitive types can have trouble with autistic behaviour - not sure what that means in a literal sense. From experience I'd guess they say and do things without really comprehending but don't quote me.

Sigh. Can I have a new subtype please?

[chip]

warrior librarian - your a LII intuitive subtype that means your the intuitive creative subtype. The harmonizing intuitive subtypes are introverted intuition: INTP, ENTJ, INFP and ENFJ. Try to be a bit more objective, it can increase your mood and help you think clearer especially when trying to make sense of all of this.

[The Exception]

warrior librarian - your a LII intuitive subtype that means your the intuitive creative subtype. The harmonizing intuitive subtypes are introverted intuition: INTP, ENTJ, INFP and ENFJ. Try to be a bit more objective, it can increase your mood and help you think clearer especially when trying to make sense of all of this.

I think you're confusing the two subtype theory with DCNH. With the two subtype theory, there's increased emphasis on either the dominant or the creative function, nothing else. With DCNH it's possible that the increased emphasis is going elsewhere besides the dominant or the creative function. With H subtypes, the increased emphasis is on the demonstrative (8th) and mobilizing (6th) functions.

[chip]

I think you're confusing the two subtype theory with DCNH. With the two subtype theory, there's increased emphasis on either the dominant or the creative function, nothing else. With DCNH it's possible that the increased emphasis is going elsewhere besides the dominant or the creative function. With H subtypes, the increased emphasis is on the demonstrative (8th) and mobilizing (6th) functions.

I'm fairly certain that DCNH is centered around the idea of extroverted-introverts and introverted extroverts, and the corresponding inter relationships that follow. Implicitly, one type has two different subtypes. The definition of subtypes in DCNH is consistent with the idea of subtypes who have a proficiency for one of their two main ego functions. Typically we understand INTJ to have two subtypes: logical and intuitive. In DCNH INTJ corresponds to have two subytpes: normalizing and creative. To synthesize the two systems means the creative subtype/intuitive subtype is the extroverted-introvert and there're all one and the same subtype only described in two different systems. The article I read from wikosocion made the implication clear without mention of including all eight ego-blocks into the explanation. I'm not sure where you sourced that.

Either I have confused the subtypes found on other websites to be consistent with DCNH by an act of synthesis or your confused. We can not both be right and both be wrong when were saying different things about the same thing.

[Aiss]

I'm fairly certain that DCNH is centered around the idea of extroverted-introverts and introverted extroverts, and the corresponding inter relationships that follow. Implicitly, one type has two different subtypes. The definition of subtypes in DCNH is consistent with the idea of subtypes who have a proficiency for one of their two main ego functions. Typically we understand INTJ to have two subtypes: logical and intuitive. In DCNH INTJ corresponds to have two subytpes: normalizing and creative. To synthesize the two systems means the creative subtype/intuitive subtype is the extroverted-introvert and there're all one and the same subtype only described in two different systems. The article I read from wikosocion made the implication clear without mention of including all eight ego-blocks into the explanation. I'm not sure where you sourced that.

Either I have confused the subtypes found on other websites to be consistent with DCNH by an act of synthesis or your confused. We can not both be right and both be wrong when were saying different things about the same thing.

You're fairly wrong here, as DCNH is a four subtype system not by differentiating between two subtypes each of static and dynamic types, but by identifying four subtypes applicable for each type.

That, in short, means that Harmonizing LII has strengthened Ni (demonstrative) and Si (mobilizing) functions. Creative ILI has strengthened Ne (ignoring) and Se (suggestive). Dominant LSE - Te (base) and Fe (role). Etc.

System described here obviously differs in that author relates each subtype to strengthening one of the functions of mental ring. I personally think this may be a better approach, not that it makes identifying subtypes any easier without considering them separately for each type.

There have been attempts at relating DCNH subtypes to more common accepting/producing system, which kind of fail (IMO) because while grouping rational/irrational together makes more sense, introversion/extroversion also makes a difference; in effect, people with strengthened elements in id will probably have troubles identifying with either of two subtypes.

Gulenko mentions the possibility of there rather being 8 subtypes (i.e. strengthening a particular element, whether by its positioning or not), which would solve these problems, except he then goes further with cross-type theory taking it beyond the subtypes and into a remodeling of socionics. I think I've read somewhere about a different approach by Filatova, but I couldn't find any articles about it.

[Krig the Viking]

I'm fairly certain that DCNH is centered around the idea of extroverted-introverts and introverted extroverts, and the corresponding inter relationships that follow. Implicitly, one type has two different subtypes.

From Gulenko's article on DCNH:

Isolating four subtypes

This degree of detail is needed when, for example, you have the problem of selecting one of three-four uniform candidates for a vacant post, or if there are several representatives of the same type which have to work together and it becomes necessary to solve the question of which to appoint for different tasks.

He's pretty clearly talking about one type having four different subtypes. It's talked about fairly explicitly throughout the article. Are you perhaps thinking of a different article?

[chip]

Okay time to admit I'm wrong. shit. The article begins with: "Why are people of one type so different?" the answer DCNH. To be intersubjective: is that the right beginning?