Identifying DCNH Subtypes

[Krig the Viking]

Continued from JohnDo's and my discussion here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...thy-lii-3.html

I think Harmonizing is the most oblivious subtype. We seem to have completely different conceptions of H-LII and C-LII. H-LIIs may be mixed up with ILI and IEI, C-LIIs may be mixed up with ILE and LIE.

Harmonizing is a Connecting subtype, while Creative is an Ignoring subtype. Harmonizing retreats from the world because it is too connected, and feels disharmony and conflict too keenly. Creative, on the other hand, tends to ignore the world in favour of focusing on creating new things and new ideas.

Daniel Jackson is in no way a C-LII. The only fictional C-LII I know is Hannibal Smith from the A-team, a completely different character who is typed LIE by some people...

Hannibal Smith is so not an LII! Plus, an LII who is frequently typed LIE is probably a Dominant subtype, not Creative.

Ones are clearly LSIs, not LIIs...

So in your opinion, am I not a One, or not an LII?

I don't often contest people's self-typings (because I don't usually care enough to get into a big shouting match about it. However, for the record, John, I think you are probably a C-LII, and I suspect that the fact that you identify yourself as H-LII is probably why you have developed such a flawed understanding of DCNH, since you attribute your own C-LII traits to H-LII.

There is also a secondary possibility that you are D-LII which I haven't entirely ruled out.

[JohnDo]

Harmonizing is a Connecting subtype, while Creative is an Ignoring subtype. Harmonizing retreats from the world because it is too connected, and feels disharmony and conflict too keenly. Creative, on the other hand, tends to ignore the world in favour of focusing on creating new things and new ideas.

Okay, maybe I misunderstood what you meant with "oblivious". Nevertheless, H-people seem to be torn off from reality () whereas C-people seem rather extraverted and focused on objects ()...

Hannibal Smith is so not an LII! Plus, an LII who is frequently typed LIE is probably a Dominant subtype, not Creative.

D-LII can be mixed up with N-LIE, indeed. Nevertheless, C-LIIs appear to be extraverts so they might be mixed up with LIEs sometimes...

Hannibal is not a really well-developed character. He is xNTj and I rather see Ne ego than Te ego...

So in your opinion, am I not a One, or not an LII?

I don't question your socionics typing. If you are C-LII you are probably a five because the description of ones indicate a sensory type...

I don't often contest people's self-typings (because I don't usually care enough to get into a big shouting match about it. However, for the record, John, I think you are probably a C-LII, and I suspect that the fact that you identify yourself as H-LII is probably why you have developed such a flawed understanding of DCNH, since you attribute your own C-LII traits to H-LII.

I think you might be an H-LII, actually.

We should discuss about that to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Would you please tell me the names of all fictional and non-fictional characters you type as C-LII and H-LII? I will also try to find as many examples as possible...

There is also a secondary possibility that you are D-LII which I haven't entirely ruled out.

Definitely not...

[JohnDo]

The differences between H-LII and C-LII:

- H has stronger , C has stronger
- H is more intoverted, C is more extraverted (may seem to be an extravert)
- H is connecting (very sensitive), C is ignoring (more self-assured)
- H is rather interested in politics, philosophy, religion, spirituality, magic
- C is rather interested in discovering, exploring, inventing, creating
- my personal physiognomical observation: H's face is oval, C's face is square

Possible H-LIIs:
Carl Jung - self-typed Ti, obviously intuitive, highly spiritual. some say ILI
Che Guevara - some say IEI/EIE.
Osama bin Laden - some say IEI.
Lenin - some say SLE.
Vladimir Putin - some say LSI. Might be D-LII but probably H

Daniel Jackson (Stargate SG1) - stereotypical example of a healthy H-LII
Fox Mulder (X-Files) - stereotypical example of a slightly unhealthy (paranoid) H-LII
Magneto (X-Men) - stereotypical example of a completely unhealthy (evil) H-LII
Peter Parker (Spider-Man)
Albus Dumbledore (Harry Potter)
Gandalf (Lord of the Rings)
Getafix (Asterix)
Paul Atreides (Dune)
Spock (Star Trek)
Data (Star Trek)



Possible C-LIIs:

Victor Gulenko - I don't know if he is a self-typed C...
Al Gore - pretty obvious
Hillary Clinton - some say LSI
Stefan Raab - German entertainer

Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek) - I mistyped him as H-LII once...
Gregory House (House, M.D.) - slightly unhealthy C-LII (?)
Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs) - completely unhealthy C-LII
Obi Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)


Typing is difficult because people of all types and subtypes can be healthy or unhealthy. Nevertheless I think I got some good examples of both types:

_____Healthy - Slightly unhealthy - Completely unhealthy
H-LII: Daniel Jackson - Fox Mulder - Magneto
C-LII: Jean-Luc Picard - Gregory House - Hannibal Lecter

[Krig the Viking]

Okay, that's a good idea. Here's my previously typed C and H LIIs, the ones that I'm fairly sure of:

C-LII:
Daniel Jackson
Radek Zelenka (Stargate Atlantis)
Data
Benton Fraser (Due South)
Spider-Man (in the comics he's depicted as having a different personality from Peter Parker, to the point of almost being ILE)
Krig the Viking (Myself)

H-LII:
Denis Cooverman (I Love You Beth Cooper)
Peter Parker (some depictions of him in the comics)
Andrew Largeman (Garden State)
Currere (friend of mine who posts here occasionally)

There are of course other people on my list that I know personally, but their names wouldn't mean much to anyone else.

The differences between H-LII and C-LII:

- H has stronger , C has stronger
- H is more intoverted, C is more extraverted (may seem to be an extravert)
- H is connecting (very sensitive), C is ignoring (more self-assured)
- H is rather interested in politics, philosophy, religion, spirituality, magic
- C is rather interested in discovering, exploring, inventing, creating
- my personal physiognomical observation: H's face is oval, C's face is square

I fully agree with the first two points, and somewhat with the third (technically, Connecting/Ignoring is the same as Dynamic/Static, which I would not characterise as Sensitive/Self-Assured, but rather Pays Attention to Dynamically Changing Things/Pays Attention to Stable, Unchanging Things.

I agree with the fifth point, but the fourth point seems like things than any LII could be interested in. And of course you know my opinion on the sixth point.

My thoughts on your examples:
Proposed H-LIIs:
Carl Jung - Haven't studied his type.
Che Guevara - D-IEI
Osama bin Laden - Some kind of IEI
Lenin - Haven't studied his type.
Vladimir Putin - Haven't closely studied his type, but probably Dominant or Normalizing.

Daniel Jackson (Stargate SG1) - stereotypical example of a healthy C-LII
Fox Mulder (X-Files) - Haven't studied his type.
Magneto (X-Men) - I agree with LII, but probably a Dominant subtype.
Peter Parker (Spider-Man) - One of the few I agree is H-LII.
Albus Dumbledore (Harry Potter) - Haven't studied his type.
Gandalf (Lord of the Rings) - D-LII. Focused on accomplishing external goals.
Getafix (Asterix) - Haha, I hadn't thought of Getafix until now! LII certainly, but probably C-LII or possibly N-LII.
Paul Atreides (Dune) - Never read the books or saw the movies.
Spock (Star Trek) - Nimoy's Spock is probably the classic example of N-LII.
Data (Star Trek) - Probably C-LII. Very inquisitive, exploring "what it means to be human".

Proposed C-LIIs:
Victor Gulenko - C-LII would make sense.
Al Gore - Probably LII, but I don't know his subtype.
Hillary Clinton - LSI
Stefan Raab - Never heard of him, unfortunately.

Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek) - Not sure of his type.
Gregory House (House, M.D.) - Not sure of his type, but definitely not LII.
Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs) - Haven't seen the movies.
Obi Wan Kenobi (Star Wars) - Haven't really thought about his type. Old Kenobi and Young Kenobi are probably different (Lucas didn't keep the sociotypes consistent, especially with Anakin/Vader, which was one of the biggest disappointments of the prequels).

I havn't seen any therefore I am not sure any exist.

I haven't seen you therefore I am not sure you exist...

[Currere]

I haven't seen you therefore I am not sure you exist...

I am seen, therefore I am?

[Krig the Viking]

I am seen, therefore I am?

Pff. I know you don't exist.

[JohnDo]

Overview

We agree on LII: 9
- Victor Gulenko
- Al Gore
- Daniel Jackson
- Magneto
- Peter Parker
- Gandalf
- Getafix
- Spock
- Data

We disagree on main type: 4
- Che Guevara
- Osama bin Laden
- Hillary Clinton
- Gregory House

We agree on subtype: 2
- Peter Parker
- Victor Gulenko

We disagree on subtype: 6
- Daniel Jackson
- Magneto
- Gandalf
- Getafix
- Spock
- Data

You don't know: 10
- Carl Jung
- Lenin
- Vladimir Putin
- Stefan Raab
- Fox Mulder
- Albus Dumbledore
- Paul Atreides
- Jean-Luc Picard
- Hannibal Lecter
- Obi Wan Kenobi

I dont't know: 5
- Radek Zelenka
- Benton Fraser
- Denis Cooverman
- Andrew Largeman
- Currere


So there are a lot of people we type as LII - but more often than not we think of different subtypes:

H vs C:
- Daniel Jackson
- Getafix
- Data

H vs D:
- Magneto
- Gandalf

H vs N:
- Spock

Data is and android, Spock an alien and Magneto is obviously an unhealthy example of an LII. So the subtype is hard to tell in these cases.

I'm still surprised that you type Daniel Jackson as C-LII.
H-LIIs are more thoughtful (Ni) whereas C-LIIs are more easy-going due to Ne. H-LIIs can be mixed up with N-ILIs, C-LIIs can be mixed up with N-ILEs. Jackson rather seems like an ILI to me...

[Krig the Viking]

There must be a way to distinguish between Ne spacey absentmindedness and Ni internally-focused zoned-out-ness. I think that's our biggest disagreement here.

C-LIIs move around more, I think. When they think about things, they're outwardly-focused, although they're not focused on anything in their immediate vicinity. Daniel Jackson, though he seems oblivious to his immediate surroundings, strikes me as this. He moves around a lot when he thinks and exposits the episode's plot.

I see H-LIIs as being more still and inwardly focused. More likely to sit there quietly and contemplate their navel than pace around gesticulating, when deep in thought. Generally calmer and less exciteable than C-LIIs. Although, being LIIs, the difference can be pretty subtle.

[JohnDo]

Maybe it's useless to discuss about fictional people or celebrities. In real life I think I have no problem with distinguishing between C-LII and H-LII. They just have different charisma and different appearence...

How many intuitive LIIs do you know personally? I know 3 H-LIIs (2 male, 1 female) and 3 C-LIIs (2 male, 1 female) personally for sure. H-LIIs are more sensitive, quite, careful. C-LIIs are more self-assured, inclined to jokes, easy-going.

And C-LIIs have square faces, H-LIIs have oval faces, of course.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Eh, unless i'm completely missing something, associating behaviours with DNCH sub types has got to be flawed - sure, i believe that personality and therefore behaviour and in part influenced by type, however, surely for the more subtle difference one would expect from DNCH can all be accounted for personality?

Maybe example, assuming my type (and sub type) is right, i'd say i'm SLI-D ... and I do tend to take control of situations via a Te effeciency of productivity POV, however, I have worked in places where it would not be wise to do so, not because other people are particularly better, but because they've been there for years and are used to doing their own things - so if I "organise" it will increase productivity, but I could find myself out a job being the new guy and the established don't like it, so in that situation, would I be viewed as or 'become' harmonising subtype, as I play it cool and be affable to parties and such to keep a job.

I suppose i'm not sure how you guys are working it out with reasonable confidence. And I apologise if this sort of stuff's been addressed, but i'm curious.

[The Exception]

Harmonizing is a Connecting subtype, while Creative is an Ignoring subtype. Harmonizing retreats from the world because it is too connected, and feels disharmony and conflict too keenly. Creative, on the other hand, tends to ignore the world in favour of focusing on creating new things and new ideas.

I'm still having trouble deciding between H and C. I'm very sensitive to conflict and disharmony and would rather just retreat when it happens. Kind of like in my customer service video when I get someone overly rude and aggressive and my instinct is to just get away.

On the other hand, I'm very prone to ignoring the world in favor on creating new things and ideas.

Okay, maybe I misunderstood what you meant with "oblivious". Nevertheless, H-people seem to be torn off from reality () whereas C-people seem rather extraverted and focused on objects.

Well I've often had me tell me I'm not attentive to what's going on around me. On the other hand, several people suggested ILE for my typing, which suggests creative subtype.

[The Exception]

And C-LIIs have square faces, H-LIIs have oval faces, of course.

Well going by that then I'm H. That settles it, case closed.

[electric sheep]

I don't question your socionics typing. If you are C-LII you are probably a five because the description of ones indicate a sensory type...

mmm I don't think so. 1w2s are probably sensory. 1w9s are probably intuitive. Sometimes 1w9s can come off as 5s, but high-mindedness, perfectionism, and a penchant for reform marks the 1w9. Actually, I think you're a 1w9 JohnDo.

[Krig the Viking]

Well going by that then I'm H. That settles it, case closed.

Actually, as much as I hate to agree with JohnDo, in this case I've been thinking that you might be Harmonizing for some time now. I'm not 100% on it yet, but I'm definitely leaning that way.

[tcaudilllg]

Particularly, I need to understand how they differ from dominant and creating, and which function positions they exalt.

[Gilly]

Normalizing = Ji
Harmonizing = Pi

The DCNH theory posits that the subtype strengthens both functions of the preferred temperament (ie Dominant increases Te and Fe), or at least places increased emphasis on them, especially with regard to the Irrational subtypes - they are more malleable and adaptive to their environment, as opposed to resisting or pushing against it, and as such are likely to be more "balanced," whereas Rational subtypes focus more on the valued strengthened function.

[Krig the Viking]

Gulenko's description is here

There are further descriptions by Vera Borisova here. Borisova adds in some stuff about function emphasis (specifically, that Dominant strengthens the Base function, Creative the Creative function, Normalizing the Role, and Harmonizing the Vulnerable), which doesn't really make sense with Gulenko's theory as far as I can tell, so you'll have to "chew the meat and spit out the bones" there.

Basically, Dominant tries to forcibly change their surroundings in pursuit of a goal, Normalizing establishes a "domain" and makes sure everything is orderly and "correct" within his domain, Creative explores new ideas and then spreads them back out into the world, and Harmonizing seeks peace and harmony with all, and may retreat if such cannot be established.

[Creepy-male]

Can anyone open a link or provide a good methodical description of these.

Edit: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._DCNH_Subtypes

[Krig the Viking]

Can anyone open a link or provide a good methodical description of these.

Edit: System of DCNH Subtypes - Wikisocion

Gulenko and Meged's original article is here: Compatibility and Duality. (Google Translate version). Note: for some reason the "Connecting Initiator" and "Connecting Terminator" descriptions are switched. No-one knows why, as it doesn't even make sense in the context of the article itself.

Gulenko also has a blog where he discusses DCNH occasionally, here.

Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot DCNH stuff out there at this point in time.

[Edit: I went through his blog and found Gulenko's descriptions of Dominant, Creative, and Normalizing. I couldn't find Harmonizing; I'm not sure he ever got around to writing it up. They're all in Russian, of course, but I trust you people are intelligent enough to use one of the Internet's many translation websites to make it partly intelligible. ]

[tcaudilllg]

I guess nobody knows. OK then!

[Krig the Viking]

I guess nobody knows. OK then!

To be fair, you didn't provide any context for your question, and nobody knows what answer you're looking for. I don't even know what you're talking about with the "which function positions they exalt" thing. DCNH deals with Information Elements, not Functions.

[krieger]

I love how tcaudilllg's writings and questions are a mystery even to his supposed "identicals".

Harmonizing and normalizing just refer to subtypes based on the IP and IJ temperament respectively. The notion has very little substance beyond this. If this doesn't answer your question, I think you are just expecting too much of the theory.

[Beautiful sky]

can anyone link me to description of temperments?

[Crispy]

Temperament - Wikisocion

[JohnDo]

Particularly, I need to understand how they differ from dominant and creating, and which function positions they exalt.

DCNH does not work with functions but with elements. Dominant means strengthened Te and Fe, no matter in what position they are. The interesting thing is, the position of the strengthened functions seems to determine the shape of the face if my theory concerning Visual Identification of Subtypes is correct. That makes it much easier to work with DCNH subtypes. Unfortunately, nobody on this forum seems to be able to confirm that. The problem is that we don't have English descriptions except for the provisional ones which are not in all cases a good approximation...

Tcaudillg, during the last weeks I worked a lot with dual-types and some of the things you say actually make sense. What you still have to understand: Dual-type theory has to be logically consistent with the other subtype systems:
An INTj-INFp can only be a Ni-INTj if you want to use 8 subtypes.
A Ni-INTj can only be a H-INTj if you want to use 4 subtypes.
A Ni-INTj can only be a Ne-INTj if you want to use 2 subtypes.

[Crispy]

Dual-type matching with other subtype systems would be ideal, as anything otherwise leads both to seem arbitrary.

[tcaudilllg]

DCNH does not work with functions but with elements. Dominant means strengthened Te and Fe, no matter in what position they are. The interesting thing is, the position of the strengthened functions seems to determine the shape of the face if my theory concerning Visual Identification of Subtypes is correct. That makes it much easier to work with DCNH subtypes. Unfortunately, nobody on this forum seems to be able to confirm that. The problem is that we don't have English descriptions except for the provisional ones which are not in all cases a good approximation...

Tcaudillg, during the last weeks I worked a lot with dual-types and some of the things you say actually make sense. What you still have to understand: Dual-type theory has to be logically consistent with the other subtype systems:
An INTj-INFp can only be a Ni-INTj if you want to use 8 subtypes.
A Ni-INTj can only be a H-INTj if you want to use 4 subtypes.
A Ni-INTj can only be a Ne-INTj if you want to use 2 subtypes.

Nope, nope, nope. Simply not the case.

You don't understand. This is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FACET OF PERSONALITY from subtype.

[JohnDo]

Nope, nope, nope. Simply not the case.

You don't understand. This is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FACET OF PERSONALITY from subtype.

Of course I understand that you think so. But where the hell is the difference? As long as you can't explain that, nobody will take your dual-type theory seriously...

You think the energy types determines what you are good at and what you are interested in. Well, that's what Gulenko tries to explain with subtypes, too. People of one and the same type can have different hobbies and very different jobs. That's the problem of intratype-differences. That's why it makes sense to use subtypes or dual-types. But where is the fundamental difference now?!

[krieger]

If there exist three different variations of type, the theory is so cumbersome and intractable that it is practically useless.

[Trevor]

Could someone explain to me Normalizing and Harmonizing?

Sure. but you first have to give me a central concept so i can define Harmonizing and Normalizing in relation to it.

[tcaudilllg]

If there exist three different variations of type, the theory is so cumbersome and intractable that it is practically useless.

Well by my count there are 8 or more variations, so I guess the theory is useless to everyone except me. I love it though because it allows me to figure out what kind of person I'm dealing with despite minimal data.

[JohnDo]

A lot of people on this forum don't really understand that many terms in socionics are not to be taken literally. That does not only apply for the Reinin dichotomies but also for DCNH subtypes...

One of the biggest problems concerning DCNH is that Gulenko called the -subtype "harmonizing". This definitely leads to a lot of mistypings because people won't think of killers, mass-murderers or dictators as "harmonizing subtype" if they take the term literally...

Using 8 subtypes, it actually makes sense to call the -subtype "harmonizing" whereas the -subtype should rather be called "manipulative"...

Here are some examples of people I type as the so-called "harmonizing subtype". Not but . And no, I don't want to discuss about their main types, even if I might have mistyped one or two. Just read it, think about it, laugh about them being "harmonizing"...

• *Adolf ******: Ni-ENFj
  *Hermann Goering: Ni-ESTp
  *Josef Stalin: Ni-ESTj
  *Che Guevara: Ni-INTj
  *Fidel Castro: Ni-ESFp
  *Richard Dawkins: Ni-ESFj
  *Magneto: Ni-ENTp

[Krig the Viking]

There's also the more likely possibility that the killers, mass-murderers, and dictators you mention are not Harmonizing subtype at all. Of the people you listed, ******, Stalin, Guevara, and probably Dominant subtype, and Magneto could be Creative (I haven't studied Goering or Castro closely enough to know their subtypes).

Seriously, if you can type Stalin as Harmonizing, then you either haven't studied his life, or you don't understand DCNH. He's one of the clearest Dominants in modern history.

[Absurd]

Seriously, if you can type Stalin as Harmonizing, then you either haven't studied his life, or you don't understand DCNH. He's one of the clearest Dominants in modern history.

You have my support there. I mean blessing.

[Capitalist Pig]

Lol. I love how Richard Dawkins is listed alongside all those people.

I hate that guy.

I kinda liked The Blind Watchmaker.

[xerx]

There's also the more likely possibility that the killers, mass-murderers, and dictators you mention are not Harmonizing subtype at all. Of the people you listed, ******, Stalin, Guevara, and probably Dominant subtype, and Magneto could be Creative (I haven't studied Goering or Castro closely enough to know their subtypes).

Seriously, if you can type Stalin as Harmonizing, then you either haven't studied his life, or you don't understand DCNH. He's one of the clearest Dominants in modern history.

+10
I'll echo this sentiment.

Gulenko isn't some obscure biblical text that has to be interpreted. Harmonizing means harmonizing; he even provides a pretty clear cut description of what harmonizing subtype entails - Machiavellian, genocidal and realpolitik aren't anywhere on the list.

H subtype is the one that goes with the flow.

[Krig the Viking]

One of my best friends is an Ni-Harmonizing IEI. It manifests mostly in that he focuses a lot on pondering/worrying how future and long-term events will affect his friends' and loved ones' emotional harmony, as well as his own. His typical pose is spaced out and in his head. In the radically unlikely event that he were to become a killer or mass-murderer, it would be the quiet, subtle kind, not the brash political leader kind.

[JohnDo]

There's also the more likely possibility that the killers, mass-murderers, and dictators you mention are not Harmonizing subtype at all. Of the people you listed, ******, Stalin, Guevara, and probably Dominant subtype, and Magneto could be Creative (I haven't studied Goering or Castro closely enough to know their subtypes).

The problem with your understanding of DCNH is that you believe subtype can be diagnosed independently from main type! That's exactly the same mistake tcaudillg makes with his dual-type theory!

No, you can't type someone as Dominant or Harmonizing if you don't even know the main type. Using dual-type theory, you can't determine his so-called "energy type" before the "information type", either.

That's one of the reasons why Rick DeLong doesn't support the idea of subtypes at all. People like tcaudillg or Krig tend to determine the subtype first and then they try to analyze the main type. That doesn't make sense, that's not how it works!

Seriously, if you can type Stalin as Harmonizing, then you either haven't studied his life, or you don't understand DCNH. He's one of the clearest Dominants in modern history.

I say he's most likely a Ni-ESTj. ESTjs are dominant by definition, no matter what subtype they are. Most Russian socionists type him as ISTj, well then, but Ni-ESTj makes more sense to me...

One of my best friends is an Ni-Harmonizing IEI. It manifests mostly in that he focuses a lot on pondering/worrying how future and long-term events will affect his friends' and loved ones' emotional harmony, as well as his own. His typical pose is spaced out and in his head. In the radically unlikely event that he were to become a killer or mass-murderer, it would be the quiet, subtle kind, not the brash political leader kind.

Your friend's main type is INFp, yes? So how could he become like a Ni-ESTj or a Ni-ESTp or a Ni-ENFj?! That's obviously impossible. Don't overestimate the importance of subtypes....

Gulenko isn't some obscure biblical text that has to be interpreted. Harmonizing means harmonizing;

You can't be serious.

It is just the same problem as with the Reinin dichotomies: Decisive means you should have the characteristics of the trait Decisive. It does not necessarily mean that you are really "decisive" in the literal sense.

"Strategic" means the criteria of "Strategic" fit better than those of "Tactical". It does in no way mean that you are a good strategist.

"Aristocratic" doesn't mean that you want to abolish democracy at all.

[JohnDo]

There are three methods of looking at DCNH subtypes:

1.) Dichotomies
DCNH is a sub-temperament theory. That means that, for example, the EJ-subtype is more extraverted and more judging than an average representative of a particular main type.

2.) Adjectives
The EJ-subtype is also called the Dominant subtype. But as I tried to clarify in this thread, the adjectives should not be taken literally. Not every IP-subtype is really "harmonizing", not every EP-subtype is really "creative".

3.) Information elements
Gulenko explains that, for example, the EJ-subtype has strengthened and . He says that , , and are "strengthened in pairs". The problem is, if you expand the DCNH system logically you can easily get 8 and 16 subtypes - but you will come to a different conclusion:

A D-ENTp, for example, is nothing but an ENTp-Exxj if you want to use 16 subtypes. That means that a D-ENTp can be an ENTp-ENTj, ENTp-ESTj, ENTp-ENFj or ENTp-ESFj. (I hope everyone agrees so far).
The problem is that ENTp-ENTj and ENTp-ESTj, theoretically but also practically, have much stronger but unfundamentally weaker than an average ENTp. For ENTp-ENFj and ENTp-ESFj it is the other way round: They have much stronger but insignificantly weaker than an average ENTp.

Conclusion: Using the DCNH system it makes more sense to say that, for example, the D-subtype has either much stronger or much stronger than an average representative of a particular main type.

[tcaudilllg]

There are three methods of looking at DCNH subtypes:

1.) Dichotomies
DCNH is a sub-temperament theory. That means that, for example, the EJ-subtype is more extraverted and more judging than an average representative of a particular main type.

2.) Adjectives
The EJ-subtype is also called the Dominant subtype. But as I tried to clarify in this thread, the adjectives should not be taken literally. Not every IP-subtype is really "harmonizing", not every EP-subtype is really "creative".

3.) Information elements
Gulenko explains that, for example, the EJ-subtype has strengthened and . He says that , , and are "strengthened in pairs". The problem is, if you expand the DCNH system logically you can easily get 8 and 16 subtypes - but you will come to a different conclusion:

A D-ENTp, for example, is nothing but an ENTp-Exxj if you want to use 16 subtypes. That means that a D-ENTp can be an ENTp-ENTj, ENTp-ESTj, ENTp-ENFj or ENTp-ESFj. (I hope everyone agrees so far).
The problem is that ENTp-ENTj and ENTp-ESTj, theoretically but also practically, have much stronger but unfundamentally weaker than an average ENTp. For ENTp-ENFj and ENTp-ESFj it is the other way round: They have much stronger but insignificantly weaker than an average ENTp.

Conclusion: Using the DCNH system it makes more sense to say that, for example, the D-subtype has either much stronger or much stronger than an average representative of a particular main type.

I think the only thing we all agree on is that you are clearly delusional.

We're all tired of you... so why not join some rebel forces group in Zimbabwe and meet the fate of your equally deluded idol?