Clubs, Temperaments & DCNH Subtypes

[JohnDo]

DCNH is a sub-temperament theory. Why does Gulenko prefer sub-temperaments to sub-clubs? Probably because the existence of sub-temperaments is more obvious...

1.) A lot of people appear to find it difficult to determine if they are Rational or Irrational. This even caused a problem which is known as the infamous j/p-switch...
2.) Some people say they are extraverted but not outgoing. Others say they are extraverted but their energy level is low...

So does everyone agree that temperament is much harder to determine than club?

[Smilingeyes]

DCNH is a sub-temperament theory. Why does Gulenko prefer sub-temperaments to sub-clubs? Probably because sub-termperaments are more obvious...

1.) A lot of people appear to find it difficult to determine if they are Rational or Irrational. This even caused a problem which is known as the infamous j/p-switch...
2.) Some people say they are extraverted but not outgoing. Others say they are extraverted but their energy level is low...
3.) Smilingeyes even believes that temperament changes during life whereas club is constant...

So does everyone agree that temperament is much harder to determine than club?

Huh? I do?

[Aiss]

So does everyone agree that temperament is much harder to determine than club?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it mentioned in some socionics articles? Sounds like old news anyway.

Also, *if* DCNH works for temperamental subtypes, it would actually support this difficulty (seeing as there would be a lot of intratype variations). Whereas something related to type that's easier to determine is probably less altered by subtypes, whatever system you use.

Edit: I mean by socionics testing and such, I think temperaments can be useful if you're aware of your own energy levels, or someone's whose habits you know very well (probably only if you live with them for a while at least).

[JohnDo]

Huh? I do?

Errr... wait... is it the other way round? You believe that temperament is constant and club changes, yes...?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it mentioned in some socionics articles? Sounds like old news anyway.

You ILIs are really disgusting sometimes. It's interesting even if it's from the stoneage...

Also, *if* DCNH works for temperamental subtypes, it would actually support this difficulty (seeing as there would be a lot of intratype variations). Whereas something related to type that's easier to determine is probably less altered by subtypes, whatever system you use.

I just think it is an interesting correlation that Gulenko prefers sub-temperaments to sub-clubs and that many people have difficulties with determining their own temperament. So it would probably be a good idea to recommend DCNH to them...

[Smilingeyes]

Errr... wait... is it the other way round? You believe that temperament is constant and club changes, yes...?

That sounds more familiar. Though I'm constantly trying to find a phenomenon that would show that temperament changes. I'd love it. Just haven't found one. Troublesome to me.

[Aiss]

You ILIs are really disgusting sometimes. It's interesting even if it's from the stoneage...

I never said it wasn't interesting.

[Smilingeyes]

A part of the problem is that many socionists (like Rick) don't really have a clue as to what temperament is. They just thing that anyone who is mostly Fi or Ti has one "temperament" and anyone who is mostly Ne or Se is one temperament. Then they type according to the most prominently visible function. So, when an ESTp suddenly starts expressing their creative function, in comes one of these idiots and says he's ISTj because he's Ti-dominant. And suddenly he gets typed into another temperament, just because of a minor shift in functional use that happens so many times each day it's difficult to keep track of.

IMO the idea that temperament changes is tied to the faulty idea that it is simply the most preferred function that decides type. I dunno about Gulenko. He's quite brilliant but not faultless. Maybe he's understood some deeper level or observed something that I don't know about. But I'm not convinced at all.

All of that is why I choose to talk about judging vs perceiving when addressing the difference between functions and rational vs irrational when addressing the difference between temperaments. Because if one believes one equates to the other, one will be confused.

[Smilingeyes]

So does everyone agree that temperament is much harder to determine than club?

That's another interesting question.
Club is based on the choice of two functions over two others. Model A (sucky as it is) suggests that one's ego is built on this. Taking into account that one's self image is not stable, one could argue that one positively expresses the preference of these two functions (ie. one's club) so as to reinforce one's self image and stake a claim to a social role. Because if they didn't reinforce their role constantly, they'd get confused and lose their self-identity.

Meanwhile if temperament is stable and one can only experience one's own, the difference between one's own temperament and that of others is veiled. One is unable to compare. What one is unaware of, one can't communicate. So people don't purposefully express their temperament.

So if people are constantly actively sending out and reading messages of people's clubs but not their temperaments, precisely because club is changing whereas temperament isn't, that would quite neatly explain the observable. That people tend to pick out their and others' clubs before temperaments (because they already understand clubs, whereas hardly anyone understands temperaments [because they can only experience one])

[Creepy-Cyclops]

A part of the problem is that many socionists (like Rick) don't really have a clue as to what temperament is. They just thing that anyone who is mostly Fi or Ti has one "temperament" and anyone who is mostly Ne or Se is one temperament. Then they type according to the most prominently visible function. So, when an ESTp suddenly starts expressing their creative function, in comes one of these idiots and says he's ISTj because he's Ti-dominant. And suddenly he gets typed into another temperament, just because of a minor shift in functional use that happens so many times each day it's difficult to keep track of.

IMO the idea that temperament changes is tied to the faulty idea that it is simply the most preferred function that decides type. I dunno about Gulenko. He's quite brilliant but not faultless. Maybe he's understood some deeper level or observed something that I don't know about. But I'm not convinced at all.

All of that is why I choose to talk about judging vs perceiving when addressing the difference between functions and rational vs irrational when addressing the difference between temperaments. Because if one believes one equates to the other, one will be confused.

I get the sense I may be contributing a somewhat irrelevant post, but perhaps writing it will help formulate my thinking on it somewhat.

For myself, i've found myself in employment where all I do is seemingly to engage my second function all day. However in the evening or at weekends my irrational side starts to show more. I remember in these circumstances it caused consternation over whether I was a rational or irrational type.

However, overall, my lifestyle, that which I revert back to is an irrational temperament.

I have little to offer about being able to change temperaments, I certainly would like the idea, but I have to wonder, at least by what I recall of Jungs writings, that a person who doesn't live overall by their true temperament develops mental illnesses of various varieties. However, I have to say that a pure IP temperament causes other forms of illnesses, as it's the poorest temperament there is for interacting with the actual world. So that's a dilemma for IP types I think.

[Smilingeyes]

I get the sense I may be contributing a somewhat irrelevant post, but perhaps writing it will help formulate my thinking on it somewhat.

For myself, i've found myself in employment where all I do is seemingly to engage my second function all day. However in the evening or at weekends my irrational side starts to show more. I remember in these circumstances it caused consternation over whether I was a rational or irrational type.

However, overall, my lifestyle, that which I revert back to is an irrational temperament.

I have little to offer about being able to change temperaments, I certainly would like the idea, but I have to wonder, at least by what I recall of Jungs writings, that a person who doesn't live overall by their true temperament develops mental illnesses of various varieties. However, I have to say that a pure IP temperament causes other forms of illnesses, as it's the poorest temperament there is for interacting with the actual world. So that's a dilemma for IP types I think.

I'm really interested by this. What do you mean by stating that you "change temperament"?

[redbaron]

I think clubs are easier than temperaments. They just seem so obvious. Temperaments can look a certain way under various circumstances but their appearance can vary a lot more, imo. It can depend on mood, phase of life, all sorts of things. Of course there are some people whose temperament seems very clear. But only time can bear that out for sure. I was sure my mom was INFj because I was convinced she was introverted and I knew her ego block was Fi and Ne. But after looking at it closer, I realized she only seemed Ij to me peripherally because she was playing the "mom" role with me and also because she's religious. Her natural temperament is Ep.

[The Exception]

I just think it is an interesting correlation that Gulenko prefers sub-temperaments to sub-clubs and that many people have difficulties with determining their own temperament. So it would probably be a good idea to recommend DCNH to them...

I identify with alot with both the IJ and IP temperaments and almost feel as if I'm straddling the border between the two. I think overall I'm closer to IJ but IP comes in as a close second. I have a harmonizing subtype which strengthens the IP functions so that probably explains some of it.

[krieger]

A lot of INTjs seem to favor the harmonizing (Ip) subtype.

[JohnDo]

A lot of INTjs seem to favor the harmonizing (Ip) subtype.

H-subtype means strengthened which is responsible for understanding and beeing interested in underlying processes. Furthermore it is the most important element for typing. So there should be much more H-subtypes interested in socionics than other subtypes...

[krieger]

C-subtype means strengthened which is responsible for understanding and beeing interested in abstract theory. Furthermore it is the most important element for understanding the functions and thus knowing how they manifest in people. So there should be much more C-subtypes interested in socionics than other subtypes...

D-subtype means strengthened which is responsible for understanding and beeing interested in the practical control of processes. Furthermore it is the most important element for putting socionics to practice and thus establishing reliable typings. So there should be much more D-subtypes interested in socionics than other subtypes...

N-subtype means strengthened which is responsible for understanding and beeing interested in systemizations. Furthermore it is the most important element for establishing the relation between people and types and thus seeing how the two link up. So there should be much more N-subtypes interested in socionics than other subtypes...

All of those can be justified equally well, as can the hypothesis that all INTjs are "harmonizing subtypes" and the other subtypes are a myth.

[JohnDo]

All of those can be justified equally well, as can the hypothesis that all INTjs are "harmonizing subtypes" and the other subtypes are a myth.

You obviously don't understand anything about subtype theories. How could other subtypes be a myth?! I know D-LIIs, C-LIIs and N-LIIs in real life. If you don't - go out and type some

[krieger]

I know D-LIIs, C-LIIs and N-LIIs in real life

Mistypes. Ejs, Eps and people that may as well be harmonizers, respectively.

[JohnDo]

Mistypes. Ejs, Eps and people that may as well be harmonizers, respectively.

No. Al Gore is C-LII, clearly not H-ILE. Angela Merkel is N-LII. What kind o
f harmonizer should she be?

[krieger]

Al Gore is C-LII

He is boring and trite. The only thing he is good at is mobilizing people. What on earth could you see in him that makes him so "creative"?

[JohnDo]

He is boring and trite. The only thing he is good at is mobilizing people. What on earth could you see in him that makes him so "creative"?

What makes him creative?! At least he won the Nobel Peace Prize, something that I still have to achieve and you never will...

Now we have excellent evidence that you are in no way LII but ILI. As an LII you would have to like him, of course...

[krieger]

At least he won the Nobel Peace Prize, something that I still have to achieve and you never will...

I'm sorry to tell you this but even the political left is disenfranchized with communism these days. You wont win any biased political prizes from them by spouting crap like that.

[krieger]

As an LII you would have to like him, of course...

He is a major fuck up. Even proponents of global warming are criticizing the hell out of him to make sure no one uses him as a strawman.

[xerx]

I agree with everything labcoat said about Al Gore and Communism.

Al Gore

[Creepy-Cyclops]

So the argument here is that C subtypes, which use more Ne and Se are more creative? And winning the nobel prize makes someone more creative than someone else?

Any type can be creative, can have an original thought, and some Ne ego types don't create anything.

How can it therefore be said that therefore eg an SLI is creative because they use their Se and Ne more.

Not only is it not capturing the essence of what creativity is and what it's not in relation to functions, also a crucial thing is that an SLI using Se is an issue when the SLI is focused on the subject, that which is Si not Se, that's a collision course and doesn't make sense.

Despite that initial contradiciton, let's look at it from 8 functions: SLI

As Se usage goes up, it's opposite Si goes down, as Si does down then the corresponding producing function Ni goes up.

Ni is the concious function, but Ni has gone up, so therefore Ne must go down.

Yet Ne must go up also.

As I understand Gulenko's subtype theory, Se and Ne must increase, but associating Ne and Se with creativity is wrong in first place at least by first paragraph, and re function analysis, it can't make sense either if they both increase.

So I thought that maybe what happens in say for instance a C type is that just one of these functions strengthens, but it says:

These functions are strengthened precisely in pairs, since they possess close energization (another way of saying they complement each other).

Perhaps I am wrong, presuming you or others have simply studied Gulenkos subtype system more, maybe you can explain these things for me.

Edit: As I understand it, using two sub type system, an ILI for instance who is a Te sub type, afaik they use Te more at the expense of Fe, so therefore they can be 'ruder' or some such, as opposed to ILI-Ni who is meant to be closer to IEI.

Hmm, I suppose another way to look at it is output input functions, that Te and Fe are both used for output functions and therefore for an ILI-Ni they use more Ni and Si, as they are both input functions, but not sure how much 'sense' that makes from analysing it from each function perspective.

afaik it's murky to me, perhaps there's a way that a Ti type can explain it to me better.