DCNH subtypes and PoLR
I have a question about the DCNH 8-subtype system on a topic that I'm not sure has been studied, but I'd be interested in any opinions on the topic. How would you describe a person who has the same DCNH subtype as their PoLR? Thanks!
(If it's not too transparent, I'm interested in EII with Se subtype, so feel free to use that as an example.)
Since (provisional) descriptions have only been found to the 4-subtype level, one can go off of the C-INFj description and then add a small adjustment on the scale of Ne to Se.
So...
Splitting to Se > Ne 8 subtype would make C-INFj + a little less Physically Infantile and a little less Spiritually Agressive (when compared to other INFj-C's).(Victor Gulenko) A good eye for people; immediately sees who does or doesn’t feel drawn to them by the looks in people’s eyes / have similar views to them. They love to be in a close circle of friends and adherents, and to discuss with them the novelties of literature, skill, humanities. Frequently behave unsure of themselves; They are scattered. The aim is humanitarian activity, but they can work in the service industry. Works well both in medicine and in pedagogy. Knows how to reconcile those disputing, to smooth out sharp situations. Knows how to create a pleasant situation, how to create a comfortable home. Dresses with the taste, frequently follows fashion.
The part that confuses me is that Creative DCNH is supposed to strengthen both Se and Ne rather than exchanging one for the other, so that may conflict with this.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
IMO, the person uses the PoLR like a secondary creative, which may include an unhealthy fixation on proving to other people that they're not incapable of using it. That's how I see it, and I can't say that it's hard not to be skeptical of a full-blown subtype model beyond four subtypes.Originally Posted by April
^ The above is probably related to http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...anslation.html . The article describes a subtype system with identical names as DCNH, except it focuses on emphasized functions rather than elements. PoLR subtype is called Harmonizing there.
That article's claims may overlap, but this is what I was actually referring to.
I haven't read this one before, thanks for the link. It's interesting how the examples given coincide with Expat's pathetic HA descriptions... the SLE supposedly trying too hard for Fi is described a lot like pathetic Fe-HA suggests, etc. Might be different interpretations of the same phenomenon.
Some (qestionable) examples:
Se-INFj: Benjamin Sisko (Deep Space Nine)
I type him as a "commanding Humanist", INFj-ESTp but I'm not entirely sure...
Se-INTj: John Sheridan (Babylon 5)
I'm pretty sure that he is a "commanding Analyst", INTj-ESTp.
Si-ENFj: Kathryn Janeway (Voyager)
ENFj-ISTp is my best guess...
Ni-ESFj: Richard Dawkins
An ESFj as a natural scientist?! A "critical Enthusiast", ESFj-INTp...
Ti-ENFp: Rick DeLong
"analysing Initiator", ENFp-INTj (even though he doesn't support the use of subtypes)
I still haven't figured out what gives you and expat the idiotic idea that the guy is an ESFj in the first place. Your repeating the typing is particularly annoying because it reinforces the typing into mainstream status where it absolutely shouldn't be due to it's dubiousness.Ni-ESFj: Richard Dawkins
An ESFj as a natural scientist?! A "critical Enthusiast", ESFj-INTp...
ps. I am glad you use dual-type theory to confirm my thesis that the typing makes no sense whatsoever. ESFj-INTp? A contradiction in terms. An obvious way to obfuscate a mistyping.
I honestly don't believe that I have the reputation to reinforce a typing into mainstream status...
What type do you think Dawkins is?
There is no contradiction there. Just let me explain it in terms of Jungian dichotomies:
E----|....I
N----|....S
T----|....F
p----|....j
That's an ENTp-ENTp. Very extraverted, very intuitive, very logical, very rational.
E..--|....I
N..--|....S
T..--|....F
p..--|....j
And that's an ENTp-ISFj. Slightly extraverted, slightly intuitive, slightly logical, slightly rational. Why shouldn't such a type exist?! It even works with the Reinin dichotomies: An ENTp-ISFj is very carefree, very yielding, very static and so on - because his base type and subtype share those traits...
The more interesting part of dual-type theory is, an ENTp-ISFj has the characteristics of both an ENTp and an ISFj, not the characteristics of any other type. 9 months ago I really couldn't see that and considered the idea of two types in one person ridiculous...
My EII mother has occasional Se outbursts. Only pointed towards us, the family. It manifests as criticizing and stereotyping of the worst kind. Basically saying "you did this and that, you are worthless", pulling the same old issues over and over again. It can be really ugly. Something primitive, something scary.
Last edited by Trevor; 12-25-2010 at 10:27 PM.
is that really an "Se outburst" or is it just being in a shitty mood? i ask because the fact that i can be bitchy sometimes or yell at people seems to be incompatible in the view of some people with what Se polr types are capable of. and this confuses me because i would think most people get pissed and yell sometimes. heh.
Subtypes are a joke.
Se outburst is not the same thing as shitty mood. They are not mutually exclusive, either. When it comes to my mom, they seem to be somehow linked together, and I was wondering might the fact be type related (it seems to make sense at first glance). Do you get my point? Any questions?
ESTj, with a very, very strong emphasis on the fact that he is a logical type.What type do you think Dawkins is?
April you'd might as well ask Gulenko directly. As a psychologist you can pretty much ask him whatever about anything and he has an obligation to respond, does he not?
What?As a psychologist you can pretty much ask him whatever about anything and he has an obligation to respond, does he not?
I'm not a psychologist; I just do psychology research.
Based on my studies of the subject, I would describe it thus:
An Se-C EII would be more present-focused than other EIIs, more willing to take action in the here-and-now for the sake of her relationships with people, and less willing than other EIIs to back down when confronted. While her thoughts and things she says would still be focused on the big picture and the Ne potential inherent in relationships, in practice she would be more spontaneous, aggressive, and "sharp" than other EIIs.
Gulenko describes the difference between type and subtype as the difference between words and deeds. So I suspect that someone whose base type's Vulnerable function is his subtype's Leading function would think and say that he's not very good at that area, but in practice he would tend to use that element in his actions probably more than he realizes.
Last edited by Krig the Viking; 12-29-2010 at 12:11 AM.
Quaero Veritas.
That's an interesting take and quite different from mine. I shall have to consider it.
I love that interpretation, Krig. Thank you.
Will someone who thinks they have decent Ti call Krig out on the degree to which the whole 8 subtype thing just DOES NOT FOLLOW?
I'm just describing Gulenko's theory so far as I understand it, in which the base type can be divided into 2, 4, 8, or 16 subtypes, which he also calls "persona types" or "energy types". I have no interest in your variation of his theory, in which "subtype" and "energy type" are inexplicably distinct concepts, and subtypes are limited to four for some reason. Nothing in Gulenko's works supports that idea, nor in my opinion does the observable evidence.
Quaero Veritas.
What kind of creating LII just takes another LII's theory spoon fed, without actually critiquing its consistency? Don't you think that's kind of reckless?
Listen people respect you I guess because you take the time to translate those articles? That's not a criterion for academic respect IMO.
You've not seen observable evidence because it's not there. Something in your observation system is fucked up.
*apologies to April for hijacking her thread*
Krig,
do you know how the Dominant subtype would work in EII? And how Normalizing works in LSE?
I've been thinking about possibly being D recently, so I'm curious.
Thanks in advance
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
No doubt you're D. You're bitchy as hell.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
guilty as charged
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
I have carefully studied Gulenko's work and thus far have found it consistent with my observations of how people actually work. I'm not yet convinced of all aspects of it -- for example, why does he contrast "energy type" with "information type", when clearly the energy type is still dealing with forms of information? However, in general his theory has significant explanatory power, and thus far seems consistent with the evidence. Consequently, I treat it as an accurate working theory until proven otherwise.
I have also carefully studied your variation of the theory, and found it mostly incomprehensible, filled with intuitive leaps with very few logical explanations. I think it likely that you're an IEI who has mistyped himself as LII, and that that mistyping is at the root of your entire theory. From what I've seen, it's fairly common for Beta NFs to arrive at a conclusion intuitively, and then be unable to accurately evaluate its truth or falsehood due to weak Logic.
Hijacking? You're actually bringing it back on topic. Tcaud and I are the hijackers.
Please take these descriptions with a grain of salt, as I'm basically thinking them up on the fly.
A D-EII would be more goal-oriented than other EIIs, likely in the service of some humanitarian cause. While she would talk about people and relationships like other EIIs, she would be much more driven to make things happen, and have substantially higher energy levels than other EIIs.
Personally, I think it's more likely you're a C-EII, mainly due to your long-term interest in a theory like socionics, which although it has significant explanatory power, has limited practical application. Whereas a D-EII would be driven to achieve some goal, a C-EII would be more focused on exploring things. An Ne-C-EII in particular would be more focused on exploring new ideas than other EIIs, finding new ways of understanding and relating to people. More contemplative than a D-EII, but still energetic when pursuing a new idea.
As for N-LSE -- an N-LSE would be the sort of person who believes the best way to achieve efficiency is through order. Consequently, they would be the sort of person who keeps everything in their possession or otherwise under their control meticulously organized and neat and ready to be used. I think Liam Neeson's character in "Taken" would be a good example of this subtype. Calm, more reserved than other LSEs, very efficient.
Quaero Veritas.
Hmm, I don't think because she has been on the forum for a while that she is more likely a Creative type. I found creative subtype to be pretty playful minded through, and goofy at times, especially to the people they know they can be like that with. I think marie84 is somewhere in the N/D, good thing she's considered she is a D because I am confused between the two as well, she is less likely to back off on a post than most people do here, which I guess is a good thing.
Last edited by 07490; 12-30-2010 at 09:38 AM.
(D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)
A former girlfriend of mine is EII. I'm pretty sure D subtype. Because of the way she is and also because I think we had subtype duality. I have experience of other EIIs too, so I think I'm able to compare.
Although sensitive and soft in private she could sometimes be very dominating in a group. At parties she could take charge of the conversation. Leading seemed to come naturally for her. I had an impression that her energy on a face level was very directed and intensive. She is a teacher and researcher, she is also into political activism.
Honestly, I don't relate to much in the C (and H) description. I think the main factor that drives me in my continued learning of the theory is that I want to use it for practical application; it's about understanding myself, others and how to maneuver myself in the world. In that sense, I'm grateful to C's who make these discoveries, but it's outside of my comfort zone to do that myselfHijacking? You're actually bringing it back on topic. Tcaud and I are the hijackers.
Please take these descriptions with a grain of salt, as I'm basically thinking them up on the fly.
A D-EII would be more goal-oriented than other EIIs, likely in the service of some humanitarian cause. While she would talk about people and relationships like other EIIs, she would be much more driven to make things happen, and have substantially higher energy levels than other EIIs.
Personally, I think it's more likely you're a C-EII, mainly due to your long-term interest in a theory like socionics, which although it has significant explanatory power, has limited practical application. Whereas a D-EII would be driven to achieve some goal, a C-EII would be more focused on exploring things. An Ne-C-EII in particular would be more focused on exploring new ideas than other EIIs, finding new ways of understanding and relating to people. More contemplative than a D-EII, but still energetic when pursuing a new idea.
The part about goals=D is one of the main reasons I never considered D before, because I don't have anything in mind that would drive me towards achieving atm, and it rather frustrates me since I feel that I have a lot of passion but no outlet for it; if I did have something I wanted, I think I'd be relentless towards obtaining it.
The things I relate to in D
*ending up being the leader even without wanting to be. Even though I'm rather shy I often ended-up being the more direct one in groups, even at school, I usually was the one who lead group projects, especially if the others were too passive to get the ball rolling (Picture people around a table looking at one another, waiting for someone to make the first move; if nobody initiates I generally step forward).
*I think I'm very blunt for an ethical type.
*I have a lot of anxious energy, even to the point that I often find it difficult to go to sleep even when I'm exhausted. In overwhelming situations I feel a depletion in energy (Introversion in general I think), but as soon as I get into my zone I can go on for elongated periods at a time
*I can get quite impassioned when speaking of things that affect me deeply
*I relate to this; "Dominant Dostoevsky [EII] is sort of "an iron fist in a velvet glove": after a demonstration of softness and ethics emerges an equally demonstrative condemnation and desire to "educate".
I guess I thought N before since I can be very particular about things, but I don't really have the patience to be meticulous about things to such an extent.
I think of Minde as being a likely EII-N, someone who puts a lot of effort into learning about the mechanics of photography and imagery, very detail orientated. I greatly admire people who can put forth the diligence to do this sort of stuff, but I can't be bothered with it.
I don't think I've seen "Taken" but what you described is pretty much how I'd picture my ideal type of LSE; calm, reserved, polite/proper, well prepared, etc.As for N-LSE -- an N-LSE would be the sort of person who believes the best way to achieve efficiency is through order. Consequently, they would be the sort of person who keeps everything in their possession or otherwise under their control meticulously organized and neat and ready to be used. I think Liam Neeson's character in "Taken" would be a good example of this subtype. Calm, more reserved than other LSEs, very efficient.
Thank you for your help, Krig, I sincerely appreciate it
That's what I was thinking. I think I'm too serious and blunt for what a C subtype looks like
That's also been a factor in rethinking thisI think marie84 is somewhere in the N/D, good thing she's considered she is a D because I am confused between the two as well, she is less likely to back off on a post than most people do here, which I guess is a good thing.
I think if I weren't shy I'd be a lot like this around people in general, but as it is I only really act this way around people I'm comfortable with/know. Although this may change in the future, idk
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
Well it depends on the type and the function in question, but the 8-subtype system functions are actually not the same as classical IE element functions, so the two are not necessarily in conflict. For example, an IEI's Te-PoLR manifests in a strong dislike of being shown evidence they're wrong, which has nothing to do with Te-subtype; which manifests in a cold, controlling nature. IEI-Te is actually a very common type, as are LSI-Ne and ESI-Ne (visionary/idealistic xSIs).
What do these signs mean—,
, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
