Subtype Inconsistencies in DCNH

[Krig the Viking]

Intertype relations are already hinted at in Jung's writings—so the basis for a natural extension is there; "Persona types" aren't. The persona is conceived as a socially acclimated collective complex, not a typological one:

It is, as its name implies, only a mask of the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks.

When we analyse the persona we strip off the mask, and discover that what seemed to be individual is at bottom collective; in other words, that the persona was only a mask of the collective psyche. Fundamentally the persona is nothing real: it is a compromise between individual and society as to what a man should appear to be. He takes a name, earns a title, exercises a function, he is this or that. In a certain sense all this is real, yet in relation to the essential individuality of the person concerned it is only a secondary reality, a compromise formation, in making which others often have a greater share than he. ["The Persona as a Segment of the Collective Psyche," ibid., pars. 245f.]

I'm not sure why exactly you think that that quote and the linked blurbs preclude the possibility of specific Information Elements and indeed a whole type being associated with the Persona. Presumably it's due to your radically different conception of the IEs and how they work. If you assume something more like Augusta's conception of the IEs, then assigning types to Personas not only becomes possible, it's actually a fairly straightforward logical deduction.

If you're going to advocate Behavior Metabolism (BM, lol), fine. Just don't conflate it with Information Metabolism as you are frequently apt to do.

My views on unvalued IEs have always been this: I don't think unvalued IEs are operationally active in the psyche, in the sense that the 'end user' has any direct interface with them. Unvalued IEs do, however, avail themselves indirectly as shadow reflections of one's valued IEs. For instance, being Fi-creative is obviously synonymous with being Ti-PoLR; in effect, we can see these as two sides of the same phenomenological coin, where direct apperception of Fi must necessarily occlude its obverse, Ti. Whichever way one wishes to phrase this is more a matter of notational convention than anything IMO.

I've cited case examples before of people who I think demonstrably express Ti PoLR (Fi Creative), like Hannah Arendt.

But this is a cognitive expression consistent with Information Metabolism, and not the kind of Behavior Metabolism you prescribe.

As I've said before, your theory is almost as different from Augusta's theory as MBTI is. If it weren't for the fact that you retain the idea of Intertype Relations, it would be as distinct from Socionics as MBTI. The difference is certainly greater than that between MBTI and Keirsey. I'm not sure why you insist on calling your theory "Socionics", since there's so little in common. It seems to me you would want to distance yourself from Augusta's theories as much as possible, so that people could clearly understand the difference and make an informed decision as to who is correct.

Regardless of which interpretative vantage points one assumes, it's easy to make the case from a general thinking person's purview, that DCNH is most likely nonsense.

As I already explained, DCNH is a miserable failure even on basic a priori grounds, since the whole construct depends upon accepting Gulenko's fiat assumptions as true—assumptions which do not follow consistently from the work of Aushra, Kepsinki, nor Jung.

That's just silly. You determine the truth of a hypothesis by examining how well it fits the evidence, not whether you can logically deduce it from other theories.

Your analogy is a poor one. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is something that's been repeatedly corroborated with observation/measurement, and doesn't disjointedly break from the entire foundation of physics which preceded it.

Whereas the "truth" of DCNH relies exclusively on "cuz Gulenko said so." This isn't very compelling reasoning to support it.

Alas, you have failed to understand the analogy.

I fail to see why classifying outward behavior was ever relevant in the 1st place. Neither Jungian Typology nor Information Metabolism (which Socionics proper is based upon) have ever been about outward behavior—they're concerned with habitual cognitive attitudes or phenomenological orientations. So, I see little point in grafting a superfluous Behavior Metabolism subtyping system onto Socionics. Especially considering that the epistemology of basic Socionics is already shaky enough, the last thing it needs is to be encumbered with more unfalsifiable speculative jiggery.

From my perspective, it's a valuable insight into how the Persona interacts with the rest of the psyche. It's helpful in better understanding why people are the way they are.

Again, it's not surprising that you're confused, given your radically different a priori assumptions about how personality types work.

Actually, I find this discussion entirely fruitful (and cynically amusing)—as it should be for you, since it reveals that you can't keep your thinking straight.

You may denounce, "what exactly is the point of this discussion?" But the discussion has considerable relevance, given that you appear to be profoundly retooling your paradigm on fundamental matters like the above—whether you consciously realize this or not. Let us behold what you said a mere few months ago:

The more I examine this issue, the more apparent it seems to me that the root difference between the two broad schools of thought on this board is the definition of the Information Elements.

One group (mine) defines the IEs as categories of information which are processed separately in the different functions. Consequently this group tightly associates specific behaviours and aspects of life to specific IEs, e.g., cooking = Si, laughter = Fe, power struggles = Se, etc. Logically, since everyone is capable of cooking, laughing, etc., this would mean that all types manifest all Information Elements in their behaviour in different ways, which leads to a whole host of other theoretical differences.

Yet, now your conception of IEs seems more analogous to what mine has been. Since I see you referring them as 'internal thought processes' and such, whereas I hadn't seen you make much allusion to this sort of thing prior (to be fair, I did try doing a search to make sure, but the search function is goofy and unreliable for me, so I had to give up). While now also alleging that behaviors belong to the domain of the DCNH persona type; even though you curiously just criticized me for saying that unvalued functions don't express themselves in behavior…

Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll issue a 'clarification' to sew up these loose ends.

This is what happens when you try to debunk someone's positions without fully understanding them -- you wind up mistakenly attacking straw men.

According to Augusta, an Information Aspect is a type or category of information dealing with a particular facest or aspect of reality (Explicit Dynamics of Objects, Implicit Statics of Relations, etc.). The Information Elements are like information processor, each IE being dedicated to processing the data of one Information Aspect. Therefore, Fe for example would process data related to Implicit Dynamics of Objects: emotions, moods, excitement, happiness, sadness, laughter, tears, etc. Ti processes data related to Explicit Statics of Relations: categories, hierarchies, logical analysis, rules, laws, etc. And so forth. Another word for such data processing is "internal thought processes".

Obviously, how one thinks about the world affects how one behaves in the world. Fe-Ego types spend a lot of time focused on processing emotional information, so naturally they spend a lot of time engaging in emotionally-oriented behaviour. Te-Ego types like to focus on processing information on productivity and efficiency, so they spend a lot of time engaged in activities related to those things. And so forth. So far this is pretty standard basic socionics.

Problems arise, however, because the feedback one receives when behaving completely naturally is not always positive. An LII's natural emphasis on Ti-related behaviour may receive strong negative responses from Delta or Gamma friends or family members, for example. In order to avoid such negative feedback, said LII may begin to refrain from outwardly engaging in Ti-related behaviour, especially around Deltas and Gammas. Instead, he may try to emulate the behaviour of some other type -- IEE, for example -- which would result in more positive feedback. Eventually, over a long period of time (a childhood, for example), such emulation may become habitual, even instinctive, resulting in an IEE Persona. However, the underlying information processing and function strength are still characteristically LII, meaning that the IEE mask will never be 100% convincing. The most difficult task in socionics has always been getting past these superficial masks, and understanding the inner workings of how a subject thinks, in order to accurately diagnose his type.

Obviously, none of the above makes any sense unless you assume Augusta's conception of Information Aspects and Information Elements to be true. Your opposing arguments are all predicated upon your own version of the IEs being true, which is kind of pointless, since by definition if your conception of the IEs is accurate, this sort of subtype system cannot exist.

It's like a heliocentrist arguing with a geocentrist about the orbit of Neptune. The discussion is pointless because they disagree on much more fundamental matters.

[Creepy-male]

This is what I know of DCNH, other aspects of the theory I didn't find interesting or useful.

Premises

You can divide the 8 functions into 4 pairs;

**
**
**
**

Each pair has a name to it

Dominant
Creative
Normalizing
Harmonizing

In each pair are the following functions

Dominant - Te and Fe
Creative - Se and Ne
Normalizing - Ti and Fi
Harmonizing - Ni and Si

The following pairs are given descriptions of their "energy type"

Dominant - Te and Fe - linear-assertive
Creative - Se and Ne - mobile-flexible
Normalizing - Ti and Fi - balanced-stable
Harmonizing - Ni and Si - receptive-adaptive

Associations

Let's how these line up with temperaments

Temp Ego Functions DCNH Grouping
------ -------------- ----------------
IxxJ JiPe Normalizing
ExxJ JePi Dominant
Exxp PeJi Creative
Ixxp PiJe Harmonizing

they are associated to the temparments in the following way

Dominant -> Exxj
Creative -> Exxp
Normalizing -> Ixxj
Harmonizing -> Ixxp

Now let's consider the types of functions in each of these categories

Temp Ego Functions DCNH Grouping TYPE OF FUNCTION?
------ -------------- ---------------- -------------------------------
IxxJ JiPe Normalizing Statics of Fields
ExxJ JePi Dominant Statics of Bodies
Exxp PeJi Creative Dynamics of Bodies
Ixxp PiJe Harmonizing Dynamics of Fields

Now we've made a second connection to these categories based on these pairings

Results

If we review the associations with the premises we obtain results on the logical consequences of the premises; If the premises are true then the results are valid, If the premises are false then the results are invalid.

Functions which belong to the Dominant category characterized by linear-assertive energy are associated to ExxJ temperaments and Dynamics of Bodies
Functions which belong to the Creative category characterized by mobile-flexible energy are associated to Exxp temparements and Statics of Bodies
Functions which belong to the Normalizing category characterized by balanced-stable energy are associated to Ixxj temperaments and Statics of Fields
Functions which belong to the Harmonizing category characterized by receptive-adaptive energy are associated to Ixxp temperaments and Dynamics of Fields

What I'm trying to say in English

DCNH provides a useful way to describe the energy and characteristics of temperaments and functions, I'm not interested in how it works in terms of subtypes.

The Dominant category is about direct, powerful, short duration energy which is the characteristic psychological energy of Exxj types. This is a result of the dynamics of objects, a focus on the movement of a single entity in space.

The Creative category is about quick, adaption, and response which is the characteristic psychological energy of Exxp types. This is a result of statics of objects, a focus on the characteristic, unique, constant properties of a single entity. It's key characteristic.

The Normalizing category is about stability, structure, and standardization which is the characteristic psychological energy of Ixxj types. This is a result of statics of fields, a focus on the characteriztics of multiple elements which are characteristic, unique, and constant for a given set. The groups key characteristic.

The Harmonizing category is about fluidity, receptivity, and attractors which is the characteristic psychological energy of IXxp types. This is a result of dynamics of fields, a focus on the movements of multiple elements and the consequences of this.

These of course are only valid if you accept the defintions of the the functional pairings.

The 8 subtypes are divided on the basis for which function represents the focus of that subtype.

[woofwoofl]

I got into looking at functional dimensionality; it made a hell of a lot of sense, and it instilled a certain order to the way I got about the socion. An amount of variance in potency/dimensionality of functions between those who could be sensibly typed as the same type should be unavoidable, and an amount of variance in potency/dimensionality of functions between an individual in one frame of time and the same individual in another frame of time is sensible as well. A certain level of viscosity should be assumed, despite some fluidity; the notion that shit should be sliding all over the place is about as ridiculous as the notion that things should be absolutely fixed and completely immovable. Any attempts at absolutely homogenizing a type will invariably break down the very moment that a typing is made that allows for more than one type to be open; the mix of the available types will be visualized as a holistic and homogenized unit, and blends of that and any single type can and will be mixed and matched on some level. And so it starts.

Anyways, I did a shit ton of math again, and I spoilered it so that nobody's eyes have to bleed.

 

This is where I calculate the midpoints between the types as per functional dimensionality:

. . . . Ne . Ti . Se . Fi . Si . Fe . Ni . Te
. IEE. 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00
. IxE. 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
. ILE. 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
. αNT. 3.50 3.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 3.50 3.50
. LII. 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00

Since they were midpoints, all I did was add two types' individual functions' dimensions together and divide by two. As for subtypes; if you were to draw a line segment between two types, and the midpoint would be in the middle, then the subtype points would divide the line segment into thirds:

. . . . Ne . Ti . Se . Fi . Si . Fe . Ni . Te
. IEE. 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
Ne-IEE 4.00 1.67 2.00 2.33 1.00 3.33 3.00 2.67
Ne-ILE 4.00 2.33 2.00 1.67 1.00 2.67 3.00 3.33
. ILE. 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Ti-ILE 3.67 3.33 1.67 1.33 1.33 1.67 3.33 3.67
Ne-LII 3.33 3.67 1.33 1.67 1.67 1.33 3.67 3.33
. LII. 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00

The types now look less like midpoints between two adjacent subtypes, and more like hyperconcentrated exaggerations of the types themselves. This is a problem. Let's see what happens if the types are expressed as midpoints between the two subtypes:

. . . . Ne . Ti . Se . Fi . Si . Fe . Ni . Te
. IEE. 3.83 1.50 1.83 2.83 1.17 3.83 3.17 2.17
Ne-IEE 4.00 1.67 2.00 2.33 1.00 3.33 3.00 2.67
Ne-ILE 4.00 2.33 2.00 1.67 1.00 2.67 3.00 3.33
. ILE. 3.83 2.83 1.83 1.50 1.17 2.17 3.17 3.50
Ti-ILE 3.67 3.33 1.67 1.33 1.33 1.67 3.33 3.67
Ne-LII 3.33 3.67 1.33 1.67 1.67 1.33 3.67 3.33
. LII. 2.83 3.83 1.50 1.83 2.17 1.17 3.50 3.17

The internals are now harmonious, but the map itself is distorted. Expressing the numbers in the ILE row results in the following:

. (23/6) (17/6) (11/6) (9/6) (7/6) (13/6) (19/6) (21/6)

Given that, this is what will those figures will have to be multiplied by to get them back into shape:

. (24/23) (18/17) (12/11) (2/3) (6/7) (12/13) (18/19) (24/21)

Laying them out up and down ways in accordance to the central points of the three written types results in this:

. IEE. (24/23) .(2/3). (12/11) (18/17) .(6/7). (24/23) (18/19) (12/13)
. ILE. (24/23) (18/17) (12/11) .(2/3). .(6/7). (12/13) (18/19) .(8/7)
. LII. (18/17) (24/23) .(2/3). (12/11) (12/13) .(6/7). .(8/7). (18/17)

Taking averages between them as I did with the subtypes themselves results in this:

. IEE. .(24/23). . (2/3) . .(12/11). .(18/17). . (6/7) . .(24/23). .(18/19). .(12/13)
Ne-IEE .(24/23). (122/153) .(12/11). (142/153) . (6/7) . (300/299) .(18/19). (272/273)
Ne-ILE .(24/23). (142/153) .(12/11). (122/153) . (6/7) . (272/273) .(18/19). (300/299)
. ILE. .(24/23). .(18/17). .(12/11). . (2/3) . . (6/7) . .(12/13). .(18/19). . (8/7)
Ti-ILE (410/391) (412/391) .(94/99). .(80/99). .(80/91). .(82/91). (404/399) (430/399)
Ne-LII (412/391) (410/391) .(80/99). .(94/99). .(82/91). .(80/91). (430/399) (404/399)
. LII. .(18/17). .(24/23). . (2/3) . .(12/11). .(12/13). . (6/7) . . (8/7) . .(18/17)

Multiplying those values with the values in the last bigass chart results in this:

. . . . Ne . Ti . Se . Fi . Si . Fe . Ni . Te
. IEE. 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
Ne-IEE 4.17 1.33 2.18 2.17 0.86 3.34 2.84 2.66
Ne-ILE 4.17 2.17 2.18 1.33 0.86 2.66 2.84 3.34
. ILE. 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Ti-ILE 3.84 3.51 1.58 1.08 1.17 1.50 3.38 3.95
Ne-LII 3.51 3.84 1.08 1.58 1.50 1.17 3.95 3.38
. LII. 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00

I added up the sums of the dimensionalities; for the Producing subs, everything adds up to 20.01; the extra .01 is one of the conscious functions, so I'm just gonna lop that cent off the PolR. For the Accepting subs, the sum is 19.55, with 9.85 conscious and 9.7 unconscious. I'm just gonna do some multiplication to kludge those sums into 10s, lopping and padding cents to small and large IEs respectively to make sure everything fits. This is a crude way to use mathematics. I don't give a shit. Let's go:

. . . . Ne . Ti . Se . Fi . Si . Fe . Ni . Te
. IEE. 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
Ne-IEE 4.24 1.35 2.20 2.21 0.89 3.44 2.93 2.74
Ne-ILE 4.24 2.20 2.21 1.35 0.89 2.74 2.93 3.44
. ILE. 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Ti-ILE 3.84 3.51 1.58 1.08 1.17 1.50 3.38 3.95
Ne-LII 3.51 3.84 1.08 1.58 1.50 1.17 3.95 3.38
. LII. 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00

Is this perfect? Probably not. Does it make a shit ton of sense? Yep. For the Accepting subs, the Base is superpowered, the Extraverted functions have a hot hand, and the Mobilizing function sure could use some support. The Creative function's in the back a good ways, and there's a sort of functional soup going on between the Base and the PolR. Taking this into Model B territory would show the IEs unpolarizing in Accepting subtypes, simultaneously giving a certain versatility and a lack of a fixed direction to all of the IEs. A disintegration of Result/Process should also occur in Producing subtypes, but strictly on a holistic level, as the elements themselves hold their charge, and possibly amplify their polarization even further.

. . . . .1 . .2 . .3 . .4 . .5 . .6 . .7 . .8
acc-sub 4.24 2.20 2.21 1.35 0.89 2.74 2.93 3.44
midtype 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
pro-sub 3.84 3.51 1.58 1.08 1.17 1.50 3.38 3.95

And yes, if these seem a bit strong or a bit off, feel free to dilute them down a bit, bring them closer to home base, or whatever. As long as the conscious shit adds up to 10, the unconscious shit adds up to 10, and nothing's dimensionality exceeds 5 or something ridiculous like that (4.5 is pushing it), then we should all be good to go. The valued and unvalued functions always add up to 10, give or take a few cents, so there's that too. This feels internally and externally harmonious, and should be pretty usable.

One of these days I'm gonna get into something beyond even DCNH... I'm ready to melt some brains...

[Pookie]

I wouldn't think the Accepting type's Role is better than the Creative, though i did miss the work that led to that conclusion.

[woofwoofl]

I wouldn't think the Accepting type's Role is better than the Creative, though i did miss the work that led to that conclusion.

Just making a flat-out average between the dimensionality of what was going on in the different halves of the Ne-dom divide did nothing to accentuate the Base. I got rid of the types' dimensionalities momentarialy so I could come to averages on those themselves. It's entirely possible that, since two passes of averaging were done to come up with figures that were used to adjust for the graying of dimensionality that took place due to one pass of averaging, that an overcorrection was made. Using square roots of the fractions to multiply the chart numbers with was an overcorrection of an overcorrection. Since those subtypes divide a line segment from type to type into thirds, a three should be in there. Let's raise the fractions to a power of two-thirds and multiply them with the chart figures:

. . . . Ne . Ti . Se . Fi . Si . Fe . Ni . Te
. IEE. 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
Ne-IEE 4.12 1.43 2.12 2.22 0.90 3.34 2.89 2.66
Ne-ILE 4.12 2.22 2.12 1.43 0.90 2.66 2.89 3.34
. ILE. 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Ti-ILE 3.78 3.45 1.61 1.16 1.22 1.55 3.36 3.85
Ne-LII 3.45 3.78 1.16 1.61 1.55 1.22 3.85 3.36
. LII. 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00

Rectifying the figures via the "kludge" method I used last time tweaks the figures into this:

. . . . Ne . Ti . Se . Fi . Si . Fe . Ni . Te
. IEE. 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
Ne-IEE 4.17 1.45 2.14 2.24 0.92 3.41 2.95 2.72
Ne-ILE 4.17 2.24 2.14 1.45 0.92 2.72 2.95 3.41
. ILE. 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Ti-ILE 3.78 3.45 1.61 1.16 1.22 1.55 3.37 3.86
Ne-LII 3.45 3.78 1.16 1.61 1.55 1.22 3.86 3.37
. LII. 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00

Hell yeah, that's more like it!!

Anyways, this leaves us with the following:

. . . . .1 . .2 . .3 . .4 . .5 . .6 . .7 . .8
acc-sub 4.17 2.24 2.14 1.45 0.92 2.72 2.95 3.41
midtype 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
pro-sub 3.78 3.45 1.61 1.16 1.22 1.55 3.37 3.86

Yes, this looks a hell of a lot more sensible, and yes, all the shit adds up like it did last time!

[Pookie]

I could be wrong though, Woof. I just am shit at my role. No effective social mask whatsoever

[Shytan]

The 2-subtype system divides types into a Rational subtype and an Irrational subtype. DCNH further subdivides that into Extraverted subtypes and Introverted subtypes, resulting in:

Dominant = Extraverted Rational subtype
Creative = Extraverted Irrational subtype
Normalizing = Introverted Rational subtype
Harmonizing = Introverted Irrational subtype

For some reason, Gulenko gives these things different names. Contact/Distant = Extraverted/Introverted, Initiating/Terminating = Irrational/Rational, and Connecting/Ignoring = Dynamic/Static.

From there, the subtypes can be further divided into individual IEs (an Se-C-LII would display more Se in his behaviour than other LIIs), and even into a full set of 16 subtypes.

I've begun to disagree with Gulenko somewhat on the underlying nature of the subtypes. He calls them "Energy Types" and says they're an integral part of the psyche, with the traditional sociotype serving as "information input" and the Energy Type serving as "information output". In my opinion, the subtype is a later development in the psyche, less integral to the personality, a manifestation of the Jungian Persona which presents a "mask" to the world in order to cover up psychological insecurities and protect the Ego from the world.



When did I type you as LSI? I have no memory of this. If I ever suggested it, I've long since dropped it. I honestly have no idea what type you are; I find you impossible to read because I'm never quite sure if you're being sarcastic or earnest or what. The drawbacks of communicating via message board, I guess.

So you're saying since I'm EII-Fi and EIIs are rational types then I'm a normalizing subtype?

[Krig the Viking]

So you're saying since I'm EII-Fi and EIIs are rational types then I'm a normalizing subtype?

Rather, since Fi is introverted and rational, then EII-Fi would be an "introverted rational" subtype, i.e., Normalizing.

It might be helpful to read Gulenko's description of the four DCNH subtypes.