DCNH rant, my own useful perspective

[bye]

.

[FDG]

You listed many of the reasons why i don't like this theory.

People seem to have different DCNH subtypes in different areas of their lives, or their subtype seems to change a lot when the environment changes.

[The Reality Denialist]

If there is something permanently ingrained it is your ability to do so called left and right brain thinking (which is vague and qualitative).


Left brainers: D and N
Right brainers: C and H


Which comes to natural? I would say that people can shift towards something depending on their circumstances. It wont probably stay after things are optimal in your life. What is your brain plasticity? Maybe it puts certain kinds of limits at least in terms of true success.

I think naturally based all the material I have read about myself as a child I have been quite sluggish physically, thinking and imaging about things. I absolutely hated running around doing organized stuff. That points towards Ip. This is what I look for.
These doing things organized manner – yes I can do it and I endure if I want to, cleaning the mess – yes but I don't want to, doing stupid experimental things – why not and I have always tried to.

[FDG]

And also, I think that in some groups I will function as a D, but in others I will be more like N, depending on how competent I am at that area. But subtype can change according to the official theory, but maybe it changes more easily than what Gulenko says

Allright, thats exactly what i had observed, too. For me its a dealbreaker when It comes to using dcnh in real Life.

[schwiftyrickty]

This is how I look at it is well. I believe I'm H subtype because I superficially resemble IXXp temperament. I do think I appeared more C in high school, but before that I think I was H as well. In my case, it actually does make sense that I have strengthened polr, but I don't see how this could apply to all types. Like your example of D-EII. It makes no sense that they have strengthened Fi AND Te.

[Bertrand]

if D EII makes no sense because D strengthens Te and EII has Fi base it makes like half the combinations contradictory. Does anyone really think Gulenko made the equivalent of a 3rd grade error, essentially making a nonsense system right at the start? Obviously an interpretation where they are compatible is necessary. If you reject such an interpretation you may as well reject DCNH entirely. Otherwise you're saying you know more than the guy who made it, but also less because you didn't make it, and furthermore it was made by essentially an idiot. "Improving" it by accepting an interpretation that assumes error and then removing it via your "improvements" i.e.: alternative interpretation is weak intuition. You never understood it to begin with and are in no position to offer changes. For starters: define a type accent. Define the 3 dichotomies that give rise to DCNH. Define the role of the base function. It should become obvious a type accent that attenuates base function is actually quite common (ask Tallmo), if not the rule these days, given how neurotic people can be. Also DCNH is defined up front as describing the roles people take on in small groups. Its not some new insight and it should always be kept in mind. Is the idea of an EII who naturally takes on the role of a leader when in a small group inconceivable? Maybe not if the D in question is in an environment where it is impossible to do so, but I'm guessing such a person because of their strong ethics of relations is likely to not surround themselves with SLE, thus their actual lives are somewhat invisible to members of beta quadra (this is an aside, but I've noticed beta has a very limited world and rarely appreciates how much goes on outside and how radically different it is). Once you go into a delta heavy environment, especially a spiritual/ethical one, it is not uncommon for EII to be the boss. Of course for many who don't have access to these environments, well they must not exist...

[Singu]

^ So you're saying that "I define EIIs as those people who are meek and quiet and does not take leadership roles". Okay.

You're also saying that "EIIs are those spiritual and ethical people, and so therefore may easily take the role of the leader in such spiritual environments". Ok.

Socionics and Gulenko says that "The meekness of an EII that I've observed, is explained by the fact by their Se-PoLR, since Se-PoLR is a weakness in sensing or being territorial in the physical sense. This is because it is the opposite of their Ne. Being good in Ne-imagination must mean that they're weak in their physical sensations". Ok.

But Gulenko tries to make sense of new observations: "If that's true, then how could there exist such a new type of EIIs that I have observed, such as the EII-D, who IS usually meek and ethical, but can also take the role of the leader occasionally, or is in fact quite aggressive? I will explain this fact by introducing the 'subtypes' of EIIs." Ok.

[Bertrand]

So you're saying..

[Singu]

Hey, obviously I've just paraphrased and didn't edit the meaning to check if I'm getting what you're saying correctly. I also didn't even add my own thoughts.

[The Reality Denialist]

H is usually quite submerged and imaginative. Usually has done lots of self-reflection. I think even person's own physiology supports it. This is all relatively true regardless of type.

I was visiting in place where there was EII-C in her 70-80's. She had lots of energy in a way and gave socially extroverted image of herself. Lots of talking and stories. She looked at me when I took puppy on lap and petted him. Said something that she can tell lots about me.

Well, actually I have avoided debates in my life. I tend to only correct when something goes logically completely wrong and falls apart. I usually keep peace. I hugely indulged in world of stories and comics as a child. I have another, wilder side, that not so many people get to see, though. Oh, and I can mobilize myself and other people to some extent when there is absolute need for it. People think that I have something hidden going on.

[FDG]

I also don't think that Viktor paints an accurate picture of H subtypes - if DNCH exists. H sub can do tremendous amounts of work if its for other people or for a cause they Believe in. This is how they supervise D subtypes.

[The Reality Denialist]

I also don't think that Viktor paints an accurate picture of H subtypes - if DNCH exists. H sub can do tremendous amounts of work if its for other people or for a cause they Believe in. This is how they supervise D subtypes.

Actually D supervises H while H pushes D.

[Tigerfadder]

Look up disc theory instead, more useful.

[Bertrand]

Actually D supervises H while H pushes D.

its not really smart to use terms borrowed from classical socionics because supervision is about a superior vantage point psychologically... since any type can be D and any type H, the interplay over who has "leverage" is going to go to the strength of the aspects involved. In other words, a D EII and a H ILE, ILE will "activate" (normal usage) EII and EII will give feedback (audit--feedback in the form of "braking" i.e. questioning) the ILE. This will be classic supervision. Take H ILE and D LSI, ILE will activate LSI on Ni and LSI will "audit" ILE but it won't take on the character of supervision, rather the opposite (ILE will control by way of "ignoring" the Ni audit). In the final analysis its useful to keep in mind the base type relation and the subtype relation. The two influence eachother, and subtype may set the stage on group interaction but it will ultimately lead to a base type interaction. best then to think of activation and audit then. H activates D D audits H, whether that is supervision or whatever goes to base type. its important to keep in mind DCNH is mainly about small group dynamics and doesn't go to the core of the personality, thus it sets things up but it won't subsume base type. I know I said its not good to use borrowed terms but its hard for me to replace activation, suffice to say I mean it in a more colloquial sense, more akin to stimulating

I think "supervision" in general is a super loaded term when dealing with people obsessed with hierarchy and power, which is why it gets thrown around here in bizarre ways without respect for its actual meaning

[Singu]

So are these things based on completely hypothetical scenarios, or are they actually based on observations?

[Bertrand]

yeah I'm the police here to point out you need to submit to gulenko because hes the boss. what a silly narrative. my point is you're critiquing something that you seemingly don't understand. its a cart->horse problem, not some socially oppressive scenario. by all means substitute your understanding for gulenko's. I'm just pointing out why someone may not want to adopt that understanding too hastily because its got some shortcomings

[FDG]

Actually D supervises H while H pushes D.

Uh. In the version i remember, supervision was D->C->N->H->D

[Bertrand]

Fair enough, let's talk it through then. Going back to the EII D example, that person would have strengthened Te and Fe, and also an accentuation on the lead function, being Fi. How does having a strengthened function differ from having an accentuated function? Because if these are different I might see how they could co-exist without contradicting eachother. I'm not being a smart ass here, I wanna know

the base function is not accented within the meaning of the term "accent" solely in virtue of being base.. thus there is no contradiction, rather an accent on the repressed function really is contextualized within that function as a repressed one. An accent on the suggestive function, doesn't make it conscious or strengthen it within the meaning of dimensionality. it means theres a pronounced behavioral manifestation of it, not in some "normative" sense, which is what people usually assume, but in whatever capacity it exists for that individual. in short an accent on the suggestive function would be a kind of pronounced "x" seeking where x is the specific information element

accents on strong functions but from the point of view of their role expression is what people typically assume an accent looks like. in other words a linear accentuation (role, more is more, not non-linear manifestation--exceptions) of a function one is already good at, this would be like autism (accentuation Ni) in LII or ILI [1]. but that is only one possible manifestation of accent. accents in a package may take up certain social roles but they're still bound to their base type. this means a H LIE is going to look a lot different than a H LSE despite the fact they're each going to try to do their H thing. this idea that subtype subsumes base type makes that mistake because it assumes a behavioral similarity that is not really there, rather it applies mainly to group role, which is not a specific behavior its more of a general approach to group interaction. when people say how could a D IEI be more of an IEI they make this mistake, its doesn't transform IEI to behave in a way inherently inconsistent with IEI, it simply puts their IEIsms "up front" whereas an H IEI is not more or less of an IEI unless you identify IEI with a social role, which is not really what IEI primarily is, its primarily a TIM... IEI was not born into a harmonizing role, nor are they destined to it... accents across Fe which give rise to pronounced emotional pressure are going to be directly correlated to the strength and placement of the Fe function as a matter of TIM. In other words, a dominating SLI's Fe is going to look very different than a dominating IEI's Fe, but they nevertheless both may be leaders... domination and enhanced Fe are just bound up together, but individual strength with Fe is separate. Domination arising out of Fe may look downright weird coming from SLI or ILI but its nonetheless there in its effects. this guy is a D (or maybe C, but it doesn't matter both accent Fe) ILI as far as I can tell... the Fe is there but its not role Fe. I think a related problem is people think of "leader" as one thing when its not, there's many different kinds of leaders. leader is primarily someone with followers (from the point of view of social role). if no ones following you're not leading. and independent spirit without followers who nevertheless treads new ground is more like C--someone like Galileo or whatever

[1] for example, I think soupman displays a Ni accent that is pretty "normal"

[The Reality Denialist]

Uh. In the version i remember, supervision was D->C->N->H->D

• Asymmetric attractive relations. The working name is subtype benefit. Their nature includes pushing, urging, and one-sided activation. D-subtype prevails over C-subtype. C prevails over N-subtype. Normalizing, in turn, prevails over H-subtype. But harmonizer, by paradoxical means, influences the dominant participant. Thus the circle is locked. These relations are the main accelerators of group dynamics.

• Asymmetric repellent relations. For their designation we will use the code term subtype supervision. They bear the nature of rate setting, retention within the framework, one-sided braking. They are directed in the opposite direction in comparison to benefit. They are useful from the point of view of correction, the correction of errors. Dominant inspects harmonizing. Harmonizing inspects normalizing. Normalizing impedes and corrects creative. And creative - dominant. And here occurs the closing of the outline, only in the reverse direction of the main vector.

[FDG]

Ah, thank you, i hadnt understood correctly that part of the theory then.

[Bertrand]

But going back to the EII D, this person would be in the role of someone that uses Te and Fe, correct?

on one hand its tautological that dominant = Fe and Te accent. on the other hand D doesn't mean you fulfill the role of someone that uses Te and Fe because that category is broader than the dominant role. A D type accents (slightly different than "uses") Fe and Te to the extent they're the D type, they're not suddenly transformed into a Te or Fe user. so "role of someone that uses Te and Fe" is not the same thing as D, because people use Te and Fe that aren't D types. thus D EII doesn't necessarily fulfill role of someone that uses Te and Fe unless by that you mean D = D, which is true

[Soupman]

You listed many of the reasons why i don't like this theory.

People seem to have different DCNH subtypes in different areas of their lives, or their subtype seems to change a lot when the environment changes.

It means you have a misunderstanding of the theory including the OP if you think that - DCNH is core values colouring the behaviour instead of the behaviours themselves. For example, Cs can be leaders and Ds can be creatives charting uncharted territory - the core differences between the two subtypes (including the others) lies in their core motivational beliefs.

Ds want to win (Trump)
Cs want to stand out (Seth Macfarlane)
Ns want perfection order (Jordan Peterson)
Hs want to get along with others (Obama)

[FDG]

It means you have a misunderstanding of the theory including the OP if you think that - DCNH is core values colouring the behaviour instead of the behaviours themselves. For example, Cs can be leaders and Ds can be creatives charting uncharted territory - the core differences between the two subtypes (including the others) lies in their core motivational beliefs.

Ds want to win (Trump)
Cs want to stand out (Seth Macfarlane)
Ns want perfection order (Jordan Peterson)
Hs want to get along with others (Obama)

Honestly, this makes the theory even more useless from my pov.

[Soupman]

If you know DCNH, skip to part 2

Ok, so first of all, there is a correlation between DCNH and "artificial temperament":

D = Exxj
C = Exxp
N = IxxJ
H = Ixxp

Actually, Viktor Gulenko chose to merge the temperaments and DCNH together which confuses the difference between the two in comparison. Temperament is best interpreted as rhythm-behaviour, whilst DCNH are values colouring behaviour.

LINEAR & ENERGY (EJ)
MEASURED & LINEAR (IJ)
STIMULI & ENERGY (EP)
MEASURED & STIMULI (IP)


(Linear) Linear, sequential, fixated
(Stimuli) Sensitive to stimuli, adapts to stimuli
(Energy) Energy expender, high energy,
(Measured) Measured, low energy, structured




//Linear types
* Give out direct sequences on how they want things done (explicit goals)


//Stimuli types
* Give out general goals leaving room for means to it (implicit goal)


//Energy types
* Quickly adapts and makes decisions


//Measured types
* Stable and methodical in decisions

So if you're LIE N, you're an Exxj type with an artificial Ixxj temperament. ENTj is the unchanging core, but because of circumstances, you've adapted to act more like an Ixxj. This explains un-stereotypical people and differences between people of the same type. D is the "pure" subtype for LIE, because that's the subtype that resonates with their type, and I believe that people are born with their pure subtype. Gulenko says that subtype can change through much effort and change of environment. This is all official DCNH theory, except for the part that you are born with your pure subtype, as far as I know.

If you are LIE-N like Expat or Elon Musk, it is because you have the normalising aura predominantly, your three functions L=rules observer, S= stability, R= norms are accentuated.

Nevertheless out of that mask the temperament still shines through: the high "energy" and "linear" approach to things.

So I wanna ask everyone that reads this: Do you think you were born with your pure subtype? For example if you are IEI C, N or D, do you feel as if you were H as a small child and that you changed later on? Because I'm certain that I was a pure C as a teenager, although no one on here would type me that today, and I agree with that.

Not at all actually, I was originally a Creative subtype (like my father SLI-C), always more open and eager to take risk enjoying the yearning for standing out. Nevertheless, in secondary school my family's financial hardship caused me to become introverted thus morphing into a Normaliser resembling my mother (IEI-N) who's more risk-averse and self-contained. Only when I finally became clinically depressed did I get treated and finally become more like my younger self.

I don't think people are born with pure types at all, rather we all have genetic traits that will rise to consciousness normally - or environmentally through epigenetics. The traits from both my mom and dad have an odd habit of revealing themselves in the most inopportune way at times. Yet paradoxically I'm not exactly like my mother and father despite odd similaritioes popping up infrequently.

The DCNH dichotomies simplified:

Contact/Distance: Basically Extrovert/Introvert. D and C are Contact, N and H are Distance.

Terminating/Initiating: Basically Rational/Irrational. D and N are Terminating, C and H are Initiating.

Connecting/Ignoring: Basically Dynamic/Static. D and H are Connecting, C and N are Ingoring.

These are simplifications, and there's more stuff that goes along with these, but if you add all of this together, you get the temperament relation shown at the top. That's why I like to think of DCNH as a changeable temperament vibe that people have based on what sort of life you have. If you're a manager, you're gonna vibe as an Exxj, even though that's not what you are, making you D.

There's also the relation to DCNH and your function stack:

D = Lead
C = Creative
N = Role
H = PoLR

There's no point trying to link DCNH to model A, simply because "model a" intrinsically isn't empirical. And it isn't reliable for all types either especially with contradictions about what valuing should mean - WSS's conformational bias ruins the scientific aspiratuions of their theory but this is a problem with socionics in general.

C Managers exist bro
*They take more risks and desire project that make them stand out.

N Managers
*Love bureaucracy and strive in managerial positions were the rules are stable, thus so is the path to the future. One thing people don't realise about Musk is that, he has a tendency of taking proven ideas and expanding them as opposed to risking it exploring unproven ideas as Creative entrepreneur do.

H Managers
*Love harmony and getting along, more so than other times who seem to understand "harmony & getting along" as being only necessary to the point of delivering results. Hs are more inclined to bend over backwards because they are senstive to an air of conflict. Obama represents this perfectly, least you remember he watered down obamacare to the bones yet no republican voted for it, he wasted his majority trying to get along with everyone.

D Managers
*These managers care about results and being on control of the situation above any other hindering motivations facing the other subtypes, so because of that motivation they are said to make the perfect managers.

I think this is where DCNH starts getting weird, because if you're an EII D, you have strengthened Te and Fe because of the artificial Exxj temperament, but at the same time you're more focused on your Fi lead. This is literally a contradiction, because Te and Fi are opposites, and I'm not sure what Gulenko is thinking here. This may or may not be true, but I choose to focus on the temperamental aspect of DCNH instead, because that's how it becomes useful to me, and that makes it more directly tied to social interaction and group dynamics, which is the entire point of DCNH.

Dude have you heard about functional polymorphism? Socionics Britannica started talking about it but the concept isn't new at all, in fact it's arguably at the very heart of socionics along with it's premise that everyone possesses all the functions.

Te and Fe mean different things depending on the behaviour the functions are ascribed to.

Dominant subtype
FPE
F: Controlling
P: Work
E: Zeal


That definition has a different interpretation from the Te or Fe, as energy functions were Te is business logic, ruthless and pragmatic, whilst Fe is emotional dominance, manipulation and influence.

[Soupman]

Honestly, this makes the theory even more useless from my pov.

The theory will become lucid to you once you start understanding how it is evident in real life, specifically why the different subtypes quarrel especially with identical and dual types which makes it seem like socionics is broken or maybe that you are asking too much of it.

From the looks of it, I'm guessing you are a Dominant subtype and no offence to you, but you guys aren't really openminded especially if ideas you are being presented with present no immediate value. And as a creative, I don't get along with you guys because I'm stubborn and won't yield to your insinuation that I'm bringing chaos.

And mutually us Creatives are less pragmatic and directly results-oriented when interesting ideas are on the horizon and we see taking risks as an option. We care less about results directly compared to standing out with an amazing discovery.

These differing underlying motivations cause conflict especially beyond of external pressure that lead to only a single path being the only alternative.

[Soupman]

part 2


Ok, so that's the basis of what I'm gonna talk about next. First of all, how should we identify the subtypes? Let's forget what papa G says and breathe some fresh air into this and make it useful. Let's simplify DCNH as EJ, EP, IJ and IP subtypes, because that makes intuitive sense and it's neat and simple. Everyone knows people that are "introverted extroverts" or vice versa. Some people just really vibe as an extroverted type, but they are relatively introverted for that type. I don't think this necessarily counts as a mistype, because there's all sorts of reasons why extroverts can become reserved over time or introverts start becoming more outgoing, but that doesn't change who they are. Let's also add J/P to the equation, because why not. Irrationals can get their shit together, rationals can get out of their own assholes, people change

I've began to see that as the superego/function accentuation were people confusingly possess both an extroverted and introverted behavioural profile. Also extroversion is turning out not to be one unison thing, since LIE extroverted is a different person if they are extroverted for subtype reason or their socionics club.

LIE with superego extroversion behave in an increasingly hospital manner resembling more ESE with EF functions on prominence. Emmanuel Macron is such example. And he's a huge contrast to the normative LIE in Garry Kasparov who happens to be quite dry, abstract and very talkative without the development of a hospitable aura.

What does the IJ archetype imply? It implies that you stay at home and are orderly. Gulenko calls SLE N a "strong handy man" and a house person that can fix things and is interested in real estate and material things. For women in general, IJ might manifest as a house wife, you're at home, you keep things orderly. And also, N's match with D's, so it makes sense for N's to be housewives. But for men, or maybe just more masculine types, it manifests as a strong dad that can fix things around the home, still a very manly stereotype even though I categorize them with housewives.

I find this very unhelpful with regards to understanding the theory because linking to determistic behaviour results in a flat caricature, a flat profile that's ridiculous upon reflection. Rather the underlying motivations are the ones which are important to study since they give meaning.

The meaningful based interpretation is that normalisers are looking for order, stability, "perfection" to uphold and upkeep. Thus this manifests itself in a variety of ways, but the shorthand is that bureaucratic environments are ones were they excel inside applying their creativity in.

Sexually, men or women, are somewhat ambivalent towards their partners were they bring order and reliability only under the pretence that they respect their SO. Dominants seem to work hard to meet the approval of normalisers whilst oddly trying to lead them.

And I would argue, that in my own personal system of this, that if you're not functioning as a leader in a group, then you're not D. You can be LIE, but if you're not a manager, or a social group organizer, you're not in your pure subtype. This how simple I like to keep it, because it actually makes sense, and it's a useful way to look at it. If you think that you're aggressive, and therefore D, you might just be an Se ego that is naturally aggressive, but that doesn't make you a leader. The leader is more like an EJ archetype. You look outward, you make desicions about things. You can be super stubborn and outspoken, but if you're not able to lead people, you're not D. Having people depend on you is what makes you D. Everyone that is a manager is D by my definition, atleast if they do it successfully. Because that's the social role that you have, and that's what I like to think of DCNH as.

I'd reiterating my perspective but it's better to understand the subtypes as core motivation instead of direct behaviours since people will nulify the theory for you by contradicting it with their behaviour. Ie

CNH types caring about results, leadership, group order, and success.
DNH types caring about grand ideas, standing out, and admiration
DCH types caring about the importance of rules and order, a certain level of respect for the organisation
DCN types caring about group dynamics, group longevity, creating a stable environment for all to get along under.

EP is people that like to go out and have fun. If you're LSI and you party all the time, you're a C, you're acting like an EP. If you have the energy to create things, even though you don't get paid, you're probably C. Because C is EP, which is high energy (extraversion), and fun (irrationality). H's like fun, but they lack the energy, so they match with C's. If you sit at home and wait for people to invite you out to have fun, you're H. If you sit at home and wait for people to invite you to something more serious (such as a formal date, social event, or even a career opportunity), you're N.

It's charting discovery to make it succinct, trying new things. Partying is a wrong way of saying it since we are all social animals and to varying degrees we can enjoy relaxing and spending our time in a sociable environment with people of our liking.

The exceptions are hermits, people with social problems, depressed people; or people lacking healthy social lives so "partying" makes them unhappy.

This makes 4 really neat categories to put people in, and it makes DCNH actually useful and more relatable. In a way, DCNH is more real than type, atleast from a social perspective. Your type is just what you are naturally good at. Me for example, I'm really athletic, so I would be good at having fun (Exxp). I would be perfect as an athlete or fun-haver in general because of how I was born, professional boxers probably dream of having been born in my body. That is my natural self, my type. But that is not who I am socially, I've become more J-ish over time. So I'm not a C. I was a C when I was a kid and didn't know better, I was super energetic as a kid and just fun fun fun all the time. But life made me reconsider what I wanna do.


Does this resonate with anyone else? Doesn't this make sense? I like this way of looking at it. Let's not even call it DCNH, because I don't wanna get called out for being officially wrong. This is just how I see it:


EJ subtype: Literally a leader, people depend on you.


EP subtype: You actually go out and do fun things often, just for the sake of having fun. You probably even waste money for the sake of pursuing what you like doing, musician, fun-haver etc.


IJ subtype: Look around your home right now, is it in order? Do you keep your paperwork in order? Is there actual concrete reasons to call you orderly? If not, then you're not N. If you're N you want someone to invite you out to do some formal event


IP subtype: Inside + fun...eeehh idk, video games? Movies? Books? Would be nice if someone took you out though, right? Any type can be like this, and if you are this person then you're IP subtype.

I understand the desire to put people in nice little categories, but this can be deceptive if you want to truly understand them and validate the theory. I find favouring accuracy more important in the long run instead of simply wanting to put a label on someone.

[Bertrand]

great post; thanks soupman... I find the superego accentuation thing really interesting and plain to see but hard to really describe. also your comment on D serving N while paradoxically trying to be in charge makes perfect sense. it reminds me of ****** types, where its like they're at "the top" but really theyre just sacrificing themselves to give people what they want. they're not imposing their will simply to impose it, but more because they feel they have some kind of mandate by the group that has democratically or not made them their representative. I think this may be more characteristic of Fe types, but Te has something similar its just more meritocratic. the Te types would crush people on behalf of the group but more indirectly via secondary methods like laws rooted in polices that subtly channel the incentives and punishments to shape the group. it reminds me of how Fe is primary dominating behavior and Te is secondary, more lingering etc

[Sol]

subtypes is heretic baseless bs. not Socionics. to study normal theory and how to use it is better for you
"artificial temperament"... another heresy

noobs, study the classical theory!

[Myst]

Does this resonate with anyone else? Doesn't this make sense? I like this way of looking at it. Let's not even call it DCNH, because I don't wanna get called out for being officially wrong. This is just how I see it:

EJ subtype: Literally a leader, people depend on you.

EP subtype: You actually go out and do fun things often, just for the sake of having fun. You probably even waste money for the sake of pursuing what you like doing, musician, fun-haver etc.

IJ subtype: Look around your home right now, is it in order? Do you keep your paperwork in order? Is there actual concrete reasons to call you orderly? If not, then you're not N. If you're N you want someone to invite you out to do some formal event

IP subtype: Inside + fun...eeehh idk, video games? Movies? Books? Would be nice if someone took you out though, right? Any type can be like this, and if you are this person then you're IP subtype.

What's the man vs woman version of each? You broke it down by each sex for IJ but I'd like to see you do it for the other ones too.

Based on this summary, I can't fully relate to either one, so I'm hoping that with you breaking it down by sex, it'll be more relatable.

The least relatable here is C (or what you call EP), though. That's (and the whole DCNH really, original DCNH too) is pretty much in line with DISC too, btw, C seems to line up with I in DISC and it's I that I have the least of. (I have mostly D and C in DISC and some S.)

[Myst]

If there is something permanently ingrained it is your ability to do so called left and right brain thinking (which is vague and qualitative).


Left brainers: D and N
Right brainers: C and H


Which comes to natural? I would say that people can shift towards something depending on their circumstances. It wont probably stay after things are optimal in your life. What is your brain plasticity? Maybe it puts certain kinds of limits at least in terms of true success.

I think naturally based all the material I have read about myself as a child I have been quite sluggish physically, thinking and imaging about things. I absolutely hated running around doing organized stuff. That points towards Ip. This is what I look for.
These doing things organized manner – yes I can do it and I endure if I want to, cleaning the mess – yes but I don't want to, doing stupid experimental things – why not and I have always tried to.

Heh I think I'm nearly equal on left/right brain stuff. This doesn't mean I always do 50% left 50% right, it's more like, in some types of situations I do a very right-brained approach and in other types of situations I do a very left-brained approach, and btw a certain synthesis of the two is when I feel at my best.

I think I like the way you put it - "running around doing organized stuff" for goals, I think that's what I look for a lot, but also I can just be calmly sitting analyzing instead, though that's also always for my goals. Those are my left-brained approaches. Then I have a right-brained approach where I'm decently good at taking care of things that I have to react to, but this is almost always subordinated to the goals of "running around doing organized stuff" mode. That is why I do the right-brained mode. And to me it also happens to fit the goal-oriented D in DCNH where Ti is utilized for the D goal-oriented agenda with extra Se energy additionally complementing/serving it.

[Myst]

EJ subtype can be someone that focuses on career for both men and women. I guess in some cases of EJ woman and IJ man, the man can still be more career focused (although not in a manager position), but the woman is leading the social life. Maybe they mostly spend time with the womans female friends. With EJ man and IJ woman, the man usually earns way more than the woman, and in some cases (depending on culture) the woman might stay at home.

IJ subtype, as I said, is a house wife for women, and a handyman home fixer for men.

IP subtype for men is a "nice guy", someone that is idealizing women and acting like a gentleman. They are often friends with the EP woman originally and then eventually it gets more intimate. It might be an open or loose relationship where the woman is seeing other men, and the man may or may not be ok with it, but he stays with her anyways. IP woman is the fan girl. There's some EP guy that might be an athlete, musician, or just some popular guy that the IP woman is stalking and trying to get the attention of.

EP subtypes for both men and women can be athletes, musicians etc, or just someone with an active social life that focuses on fun activities. Men often sleep around, sometimes women too but not as commonly. The men usually have a hard time settling down. Men are the most likely to end up as athletes/musicians or any sort of professional entertainer, and for women it's usually more focused on social things. In EP/IP relationships, the EP might earn way more than the IP, or the EP might be completely broke, and the IP takes care of him/her. For example if you're a musician it can either go really well or it can go nowhere. A common thing is an EP man and IP woman, where the IP woman takes care of him and helps him reach his dreams

Still doesn't work for me. None of these descriptions fit, except the career thing somewhat for D/EJ. How about the D/EJ with 1D Fe as in my case? I won't be the leader of any social life lol. I may sort of have more Fe energy than an LSI-N for example, but it's not directed into socializing for the sake of pure fun socializing much... into the goals instead.

[Myst]

You might be an exception to the rule, these are just generalizations. Based on how you come off to me, I think you would fit with an EIE EJ with a wide social circle, because you don't seem very socially initiating from the little I have seen of you, but I obviously don't know what you're like irl. That would make you IJ, and you would be the IJ that is career focused but not really very expansive, more of a reliable partner with a good career that can keep things orderly and planned. I explained this as a female EJ/male IJ dynamic, but it might be more of a NF EJ/ST IJ dynamic and not necessarily related to gender.

Because it seems to me that you would want an EIE that is good with people that EIEs usually are, and that would make them EJ in my system, because there are EIEs that go against the norm and don't have many friends. But again, I'm speculating

Lol well I'm not a house wife type and I don't care about planning and order to the degree an LSI-N would: they would doubly care because 1. LSI 2. N/IJ subtype and I definitely don't care THIS MUCH. I plan the least amount needed to get moving unless I indulge in extra details sometimes (depends on topic/situation too). And I do organize important stuff for orderliness and I look organized enough but the orderliness type of organizing always lags behind the goals and my drive for these goals. Where the two coincide well is for the areas most important to me personally e.g. my training. There the organization almost fully catches up with the drive to get to the goal. Because I have really strong focus on the topic then? In terms of work however I just do as much organization as I need to. Still decent ofc

Fundamentally I don't care enough about orderliness precisely because it would stifle the energy that drives me ahead. It's too contained. I'm not very expansive compared to an SLE for example but this extra restrained orderliness/planning is just stifling to me energetically. I will do it if I must, yeah, but not what I naturally fall into as my overall focus for life.

Maybe you are confusing my base Ij temperament with the DCNH N/IJ? It's true I'm *not* socially initiating just for fun. I'm able to get very initiating for a goal though or sometimes for voicing opinions lol and then the Fe energy is probably poured into that. What was written about that above in some post totally fit me (Fe or E of D subtype).

Also, I don't really want an EIE-D though it's better than EIE-C, for sure, based on descriptions at least I get the pov of EIE-D way more easily. The EIE I've felt dualized the most with ever in my life so far is an EIE-N. She kind of is not as social as the EIE stereotype is but she's clearly EIE still. She still is all Fe Fe Fe Fe lol. But N makes sense for her, for example she actually pays attention to stability and plans more than I do lol... I start to fall asleep at the idea of being a "reliable partner with a good career that can keep things orderly and planned". But thinking of this further, I kind of want that kind of partner (but who also has Fe). Yeah.

[Myst]

Oh alright, well maybe you are EJ then. As I said, I'm just talking out of my ass here, so don't take it too personally. And I didn't mean to imply that you're a housewife lmao, because I definitely don't think that. As I said, you don't fit the generalization. Well if you're an EJ, then you need to be the one making the move, because I doubt an EIE IJ will do that, even males. How do you feel about that?

I wasn't taking it personally . Why do you think EIE IJ doesn't make any moves? What kind of moves? I'm really curious here. Don't expect me to make a move emotionally but in any other area yeah no problem.

Actually no, you can't be an EJ in my system, because I defined it as literally being a leader, the entire point of this was to get away with ambiguity.

You can't satisfy both goals of removing ambiguity and of covering everything about people's behavioural roles in only a few options.

I think you still fulfill the requirements to be in the IJ category.

If I say that too much focus on orderliness and planning stifles my energy then how do I fulfill those requirements. Or if I relate more to taking charge than to being a housewife.

I guess it depends on what your career is like, and also if you have the balls to go and hit on guys and make the first move. Maybe you do, idk. I guess you don't have to be an official manager, what matters is how you act at work. Do you act as a leader at work or in any other area of your life?

I like to take charge, yah. I just don't keep taking initiative all the time. That's why I don't see myself as "pure" a leader as a D-Exxj would be. That is, I'm either involved and influencing things or I'm not involved and I just watch until I get involved at some point and the latter is the default even if it doesn't last long before moving into action, depending on situation. Basically the default Ij cognition is there needing a clear orientation first and needing to first see a point to get involved.

Answered the question about making the move on guys above. But more on that too, I'm not extraverted enough to initiate right away and there's the Ne PoLR too wanting a clear view of the situation first (same theme as with taking charge) but when I get impatient, I don't care about any of the Ne PoLR or anything else anymore lol. And I do get to that point of impatience if they don't initiate and I really like the guy.

One more thing. N's are followers? The thing is I decide for myself for the direction in any situation (where I am involved), if I can't have influence for that, I really really dislike that and I try to get influence.

[FDG]

I relate myself to what Myst writes about her approach to leadership. (No clue about my dcnh)

I think i like equally H and N ESIs, i really have a problem with ESI-D males.

[Myst]

@Myst Hmmm, yeah you're right, there's another category of people that wanna do everything their own way, but that leave other people out of it. It reminds me of something a I read about "Zeta males", there's Alpha leaders, Beta followers, Omegas are losers I think, and then there's Zeta males, that reject the social order and go their own way. They are like leaders, but no one follows them. Personally, I think those guys are still losers and just pretending to be independent of the social order. You're essentially King Nothing, what's the point.

I wasn't talking about this Zeta thing actually. I actually find social order important BTW

But anyways, I don't think it works like that for women. Women aren't hierarchical the same way as men are.

I am. I already cared about hierarchy of society in middle school lol

Many of my goals are to do with it. (Not all of them, though, I'm more complex than that. )

You know what, you convinced me I'm wrong, I'm not taking those people into account, and they do exist. I'm gonna call people that wanna make desicions but that no one follows EJ as well. Because you're in the leader mind set, which is what matters, you just suck at it, because how are you gonna get anywhere without help. It's like a not very actualized EJ. I guess that's how cults are formed, you have some loner that refuses to fit in the social order, and then some gullible idiot starts to follow, and before you know it there's a whole group. Because yeah I'd argue that IJ subtypes would be betas, and you don't qualify as beta if you can't stay in line.

I personally wouldn't call that a leader mindset. Well ok if the person is able to form a cult then yeah it's a leader after all. But if they are just existing on their own and not having influence then nah

And now that I think about it, I need to add this layer of nuance to the other subtypes as well... I guess someone can also be IJ subtype even if they aren't organized for example. You could still be oriented that way, but because of cirumstances you live in temporary chaos. Because it happens, sometimes people will end up in new situations where they need to organized things, and even though they are orderly people it's just too much for them.

Sure. In my case though, even though I had some periods in life where I was less orderly than my default so I get your idea, when I'm back to default, it's simply still got a limit, because going past that it'd stifle the D or Te/Fe/Se energy. I get this funny contradiction sometimes actually due to it though Because I do find orderliness neat but then I just can't/won't contradict that energy with too much orderliness but then I get a bit unsatisfied because things are not as neat as I'd like them to be in the back of my mind. But I never get the time to satisfy that little Ij thing in the back of my mind. Or, when I want to follow a rule of mine really consistently, and if this gets in the way of the D energy, then lol... The rule following does tend to win out though unless I have to follow a higher order rule than that one but that's still consistency of the more important stuff. But there is a reason why I do not have as many nuanced rules overall as some LSIs I've seen do - I focus on other things too (my goals).

I'm gonna add an extra thing to the subtypes to take all of this into account. You're an EJ 0 subtype, meaning you aren't actualized. In situations where you act as a leader, you're EJ 1, and to become fully actualized you should be in a permanent leader position. Because let's be real, not everyone with a leader mindset can be a leader, but that is what they should strive for.

EJ 1 is basically the traditional idea of a leader, you're the boss, people work for you. EJ 0 is a bit like the zeta males, loners that refuse to adjust to the social order.

I'll be EJ 2 then. Because I'm not 100% fitting your categories again, sorry. Like I said, I'm Ixxj-D, not Exxj-D and to me the traditional leader is the latter: always on the move, always interacting with people, not just after the initial consideration period. Maybe we don't mean the same things by it tho', however you also assumed a leader is about socializing too, instead of just going for goals. If I misunderstood something there, let me know tho' sure.

And I still don't see where you got the idea (when calling me EJ 0) that I'm a loner who doesn't care about society or social order or about how to actually influence people to achieve my goals, or lead a group when I'm involved for the group goal, etc.

[Myst]

More thinking: DISC's model actually got an interesting idea. Its model has the idea that you have an internal and an external attitude of the D, I, S, C attitudes (which seem to line up a lot with DCNH). The internal one is "you" but the external one is also important to you to do in the world outside. For me, I got C (=N/IJ in DCNH) for the internal and D (=D/EJ in DCNH) for the external. Though then it's still complicated because I feel this energetic drive (rather than just a cautious attitude) is also mine very much.

I relate myself to what Myst writes about her approach to leadership. (No clue about my dcnh)

I think i like equally H and N ESIs, i really have a problem with ESI-D males.

Curious: do you relate to the bits on being goal oriented and liking influence/liking to take charge, or the bits on first standing back and considering/orienting before getting involved, or both?

And heh I think I'm okayish with EIE-D though there are power struggles, but IEI-D is something crazy. I have two IEIs in mind who I'm 100% sure are Ds and we'd drive each other crazy trying to take the initiative. A looot of arguing and fighting when there is disagreement. They want to influence the direction overall when together and even *my* course a lot (because of trying to be too helpful meddling in my affairs lol). There can be agreement too and then it's fine. That actually feels very fine. As long as there is agreement. sigh. It's more than just D power struggles, really, it's got to do with their Ni vs my Ti too, I think.

[FDG]

Curious: do you relate to the bits on being goal oriented and liking influence/liking to take charge, or the bits on first standing back and considering/orienting before getting involved, or both?

Both actually, I have learnt the standing back from the IJ types in my life, I used to meddle with other´s affairs more quickly.

I still am not sure about Viktor´s classification, for him there seems to be more of a divide between traditional business career = D or N; anything else = C / H.

[Myst]

Not EJ 2, it's a spectrum, let's say that EJ 1 is the traditional leader and EJ 0 is a goal driven and natural leader that doesn't lead anyone. What both EJs have in common is that they wanna make desicions, but one of them has no direct influence on people. The scale of 0 - 1 is how much influence you have. So you might be EJ 0.5. Wouldn't you agree that an EJ is more effective if he/she has an influence on people? If you dont care about having an influence, then you might as well follow someone else

Your idea of EJ 0 makes zero sense. Since if someone is *goal driven* (using your wording), that actually means they actually are out there acting to get the goals. And to get to the goals you have to have influence on people. It's not some theoretical thing in the imagination.

[FDG]

That's exactly why I defined EJ as a literal leader in the beginning, but you couldn't relate to that but still said you were EJ. And besides, you can be goal driven without influencing people if you are unsuccessful. It's not a theoretical thing in the imagination, it's a character trait.

But doesn't that depend a lot on environment / skills? Just using myself as example, I've been both a respected contributor, with prizes and so on at some things and a complete failure, fired after 2 days at some others. And I think I´m not the only one being like this.

Some leadership skills also have to do with someone´s natural...energy? In the environment. Some people just have it, they enter a room and they make an impact just by being there.

[Myst]

That's exactly why I defined EJ as a literal leader in the beginning, but you couldn't relate to that but still said you were EJ. And besides, you can be goal driven without influencing people if you are unsuccessful. It's not a theoretical thing in the imagination, it's a character trait.

So you do have an influence on people then? That makes you a leader to a degree. If you're the kind of person that wants to influence people then you're a leader as far as character traits go. But you said you didn't relate to the traditional leader idea, so I'm guessing you don't have a lot of influence. Is that because you've tried and failed, or is it because you don't care that much about controlling people?

I'll say it once more: yes, when I'm actively involved with people for a goal, I do care for and achieve influence to get to the goal. This is substantial to me in my personality and in my drive. So yep call me a leader in terms of that.

But no, I'm not the extraverted leader who's 100% social and extraverted all the time. That is what I cannot relate to. It's because I'm just not extraverted to that degree. I do easily get controlling lol but I'm just not extraverted social like that type of leader. I don't care about the social aspect of control beyond what's strictly required to achieve goals.

This all goes back to that DCNH D Fe question we had originally, lol.

Your question about trying and failing btw is weird, it seems like you are thinking of this in a really black and white manner. Like you can only succeed always or can only fail always. I agree with @FDG about this topic.

EDIT: Maybe we'll get on the same page better if you tell me what you mean by having a lot of influence. For me influence is dynamic, amount of influence in a given moment or situation dynamically varies: it's based on the goal I want to reach. If it needs a lot of influence then I will ensure to achieve a lot of influence and on the other hand if it needs only the recruitment of 1-2 people or recruitment only for a short time, then I will have only as much focus on influence as those 1-2 people or for as short a time as needed. Again, I just can't see this as "always 0 influence" or "always a wide sphere of influence". I just see myself as a person who will go out there and will do whatever they need to get done. And again the social thing. I don't care to be socially popular beyond getting influence for these goals, whatever amount of influence is required in a given moment/situation. Or were you asking about my ability for maximal amount of influence?