• Subtypes: The Empirical Portrait

    [Translator's Note: This is part of a longer article on the DCNH subtypes by Vera Borisova, which can be found here. The following is a description of the four DCNH subtypes. I am still not certain of the translation of the words and phrases which are highlighted in red.]

    1. Dominant
    I came, I saw, I conquered.

    The brightest, most vivid subtype -- within the limits of type, and in general.

    Most similar of all to his type's description. Nuance: the Dominant introvert is more extraverted (especially not in a socionics understanding, but in Eysenck’s understanding, i.e. lively, sociable, and outgoing), but still displays pronounced characteristic features of his type. If the normal introvert, upon getting tired of communicating, will just go "hide in a corner", the Dominant will drive everyone away and still be grumbling loudly, saying, "Everyone keeps walking around here!"

    He is the most realized, especially in the socio-cultural sphere; I think that most famous people, i.e. well-known actors, writers, politicians, etc. fall into the Dominant subtype.
    In a group he is also the most (bright, strong, intelligent -- depending on the base type). The logical is "the most intelligent", the ethical is the most excitable, the sensor occupies the most space. That is, the sphere of his "achievements" and the specific way in which he attracts attention to himself and becomes the leader depends on his type. Dominants take the leadership explicitly, especially if they are ethical, sensing, or extraverted. Logical-intuitives do not always deliberately seek to lead, but must: "so that no idiots can order me around".

    If the Dominant leaves the room, the impression created is that not just one person left, but a large portion of the people.

    Among people of the Dominant subtype, if they are stuck in one group, there is strong competition, even if their intertype relationship is quite comfortable, and there is no serious "reason for fighting".

    The easiest way to say it is that the Dominant, firstly, pulls attention to himself, and secondly, "gives orders". Furthermore, he is blunt, if he uses some sort of manipulation, it is rather crude. Usually he just says what he needs from you. It infuriates everyone except Normalizers. In commanding and giving orders, Dominant does not just give out the task, but also his confidence -- he provides the energy to perform that task. It is possible to "go a long way" on his energy, simply join his initiatives and help him implement them (but, of course, go only in the direction where the Dominant needs you to).

    Strangely enough, the Dominant responds calmly to minor quibbles, to requests (from Normalizing) to adhere to a specific order. And they may even actually adhere to it! If there is no Normalizing nearby, the whole tangled mess is sent to the furnace or into the trash, and all matters.

    In his 1st function the Dominant works "at full steam" and even more. In that sense, it's not just hidden somewhere processing information -- in Dominant it is evident at all times. If this is Te, he is not just busy all the time: he is working on three jobs, and in between speaks and teaches others what they should do. If, however, he does not work, he thinks and does various actions in his imagination, and then, once again, speaks about it, aloud and loudly, with confidence and an air of authority. (For this display, you need to multiply the usual manifestations of the base functions times three)

    If, say, the Dominant is Hamlet [EIE], it is not just emotions, but such emotions from which the whole group "get excited" [Translator's Note: the word here is actually "колбасит" or "sausage", which apparently has some weird slang meanings in Russian], while Hamlet "generally does nothing" and sits quietly.

    Dominant Yesenin [SLE] manages to command what you do.

    Dominant Balzac [ILI] is energetic and rudely sarcastic.

    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".

    2. Creative
    Everyone wants to be unique. I'm not like that.

    This subtype, conversely, is the least similar to the canonical type description. It is the most flexible subtype. It has a strong inclination toward "Mirror", as though the 1st and 2nd functions had switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the extravert to the introvert. And in general all type features in Creative are watered down.

    It seems there is a feeling that with Creative subtype the intertype relationships are also "watered down" -- because he conducts himself "outside the box" by the standards of his type.

    Creative, one way or another, finds himself in the sphere of ideas and creativity, and not necessarily artistic creativity -- it may well be scientific, or a hobby; generally a creative element is introduced into any pursuit, otherwise the Creative is uninterested. If someone else's product falls to him, the Creative will remake it, "upgrade it", rethink it.

    It is easiest to demonstrate Creative in the 2nd function, but in principle, variants are possible. Incidentally, if a product originates from a Dominant it is immediately exposed as show and "hype" -- Creative can easily work "for himself", "on the table" [Translator's Note: this seems to be an idiom meaning "alone" or "at home, in private"], or for a narrow circle of those to whom it may be necessary and/or interesting.

    He does not really understand the various social-relational games, but he does not protest if he gets entagled in such a game.

    Easily stirred, an "odd duck", can act in ways unusual in general and alien to his type in particular (for example, Robespierre, not only going hitchhiking himself, but also sending the wife and children off on/to track/run)

    The Creative is not interested in anything besides that which is truly interesting to him -- in the sense that he ignores everything else (passively or actively). Including people (for Creative logicals -- "those people are boring sheep"). May actively renounce something if it hinders him personally. By this Creative "slips by", since a renounced topic is not important to understand, once it is outside the scope of his interests.

    The attitude to standards in general is negative or indifferent, which is displayed especially clearly in the aspect of role function: that is, Creative does not strive to abide by "generally accepted" standards (At an attempt to wash market fruit, Julia (Balzac) was genuinely surprised -- what for? At my explanations "So they are clean", and that "I may eat unwashed fruit, but it shouldn't be given to a small child unwashed," Julia just waved her hand dismissively.).

    3. Normalizing
    ... He drank very little, he was not rude.
    Such luck, girls, only happens once.
    One thing was perplexing: he will brush his teeth
    And he will never close the tube.
    Well, I did not pay attention at first.
    This man was sent to me from heaven.
    And like a woman I forgave him.
    Everything, even the tube, damn it.
    And he, sketching, sank into nirvana:
    Then suddenly he hugs me - I love you, he says, and that's enough!
    Then suddenly, the mischevious imp, he drags me into the bath
    And there... is the open toothpaste!
    I, like a fool, washed socks.
    Put boullion cubes in soup
    And all I asked, all I pleaded, was:
    "When you've brushed your teeth - close the freaking tube!"
    And he, the pig, as if on purpose:
    "All this, Glasha," he says, "is unimportant."
    Tell me, girls, perhaps it is possible
    To love and shit at the same time?
    And I went out of annoyance to the neighbor.
    Well next to the neighbor's dentures,
    On the shelf a tube of "Blendamedu"
    Lies closed. How delightful!
    [Viktor Tretyakov. Tube.]

    Normalizing, truly, tries to organize everything that is within his sphere of direct action or influence. "All the handles on the pots to one side" -- this quote from the autobiography of Khmelevskoy (about her husband) is ironic, but it certainly describes Normalizing. However, the sphere of organizing has a clear boundary: that which is inside the boundary is "my stuff", "that with which I can be identified". "My house," "my job," etc. "My stuff" must stay in a specific order, established by Normalizing. This order may or may not be obvious to a third-party observer. Regardless of this any violation of order is received painfully, much like a pebble in the shoe.

    Things which symbolize order -- compartment trays, cases with partitions (for screws, for example), sets of identical items (jars of spices, dinnerware), drawers, cabinets, holders, organizers -- bring delight to the Normalizing.

    Any activity Normalizing does begins with establishing order, structure, designation of boundaries, methods and times. He is very efficient and diligent. He is not afraid of monotonous work, "nit-picking", polishing and finishing work begun by someone else. It is difficult for him to begin a matter, but if he "gets into it", the process goes much better. It is more pleasant to work when there is a "defined area", when the initial part has already been done.

    If there is no opportunity to "put things in order", it is possible to remove the perturbing sensation by concluding that the "mess" is beyond the borders of "my stuff". "Other people have a right to as much as much mess as they want, and that's none of my business." This happens when someone else has the right to the territory or activity, or when the activity is shared, but the partner who is opposed to organization protests. Then Normalizing drops into "Whatever you say, I will do" mode, erasing the image of mass chaos from his consciousness by force of will.

    In general, a common way for Normalizing to solve the problem is to withdraw from the situation. For Normalizing, passive denial and inaction are ways of fighting, expressions of protest and disagreement designed to cause a reaction in Dominant; however, it may also simply speak of a lack of energy (interest, time, etc). In that case, Dominant adds more energy (pressure, motivation), and then what it was becomes clear -- either Normalizing will do what Dominant wants from him, or he will completely withdraw from under Dominant's influence (run away).

    In comparison with other subtypes, Normalizing is dull and inexpressive, boring. "Thick-skinned", as the Normalizing-Dominant pair in general is. Inoffensive and passive. His motto is: “Well, we'll see what you turn out to be”.

    He analyzes, weighs, estimates plusses and minuses. By default he leaves much in relationships to the discretion of the partner, though he comes to his own conclusions on the type of "business matters not to work out with this person”, “information not to entrust”, etc. Normalizing's negative relationship is formulated thus: “Do not be connected!”

    Does not strive to participate in competitive struggle, is not ambitious. This does not mean that he does not develop and grow - he fully develops and improves, for example, in professional work; he is diligent, he strives to do his job as well as possible. However, he primarily concedes the sphere of ambition to Dominant, not even trying to compete with him (or with anyone in general). He prefers to be second.

    For Normalizing, cleaning is a means of the removal of discomfort. When “something is wrong”, he begins to clean up in the apartment (the main thing here is not “to clean up dust and mud”, but “to arrange things in their places”).

    With Normalizing-Logicals it is especially noticeable in their houses that each thing has its place, and by default it is put there. The "order” of ethical types is more difficult to track down; however, try to shift anything from place to place in Normalizing's apartment, and immediately - by the reaction of owner - it will become clear that these things don't lie there haphazardly. Moreover Normalizing will not curse or scold, but he will simply move everything “as it should be”, right then and there. Although he might perhaps frown.

    Normalizing calls for compliance to the rules of his own role (other types, of course, also adhere to norms in the region of the role function, but this is more noticeable in Normalizing, especially the requirement of the same from others). For example, Dumas [SEI] is adamant in his desire that guests do not be late, Balzac [ILI] - will make sure that everyone washes their hands before eating, and Jack [LIE] calls for control over emotions: “We're getting a little emotional - that's enough!”

    4. Harmonizing

    Most important is the weather in the house…

    Lively and visible enough; however, in comparison with the classic type description he is “suspiciously” nice. It appears that the negative features of type have no relation to the harmonizing subtype.

    Soft and delicate; although these qualities are somewhat limited by the capabilities of the type. That is, harmonizing ethics - this is truly a very ethical person. He always wants to make sure that all is well. Logicals too. But with logicals for some reason it turns out “he wanted it to be better, but it turned out as always”.

    In contrast to the Normalizing/Dominant dyad, Harmonizing and Creative are comrades with a “delicate structure of the soul”. Especially, of course, Harmonizing: sensitive, suffering, touchy, altruistic, self-sacrificing.

    Like Dominant, he is a connector, that is, he establishes necessary connections with the environment. But where Dominant does so crudely and directly, Harmonizing does so by careful manipulation (he is capable of multiple combinations of manipulation, for the purpose of making another person become well.).

    Monitors social desirability and conforms to it. (“The gentleman is that man who calls a spade a spade, even having stepped on it in the darkness…”) This is especially true of gender stereotypes. Moreover, if Harmonizing has armed himself with a gender stereotype, then he does not simply behave in accordance with it, but brings it to the ideal. This is the Ideal Man (“I've gone to earn money for my beloved! ”) or Ideal Woman.

    For Harmonizing to do something “for himself” -- he does not really want to do it. Now, if it's for a loved one, then -- whatever you want.

    Always ready to help, to meet you halfway, thereby inconveniencing himself. In general, he frequently lives with a sensation of discomfort and stress, and does so consciously. That by itself does not have sufficient value for him. But behold if we do something not very pleasant for someone else - that will be a ponderous Good Deed. Therefore Harmonizers are often doing something with a painful function. When people talk about PoLR as the “secondary creative”, this is about Harmonizing.

    Can't stand it when anyone argues or scolds. Here again he tries to help, to fix the situation, since this very thing makes him feel badly.

    Has an idea of how he must behave, so that others will not feel badly. Evaluates those around him from the point of view of the ethics of their behavior, and seeks to educate them. Suffers greatly, if he himself has committed an act which is not irreproachable.

    Harmonizing finds it difficult to insult people “head on”, to accuse a man, even if he deserved it. Harmonizing either tries to express his displeasure and resentment delicately somehow, or he keeps silent and sulks. Even when it is already obvious that he thinks poorly of someone, he comes across something like this: “I think poorly of you, but for the sake of our good relationship, I will not say anything about it”. As a result, a “delicate hint” from harmonizing can prove to be much more offensive than a direct “hit”.

    For example: “Thanks for the lack of birthday congratulations. It was very nice, ladies and gentlemen.” Dominant would say: “It's my birthday! Quick, everybody congratulate me!” And no problem…

    Or another situation -- a guest has walked in street shoes further than the home owner would like. Dominant puts a stop to this business at the root: you will not have time to enter, you will immediately be told where to remove your boots. (“Where do you think you're going?” they can also say.) Normalizing will mutter to the side: “And why is it that everyone walks in their boots past my wonderful green custom bristly rug, which is is the size of the entire lobby?” (and he himself will rearrange all the shoes to where they must go). Creative - it is not at all certain that he will notice anything; or he will notice, but consider it too unimportant to say anything about it. But Harmonizing will keep silent out of delicacy, but will remember: how could this guest enter in boots, the fiend?!
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Subtypes: The Empirical Portrait (translation) started by Krig the Viking View original post