So, I'm confused about a number of things in DCNH and was wondering if anyone could help me understand.
First, I think I have a strengthened Fe (I'm IEI) which would make me a dominant type. BUT, it says here:---- http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...translation%29 ----that Creative types have an inclination towards mirror...My mirror is EIE whose first function is Fe. So how does that make sense?
Secondly, a creative's strengthened function is supposed to be Se. BUT, a creative is also "ignoring" rather than "connecting" according to the dichotomies. Wheras the dominant is the reverse. Shouldn't having better sensing make you more connecting as you are aware of your enviroment more?
Third, dominants are supposed to be the most like their type...but If you're an IEI, odds are more laid back "creative" sounds closer to home than a "dominantating" personality.
Thanks.
12-11-2011, 04:01 AM
EyeSeeCold
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
DCNH as a static subtype system also contradicts the discreteness of functions and fixed system of types and could only exist as a referential model of energetic social orientation(dominating, creating, normalizing, harmonizing).
I don't know what they believe in the East but I agree DCNH seems very inconsistent.
Dominating IEI - Confident, directive, energetic, controlling. Fe > Ne ESFj/ENFj?
Creating IEI - Inspired, individuating, empowered, reckless. Ne > Fe ENTp?
Normalizing IEI - Insecure, anxious, compliant, disciplined. Ti > Ni INTj/ISTj?
Harmonizing IEI - Unmotivated, dependent, negligent, spiritual. Ni > Ti INFp/INTp?
12-11-2011, 08:04 AM
silke
the trick to becoming unconfused is to ditch DCNH
12-25-2011, 03:37 AM
Wavebury
DCNH=/ 2 suptypes.
Just because you are Fe in 2 subtypes theory doesnt make you D in DCNH, not sure where you got that idea, you could be any DCNH subtype.
12-25-2011, 03:47 AM
717495
I've never used DCNH as it seems kinda overcomplicated to be useful, though I imagine it strengthens the temperament thus the associated function for that type. So for INTp ie.
D-ILI - <Te
C-ILI - <Se
N-ILI - <Fi
H-ILI - <Ni
So given examples of each type and their function emphasis, it's actually possible to type people this way.
I would probably be H or maybe C. Didn't think about it much.
12-25-2011, 04:42 AM
Saberstorm
Somebody clairify the DCNH system for the EIE. In fact, it was the DCNH system that allowed me to settle down on EIE to begin with. I am similar to the IEI and ILI, and some say I am pretty Ti so that would be the LII. However, I am happy with being a Beta EIE C subtype.
Anyway, somebody who knows more than me such as EyeSeeCold or Polikujm, list how you think the DCNH subtypes are for EIE. Please, please, please.
12-25-2011, 03:14 PM
717495
Lol, try asking KrigTheAwryKing. He knows all about this stuff, and is a mod so he's here every day.
12-25-2011, 04:33 PM
Absurd
Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
Lol, try asking KrigTheAwryKing. He knows all about this stuff, and is a mod so he's here every day.
Krig types me LSI so it is not advisable. Almost all alphas on here type me LSI - LIIs and SEIs alike. I have come up with my own system of typing. It's called foolproof. Everybody who types me LSI is actually alpha and there have been a few already.
12-28-2011, 01:09 AM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
Lol, try asking KrigTheAwryKing. He knows all about this stuff, and is a mod so he's here every day.
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:
For some reason, DarkAngelFireWolf69 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 DarkAngelFireWolf69 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Krig types me LSI so it is not advisable. Almost all alphas on here type me LSI - LIIs and SEIs alike. I have come up with my own system of typing. It's called foolproof. Everybody who types me LSI is actually alpha and there have been a few already.
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.
12-28-2011, 01:14 AM
Wavebury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
The 2-subtype system divides types into a Rational subtype and an Irrational subtype.
Really? I thought they divided them by which one of the two ego functions you simply prefer.
For some reason, DarkAngelFireWolf69 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.
This is correct, you and Crispy know more about DCNH than I do, so I hate to sound like a know it all here just saying that in the two subtypes theory it is divided on function, whereas in DCNH it is divided on, extraversion/introversion, and irrationality/rationality.
12-28-2011, 01:26 AM
Saberstorm
So then, as an EIE, how then would these subtypes think/behave? What functions and or Information Elements would they give an additional priority to?
EIE D subtype?
EIE C subtype?
EIE N subtype?
EIE H subtype?
12-28-2011, 01:36 AM
Wavebury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saberstorm
So then, as an EIE, how then would these subtypes think/behave?
Noone knows for sure. There are no available descriptions of them at this point.
Quote:
What functions and or Information Elements would they give an additional priority to?
EIE D subtype?
EIE C subtype?
EIE N subtype?
EIE H subtype?
Way I understand it, DCNH doesnt function on what information elements you prefer, 2 subtypes does. DCNH focuses on behaviors such as introversion/extroversion, it focuses on the behavioral(and not socionical = information processing) aspect of the types. So basically:
EIE-D behaves extroverted and structured*
EIE-C behaves extroverted and unstructured
EIE-N behaves introverted and structured
EIE-H behaves introverted and unstructured
*I replace "rational" with "structured" in big 5 to simplify.
12-28-2011, 01:37 AM
Leader
There are no inconsistencies, because there are no subtypes.
12-28-2011, 01:47 AM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typhon
Really? I thought they divided them by which one of the two ego functions you simply prefer.
Well, there are several different versions of the 2-subtype system. In one version it's the Rational or Irrational function of the Ego which is emphasized, in another it's all Rational functions or all Irrational functions, another version calls it Accepting/Producing instead of Rational/Irrational (although in effect they're the same thing). Furthermore, even those that agree on theory and terminology might disagree on their actual descriptions (Meged and Ovcharov's 2-subtype descriptions often differ from DarkAngelFireWolf69's 2-subtype descriptions, for example). In my opinion, all this confusion is due to people unknowingly trying to fit 4 basic subtypes into a 2 subtype system; people get Rational/Irrational and Extraverted/Introverted subtypes confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saberstorm
So then, as an EIE, how then would these subtypes think/behave? What functions and or Information Elements would they give an additional priority to?
EIE D subtype?
EIE C subtype?
EIE N subtype?
EIE H subtype?
D-EIE emphasizes either Fe or Te. They tend to be very high-energy, very socially dominant, emotionally forceful, driven, and goal-oriented (eg: ******, MLK)
C-EIE emphasizes either Se or Ne. They also tend to be high-energy, but in a more impulsive and unpredictable way (eg: Salvador Dali).
N-EIE emphasizes either Fi or Ti. They tend to have mid-range energy levels, and tend to be more rigid and inflexible (eg: Bono).
H-EIE emphasizes either Si or Ni. They also tend to have mid-range energy levels, and tend to be more soft and fluid and easy-going (eg: Freddie Mercury*).
*Mercury's stage persona is C-EIE.
Even though N and H are introverted and hence low-energy subtypes, since EIE is a high-energy base type, EIE + Introverted Subtype = mid-range energy levels.
12-28-2011, 01:50 AM
Wavebury
For anyonewho cares, I beleive I am H-EIE.
12-28-2011, 01:54 AM
Wavebury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
Well, there are several different versions of the 2-subtype system. In one version it's the Rational or Irrational function of the Ego which is emphasized, in another it's all Rational functions or all Irrational functions, another version calls it Accepting/Producing instead of Rational/Irrational (although in effect they're the same thing). Furthermore, even those that agree on theory and terminology might disagree on their actual descriptions (Meged and Ovcharov's 2-subtype descriptions often differ from DarkAngelFireWolf69's 2-subtype descriptions, for example). In my opinion, all this confusion is due to people unknowingly trying to fit 4 basic subtypes into a 2 subtype system; people get Rational/Irrational and Extraverted/Introverted subtypes confused.
I beleive that most of us who claim two subtypes do not beleive in the version of all rational functions being emphasized, most places where 2 subtypes was popular(ie socionix and that crowd) beleived in the version where only the Ji/Pe or Je/Pi elements where emphasized.
12-28-2011, 01:59 AM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typhon
I beleive that most of us who claim two subtypes do not beleive in the version of all rational functions being emphasized, most places where 2 subtypes was popular(ie socionix and that crowd) beleived in the version where only the Ji/Pe or Je/Pi elements where emphasized.
The Ji/Pe or Je/Pi elements of the Ego, you mean? That would make sense, given their belief that unvalued functions are not expressed in behaviour.
12-28-2011, 02:03 AM
Wavebury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
The Ji/Pe or Je/Pi elements of the Ego, you mean?
Yeah.
12-28-2011, 04:40 PM
glam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
Though if you're going to use subtypes, I'd say ditch DCNH for the time being and adopt a different subtype system. DCNH hasn't been vetted that well yet to know how useful it is and hardly anyone understands it.
the whole point of gooey starting this thread is precisely so she can try to understand it. it's stupid to tell someone not to try and learn about something just because "hardly anyone understands it". this is one of the only places on the internet where people interested in socionics can ask stuff like this, precisely to find out how useful DCNH (or any other theories/hypotheses) may or may not be. there are people like Krig here who are familiar with DCNH, there are DCNH threads and articles out there where people can learn about it, and maybe there are some people who are willing to post their real-life experiences and observations with the various subtypes, etc.
telling people not to learn and research is just advocating regression.
12-28-2011, 08:57 PM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Krig types me LSI so it is not advisable. Almost all alphas on here type me LSI - LIIs and SEIs alike. I have come up with my own system of typing. It's called foolproof. Everybody who types me LSI is actually alpha and there have been a few already.
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.
You piqued my curiosity, so I went back over some of your old threads in the "What's My Type" forum, to see if I could figure out your type. You seem like a fairly obvious ILI. I'm somewhat baffled as to where this idea that you're an ST type came from. ILI explains why I so often find your posts difficult to comprehend (a known problem between Quasi-Identicals), your occasional aggressive tone lends support to you being an Se-valuing type, but on the other hand you seem quite sensitive to Fi-related matters (such as talking about a negative connotation of Holographic types treating members on here like they were baboons or guinea pigs in the other thread, something that would never have occurred to me). ILI seems like a fairly obvious and straightforward typing to me.
12-28-2011, 09:06 PM
Absurd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
You piqued my curiosity, so I went back over some of your old threads in the "What's My Type" forum, to see if I could figure out your type. You seem like a fairly obvious ILI. I'm somewhat baffled as to where this idea that you're an ST type came from. ILI explains why I so often find your posts difficult to comprehend (a known problem between Quasi-Identicals), your occasional aggressive tone lends support to you being an Se-valuing type, but on the other hand you seem quite sensitive to Fi-related matters (such as talking about a negative connotation of Holographic types treating members on here like they were baboons or guinea pigs in the other thread, something that would never have occurred to me). ILI seems like a fairly obvious and straightforward typing to me.
Well, there goes my cover.
12-28-2011, 09:18 PM
EyeSeeCold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
I'm not saying people shouldn't learn and research. I'm just skeptical how fruitful it's going to be investing time & effort into trying to understand a fledgling, weakly developed theory based on dubious premises.
What are those dubious premises? DCNH is not a fledgling theory nor is it weakly developed, it's consistent within itself(though, not as a static subtype system, mind you), it does explain general energetic temperaments, and there have been a fair amount of articles on it, not to mention more then a handful of Socionists use DCNH in typing and Socionics theory development. To be frank, your position is generically presumptuous; even going by what you said as being true of DCNH, a theory in its present state doesn't entail it will always be a lost hope of wasted resources, in fact that is exactly why there is theory development - to excavate potential.
12-31-2011, 01:00 PM
EyeSeeCold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
The systemic problem with DCNH is that no compelling etiological explanation is given for why such subtypes should be expected to occur.
Compelling according to who? It's pretty obvious from sociological observation that in a social sphere of active energy, some people will tend to dominate the interaction with zest and ease, and other people will be shut off, distant and inert. The most important factors in this phenomenon being interest, mastery, opportunity and personality - however, psychological type is temperamentally related due to energy-information metabolism. There's EJ-EP-IJ-IP, so what DCNH really is is a formulation that temperaments exist within temperaments(mildly unrelated, this kind of fractal thinking may be related to DarkAngelFireWolf69's Holographical form of thinking).
DarkAngelFireWolf69 to an extent goes into the reason for his postulation of the DCNH system of subtypes in this excerpt from his article:
1. Проблема внутритипных различий
Почему люди одного типа такие разные? Этот вопрос уже давно волнует каждого здравомыслящего соционика-практика. Почему два носителя одной и той же психологической системы, имеющей одинаковую структуру, демонстрируют в одной и той же ситуации столь непохожие образцы поведения?
Проведите простой эксперимент. Соберите 3—4 человека одного типа, неважно какого именно и специалист какой из школ их определил. Поставьте им какое-либо доступное задание (совместно решить интеллектуальную задачу, разыграть ситуацию и т. п.) и пронаблюдайте за их поведением. И вы увидите, что, несмотря на тождественность типов, одни из них будут более активны, другие более пассивны, одни более находчивые, другие более консервативные и т. д. Самое интересное, что, чем большее количество представителей одного и того же типа вы соберете, тем большее количество различий между ними обнаружите. Таким образом, глубину типологии можно наращивать и дальше.
Even on strictly a priori grounds, DCNH readily falls apart. Since all DarkAngelFireWolf69 does is basically spin 3 new dichotomies out of nowhere, and assume by fiat that they must be valid in the way he says. Then goes on to fabricate 4 subtype orientations based on configurations of the 3 dichotomies he made up. Followed later by yet another invented dichotomy, and a corresponding doubling to 8 subtypes.
In DarkAngelFireWolf69's article on DCNH theory, he explicates the following dichotomous correlations: connecting-ignoring is related to dynamic-static; terminating-initiating is related to rational-irrational; contact-distance is related to extravert-introvert; these were not "spun out of nowhere". He identified properties that were caused by these dichotomies, properties which already existed in types as EJ-EP-IJ-IP, and he merely explained subtypes by an emphasis on a combination of the aforementioned dichotomies.
Quote:
As if that weren't enough, he also grafts some vague notion of an "Energy Type" onto the whole mess, and lays claim that this somehow represents a whole new separate layer of type-dimension which coexists in tandem with one's "Information Type" (or Sociotype). Woah, what?
Although the two theories are in the same vein, this is an irrelevant point to the matter of DCNH having merit and being worthy of study. I don't know why you felt to need to bring it up.
Quote:
Overarching point here being, that DarkAngelFireWolf69 fails to establish any cogent reasoning for justifying why anybody should take DCNH seriously. While the theory may indeed be "consistent within itself" as you proclaim, this is moot considering that the key foundations of the theory are entirely reliant upon disjointed and uncorroborated conjecture.
Not exactly, basically you haven't provided any reason for why DarkAngelFireWolf69's theory of DCNH should be discarded. All you did was describe what he did, there is no fault in invention and hypothesis, this is theory we're arguing with isn't it? So what's the problem? Your personal convictions aren't enough to justify your case.
Quote:
Fine, call it generically presumptuous if you want. I prefer to assess the present utility of a theory for what it is, and discard it if I think its development trajectory is fundamentally flawed—as I suspect DCNH's is, given what I mentioned regarding its problematic foundations.
Well, then that is your preference.
Quote:
Senseless to fawn over "excavating potential" from something that can't be fixed.
If you're going to declare another truth of reality it would help your case to demonstrate and justify that not only does DCNH need fixing, but that it could not be fixed even if anyone tried.
12-31-2011, 05:15 PM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
I see Krig talking about it a lot, and he's said that DarkAngelFireWolf69 regards DCNH subtypes as "Energy Types."
Technically, DarkAngelFireWolf69 came up with the 4-subtype DCNH first, and then later expanded it to 16 subtypes and renamed them "Energy Types". In the process, he also added some ideas which, after careful examination, I don't see any basis for (such as changing the order of the functions, the whole concept of "energy metabolism" vs. "information metabolism", etc.). However, the basic idea of two types co-existing in the psyche (the Jungian Ego and Persona) seems borne out by what I've observed in people.
When I look at the differences between people of the same sociotype, I see certain patterns emerging which match what DCNH predicts. Since your school of thought is founded upon radical mistypings, Ashton, it's to be expected that you wouldn't see the same patterns. In fact, I suspect the primary source of your mistypings is due to the fact that you are unable to distinguish between Ego type and Persona type, resulting in type diagnoses that are a mishmash of the two. MBTI and especially Kiersey have similar problems.
12-31-2011, 05:36 PM
gooey
I'm kind of with Ashton on this one...he makes some really good points as to why DCNH is either unnecessary or taking a BIG leap of faith assuming that another temperament exists within a temperament. Why should this be? Can't we just say some people are more extroverted than others? more irrational? etc. Either way, Krig, could you answer my original questions? I'm interested.
12-31-2011, 06:06 PM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooey
Either way, Krig, could you answer my original questions? I'm interested.
Oh, yeah, sorry. I thought about it, but I guess I didn't actually type it out. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooey
So, I'm confused about a number of things in DCNH and was wondering if anyone could help me understand.
First, I think I have a strengthened Fe (I'm IEI) which would make me a dominant type. BUT, it says here:---- http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...translation%29 ----that Creative types have an inclination towards mirror...My mirror is EIE whose first function is Fe. So how does that make sense?
Secondly, a creative's strengthened function is supposed to be Se. BUT, a creative is also "ignoring" rather than "connecting" according to the dichotomies. Wheras the dominant is the reverse. Shouldn't having better sensing make you more connecting as you are aware of your enviroment more?
Third, dominants are supposed to be the most like their type...but If you're an IEI, odds are more laid back "creative" sounds closer to home than a "dominantating" personality.
Thanks.
The article you linked to was written by someone named Vera Borisova, who I haven't heard of before or since. For some reason, her descriptions combine elements of DarkAngelFireWolf69's DCNH theory, and some other function-based subtype theory. She claims that Dominant strengthens the Base function, Creative strengthens the Creative function, Normalizing strengthens the Role function, and Harmonizing strengthens the Vulnerable function. But that's not DarkAngelFireWolf69's theory at all -- DarkAngelFireWolf69 says that Dominant strengthens Fe and Te, Creative strengthens Se and Ne, Normalizing strengthens Fi and Ti, and Harmonizing strengthens Si and Ni. This occurs regardless of which function these information elements reside in. So Borisova is either misunderstanding DarkAngelFireWolf69, or else she's inventing some other theory of her own.
In any case, the reason I translated her article was that, if you ignore the stuff about the functions, it's still a fairly good description of the 4 DCNH subtypes. Since then, however, I've translated DarkAngelFireWolf69's own extended descriptions of the DCNH subtypes, which are probably a better source: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-(translation)
12-31-2011, 08:05 PM
gooey
okay, this is my other problem with dcnh. when you say strengthened functions like Fe and Te, don't both of these take a backseat to my dominant function (ni)? Or are you strictly speaking about energy as opposed to information? and if you are strictly speaking about energy, doesn't this still throw out a lot of classical socionics understanding? I find it difficult to believe someone could have a strengthened Polr....honestly this would all be so much easier if someone made iei dcnh descriptions...ahem :shifty:
12-31-2011, 08:13 PM
Wavebury
Gooey I understand your question. It deosnt make sense to say things in terms of "strengthened" functions in DCNH. I posted a while ago about how different DCNH subtypes correspond to different cognitive centers of the brain: http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3660...post__p__24281
It doesnt answer your question, but it does simply say that DCNH subtypes simply correspond to different centers of the brain, which seems to be the case anyways, if you read my post. So maybe the DCNH subtypes exist as a prefence for certain lobes of the brain, rather then immediate usage of a fucntion in the here and now.
12-31-2011, 08:59 PM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooey
okay, this is my other problem with dcnh. when you say strengthened functions like Fe and Te, don't both of these take a backseat to my dominant function (ni)? Or are you strictly speaking about energy as opposed to information? and if you are strictly speaking about energy, doesn't this still throw out a lot of classical socionics understanding? I find it difficult to believe someone could have a strengthened Polr....honestly this would all be so much easier if someone made iei dcnh descriptions...ahem :shifty:
DarkAngelFireWolf69 calls them "information type" and "energy type", but I don't think that's quite accurate. In my opinion, it's more useful to look at it as "inner type" or "core type", and "outer type" or "persona". Your inner type (i.e., your base sociotype) is how you think and process information internally. Your outer type is more like a system of learned behaviours, your "pattern" for interacting with the world. So a D-IEI with an emphasis on Fe will still have Ni as his Base Function internally, and Ni will continue to be the basis of his thought process, but his external behaviour will emphasize Fe more than other IEIs do. So it's an IEI consciously or subconsciously (more often subconsciously) trying to project the outward image of a Base Fe type like EIE or ESE. This results in more Dominant behaviour, more assertiveness, more forceful displays of emotion, etc.
A D-IEI with an emphasis on Te, on the other hand, still thinks like an IEI on the inside, but outwardly tries to project the image of a Base Te type like LIE or LSE. This results again in Dominant behaviour, assertiveness, but with a more logical and practical emphasis, efficiency, productivity, etc. However, since the function strengths are still determined by the underlying core type, a Te-D-IEI will never really be "strong" in Te, however much he tries to bluff his way through and project that image. It's like, a small-boned 4'5" man may be able to work out and become stronger, but he'll never be as strong as a big-boned 6'5" man can be.
Classical socionics focuses entirely on the Inner type, the core type, on how people think and process information. It tries to ignore and see through any outer behaviours, to get an idea of what's going on inside the mind. In this way, it has an advantage over MBTI and Kiersey, which don't distinguish between internal thought processes and external behaviour, and consequently diagnose types in an inconsistent and jumbled way. What DCNH and further subtype systems are doing is taking a look at all this external behavioural stuff, and classifying it into types as well.
12-31-2011, 09:33 PM
gooey
interesting stuff...this is the best explanation i've heard. thanks! think you could break down a C-iei? i'm trying to figure out what my dcnh type would be. the only reference I have is a friend of mine who is also iei...he is more outgoing than me perhaps, reads more than i do, is more assertive towards authority figures, and goes up to people all the time to talk to them...i on the other hand, am outgoing in the sense that I "go out" more than he does but am inclined to shut my self off from the world during certain times...when learning about socionics for example, i was in in that mode for months trying to figure out my type..i'm also massively interested in philosophy..he isn't..all this makes me think i'm a c-type but i relate too much to the whole "goal itching in the back of his head thing" for the d-type...that's like the definition of me so i feel like i can't ignore it, hence why i've had trouble with this system
12-31-2011, 09:35 PM
gooey
goddammit...ashton made another good point...this sucks! who to believe?! :confused:
01-02-2012, 08:16 PM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
I don't think Jung ever distinguishes either of those as types unto themselves. In the Jungian view, the Ego is more or less what one consciously regards as their identity, while the Persona is an outwardly-directed conscious adaptation to prevailing social environs; the Persona is part of the Ego but not necessarily coincident with it, though the lines between the two can blur to an extent, in some more than others.
Whereas type is conceived as something distributed across both the conscious + complementary unconscious aspects of the psyche; indeed, he cautions quite a bit against attributing type based on outward appearances and ostensible behaviors. Which would make the DCNH practice of "persona-typing" all the more suspect.
I concur for the most part with your description. For Jung, the Personality Type was associated with the Ego and possibly the Personal Unconscious, but not the Collective Unconscious. He cautioned against attributing type based on outward appearances and behaviours, because those things can be strongly affected by the Persona. For example, an EII businessman may try to project the image of someone who is more active, outgoing, and efficient. Is it really such a stretch to hypothesize that this EII businessman is actually trying to project the image of a different Personality Type, an LIE for example? It's entirely consistent with Jung's theory, in my opinion, and seems like a natural extension of it.
The only (possible) disagreement I have with Jung is that, based on my observations, I think the Persona is a bit more deeply-rooted than the impression one gets from his descriptions of it. It's my impression that the basic Persona forms during early childhood, and while it grows and develops like everything else as one matures, the basic form doesn't seem to change.
In Nature vs. Nurture, it seems to me that the Persona Type is the part of the psyche most affected by Nurture, one's upbringing and life experiences, while the Ego Type seems to be inborn, determined by Nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
Oh come on now, you have no basis proving that as some kind of obvious given. I have just as much justification to allege that your approach is founded upon radical mistypings, and that's why you see these "certain patterns emerging" matching DCNH.
Well yeah, obviously. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong. That tends to be the case when people have mutually exclusive beliefs about reality. I'm not sure I see the problem here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
I think adding Persona Types to the mix just introduces unnecessary complications that are likely to be misleading, and inevitably gives too much interpretative leeway to rationalize unrealistic typings. I mean, even the basic 16 types are problematic enough in this respect. And while I'm okay with the basic 32-subtypes approach (2 subtypes per type), when you start getting into 64-subtype and 256-subtype models, it becomes too cumbersome to apply accurately. You're micromanaging too many individual differences at that point and attempting to explain too much with too great of specificity; it's beyond a predictive scope at which socionics typology can be expected to obtain meaningful results.
As theories grow into broader and increasingly all-encompassing contrivances, they are more likely to be wrong.
I couldn't care less whether DCNH and Persona Types make it easier or more difficult to diagnose type. The truth is all that matters. If Persona Types exist, then they must be accounted for. If Persona Types don't exist, then it's a waste of time to think about them. Based on my observations, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Persona Types do in fact exist, which makes the study of them a worthwhile pursuit.
That said, I find that being aware of DCNH and Persona types actually makes type diagnosis much easier. There's more of a learning curve, obviously, but by being able to classify behaviours related to the Persona, it makes it easier to distinguish between those behaviours, and the underlying internal thought processes that make up the core type. By doing so, you can also build up an understanding of exactly what the range of normal behaviour for each core type is. Subject A is moderately more outgoing than Subject B, but both claim to be LII. Is Subject A actually an Extravert, or does his level of outgoingness still fit within the range of possible LII behaviour? DCNH helps clarify the answer to that, which would otherwise be left up to a nebulous combination of intuition and guesswork.
01-02-2012, 10:24 PM
Shazaam
I read Krig's post. It's like I can't connect any of this to something physical or relatable. I see myself as being all types depending on the situation. I am sort of heavily influenced by my environment, maybe everybody is that way. I can be dominant and confident and also shy and timid, depending on the circumstance. Socionic typing works better for me, because like Gilly said one time, the functions are already so intertwined in nature anyway.
Quote:
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…
I get your point but I think this is a bad example. To me, a dominant type would say something Hollywood narcissistic-like that is hard to defend or argue against/confront, and would require a lot of wit and know-how if you want to debate it, whereas 75% of the population would agree with it out of fear (and also wanting to belong and be 'one of the cool ones') or would just sort of midwestern drool at it. Then another dominant type might challenge it and the way the two would see who would win or not would be a simple popularity contest, they'd gather the energy from as much other people as they possibly could.
This is essentially how politics work.
I like what Krig said about when a dominant type leaves it's like everybody else did.
01-06-2012, 03:38 AM
gooey
Krig, I love you bud. You've been very helpful and kind to me...but I think Ashton (And others) are correct. What threw up a red flag for me were some strange typing's of IEIs you had like John Lennon and Michael Moore. If DCNH can be used to validate that these two are IEIs...then it simply doesn't work in my opinion. Added to this, types within types? It's kind of a stretch...can't we just say people are inconsistent? Also, DCNH not only moves WAY past Jung as Ashton stated above, but it sort of contradicts model A in some very key ways and has no real reason for existing that I can see.
The main thing though, honestly, is that I just don't see it. I can see how I've been all four of those "subtypes" at one point in time or another, depending on the situation. And I bet many people can as well, if they really think about it. The reason I think the 2 sub system is much better is that, thus far, every time I've looked at the people I've typed and checked out the 2 sub-descriptions, BAM! perfect fit. Only once have I met someone that could have been a "split" as they call it (literally a perfect combo of the 2 descriptions). Also, judging from various people's use of DCNH on this site and others (using lingo like "possibly D" or "perhaps N"), it just seems obvious to me that the system is a bit confusing, convoluted, and most importantly, not clearly visible in any way I can see...thus making it a bit worthless. I really like that you're passionate about it though, and are willing to study it so much and promote it to others. Unfortunately, I'm unconvinced.
01-06-2012, 05:49 AM
EyeSeeCold
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooey
The reason I think the 2 sub system is much better is that, thus far, every time I've looked at the people I've typed and checked out the 2 sub-descriptions, BAM! perfect fit.
That's a problem, if it's a perfect fit every time.
01-06-2012, 06:12 AM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
Jung never said nor implied in any way that the Persona could be a type unto itself. Which means this sham you're proffering attesting to the "Jungian-esque" nature of 'Persona Types' is inconsistent with Jungian Typology.
Of course Jung never said nor implied such things. He also didn't say anything about quadras or inter-type relations. They're natural extensions of his theory, as I suggest persona types are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
The whole business of "type personas" is ridiculous supposition, because it means that an EII person "acting LIE", would necessarily possess accurate foreknowledge of what it's essentially like to be LIE, in order to put on a compelling LIE act. Adding to that, we have the rely on the perceptual acuity of the person's doing the type diagnosis, that the behaviors they believe they're seeing are really "LIE" behaviors." Again, another layer of ridiculous supposition.
I suppose it would all seem pretty ridiculous to someone who thinks the unvalued functions are not expressed in behaviour, yes. Your arguments would be quite convincing if I agreed with your foundational assumptions about the nature of the Information Elements. Since I don't, however, this discussion is about as productive as debating Intertype Relations with someone who uses the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. It just devolves into another boring debate about the basics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
So, the "truth" is all that matters, even if acceptance of this "truth" makes observation and verification of said "truth" more intrinsically difficult? :thinking: Sounds like quite an epistemic tangle you've got yourself in there.
I find your argument perplexing. It's like arguing that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle makes quantum physics more intrinsically difficult to observe and verify, therefore Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle must not be true. Whether something is easy or difficult to observe and verify has no bearing on whether it's true or false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
Lo! One must wonder then what your magical methodology is for separating out "Persona Types" from "Socionics IM Types."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
Still curious what your magic tricks are for separating out one's "DCNH Persona" from their actual Socionics IM type, without mistaking one for the other.
First you distinguish between a person's outward behaviour and appearances, and his internal thought processes. Then you categorize his internal thought processes, arriving at his core sociotype. Everything up to this point is identical to the normal process for diagnosing sociotype. The only difference is that you go a step further, and also categorize the person's outward behaviour and appearances which don't relate to his core sociotype.
Obviously, this won't work using your version of socionics, since we disagree on fundamental things like "What is Fi?" It's like trying to discuss the orbital velocity of Mars with someone who thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I imagine the feeling is much the same on your end, too. So what exactly is the point of this discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooey
Krig, I love you bud. You've been very helpful and kind to me...but I think Ashton (And others) are correct. What threw up a red flag for me were some strange typing's of IEIs you had like John Lennon and Michael Moore. If DCNH can be used to validate that these two are IEIs...then it simply doesn't work in my opinion.
For the record, my conclusion that they were each IEI happened long before I ever thought about what subtypes they might be. They're also fairly common typings, as far as I know. What do you type them as?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooey
Added to this, types within types? It's kind of a stretch...can't we just say people are inconsistent? Also, DCNH not only moves WAY past Jung as Ashton stated above, but it sort of contradicts model A in some very key ways and has no real reason for existing that I can see.
How does it contradict Model A? I'm unaware of this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooey
The main thing though, honestly, is that I just don't see it. I can see how I've been all four of those "subtypes" at one point in time or another, depending on the situation. And I bet many people can as well, if they really think about it. The reason I think the 2 sub system is much better is that, thus far, every time I've looked at the people I've typed and checked out the 2 sub-descriptions, BAM! perfect fit. Only once have I met someone that could have been a "split" as they call it (literally a perfect combo of the 2 descriptions).
Interestingly, I'm just the opposite: I find the 2-subtype descriptions to be vague and sometimes contradictory, depending on whose descriptions I'm using. I find DCNH much more specific and useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooey
Also, judging from various people's use of DCNH on this site and others (using lingo like "possibly D" or "perhaps N"), it just seems obvious to me that the system is a bit confusing, convoluted, and most importantly, not clearly visible in any way I can see...thus making it a bit worthless. I really like that you're passionate about it though, and are willing to study it so much and promote it to others. Unfortunately, I'm unconvinced.
We all have to draw our conclusions based on the evidence we have available to us. The evidence I have access to points pretty clearly to the validity and usefulness of DCNH, but I guess the evidence you're working from doesn't show the same patterns. I appreciate that you at least have an open mind to explore new ideas, at least. This forum would be a better place if everyone were like that...
01-06-2012, 07:05 AM
gooey
thanks! :D Umm...well, Lennon is probably an ENFj...maybe ENTp, but very doubtful in my opinion. On second thought, a case for Lennon being IEI could be made... Moore is not an iei...I don't know what he is...but, not iei. Well, as far as it contradicting model A, I was pointing to the "strengthening" of certain functions that are supposed to be inherently weaker, such as an IEI having strong Te or whatever...I just don't see how that makes sense. And yeah, I know DCNH is supposed to be more based on energy not information, but the thing is, all these symbols (:Te:,:Ne:,:Fi:,:Ni:, etc.) are primarily based on BOTH information AND energy. So how would someone have strong :Te:, not information-wise, but energy-wise? The two are, by definition, tied together.
Plus, the whole theory basically came about when it was noticed that people of the same type who are together in a room will have different roles when asked to do...whatever. This is hardly a surprise. I think people naturally adjust and adapt to other people and situations all the time...and this is basically what occurred in these little experiments they tried. Notice also, that DarkAngelFireWolf69 talks of how the more people of the same type you get into the room, the more different they appear from each other...hmm, interesting..hence...more subtypes! 8! then 16! then 32! 64!...I mean, it just seems that when it gets to that level of magnification...it's just obvious that people are just...different. Particularly if you can just keep going on and on and on forever practically. DarkAngelFireWolf69 even basically stated that DCNH is really only necessary when people of the same type are in a room together and need to get something done or whatever. Otherwise, I find it difficult to tell who's who. In addition to all of this, subtypes can lead to a very slippery slope in that they can be used to justify very bizarre typings..so i just feel, as a decent rule of thumb, trying to use the most basic form of typing is perhaps best.
01-06-2012, 07:23 AM
Radio
Here's a simple way to understand DCNH.
D (contact, terminal, connecting) = EJ (extrovert, rational, dynamic)
C (contact, initial, ignoring) = EP (extrovert, irrational, static)
N (distant, terminal, ignoring) = IJ (introvert, rational, static)
H (distant, initial, connecting) = IP (introvert, irrational, dynamic)
So C-IEI is IEI with EP temperament, D-IEI is IEI with EJ temperament...
You can see where this is leading (hint: it's down the bog).
If you're IEI you are dynamic, irrational and introverted = IP temperament, period.
01-06-2012, 11:02 AM
EyeSeeCold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio
Here's a simple way to understand DCNH.
D (contact, terminal, connecting) = EJ (extrovert, rational, dynamic)
C (contact, initial, ignoring) = EP (extrovert, irrational, static)
N (distant, terminal, ignoring) = IJ (introvert, rational, static)
H (distant, initial, connecting) = IP (introvert, irrational, dynamic)
So C-IEI is IEI with EP temperament, D-IEI is IEI with EJ temperament...
You can see where this is leading (hint: it's down the bog).
If you're IEI you are dynamic, irrational and introverted = IP temperament, period.
Sure, you've got it. These properties under DCNH theory are strengthened according to social role. Four IEIs together in one social sphere will be either more Ej, more Ep, more Ip, or more Ij.
What makes a type have a certain temperament(e.g. Ej) is fixed structurally, but that doesn't mean a person is always dynamically active in the physically energetic sense. What stays the same is the type of energy-information perceived, but not manifested or produced.
01-06-2012, 04:19 PM
gooey
"If you're IEI you are dynamic, irrational and introverted = IP temperament, period."
This.
01-11-2012, 02:21 AM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
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 DarkAngelFireWolf69'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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
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 DarkAngelFireWolf69 said so." This isn't very compelling reasoning to support it.
Alas, you have failed to understand the analogy. :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
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… :thinking:
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.
02-09-2012, 06:43 AM
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
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.
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. :p
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:
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:
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:
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.
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...
03-25-2014, 07:32 PM
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.
03-25-2014, 09:09 PM
woofwoofl
bwahahaha, let's raise lots of fractions to the power of different fractions and see what happens
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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:
Yes, this looks a hell of a lot more sensible, and yes, all the shit adds up like it did last time!
03-26-2014, 12:21 AM
Pookie
I could be wrong though, Woof. I just am shit at my role. No effective social mask whatsoever
08-06-2017, 10:21 PM
Shytan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
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:
For some reason, DarkAngelFireWolf69 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 DarkAngelFireWolf69 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?
08-07-2017, 09:49 PM
Krig the Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaebette
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.
