The DCNH subtype model

[1981slater]

I was wondering if there is a link between being the elder/middle/younger brother and the DCNH subtype. After 20 seconds of reflection, I conclude there isn't.

[Gilly]

Nothing leads me to believe that any such correlation exists, but as far as archetypes go:

Older: D, N
Middle: H, N
Youngest: C

[1981slater]

Nothing leads me to believe that any such correlation exists, but as far as archetypes go:

Older: D, N
Middle: H, N
Youngest: C

Yes, I am the elder and D. Then I realized most of the D I know are middle/younger too. So I discarded this theory!!!!!!!

[Jonathan]

There's been a lot of interest in DCNH lately. I'm not convinced that DCNH has any validity, but I am interested in how it may affect different typings. For example, take the old-time classic example of someone who appears to be Alpha, NT club, and Ip temperament. In classical Socionics, one of those assumptions must "slip":
* ILI (not really Alpha)
* LII or ILE (not really Ip)
* SEI (not really NT)
* IEI or EII (combination)

But with DCNH, one can really just pick ILI or ILE and slap an "H" onto it. Typing-wise, it's like having your cake and eating it too...almost as good as dual type theory when you're not sure between two types for a person.

So this thread is to explore...
* What people (famous or otherwise) might you retype if you can throw a D/C/N/H onto the type to clear up any ambiguities?
* To what extent does a person through DCNH take on elements of another type/quadra. For example, to what extent would an ILE-H or LII-H act like an ILI or IEI and use Ni, Te, or Fe more than other Alpha NTs?

[Nowisthetime]

There's been a lot of interest in DCNH lately. I'm not convinced that DCNH has any validity, but I am interested in how it may affect different typings. For example, take the old-time classic example of someone who appears to be Alpha, NT club, and Ip temperament. In classical Socionics, one of those assumptions must "slip":
* ILI (not really Alpha)
* LII or ILE (not really Ip)
* SEI (not really NT)
* IEI or EII (combination)

But with DCNH, one can really just pick ILI or ILE and slap an "H" onto it. Typing-wise, it's like having your cake and eating it too...almost as good as dual type theory when you're not sure between two types for a person.

So this thread is to explore...
* What people (famous or otherwise) might you retype if you can throw a D/C/N/H onto the type to clear up any ambiguities?
* To what extent does a person through DCNH take on elements of another type/quadra. For example, to what extent would an ILE-H or LII-H act like an ILI or IEI and use Ni, Te, or Fe more than other Alpha NTs?

The assumptions here sound a little artificial to me. In real life there are more things involved, including my own reactions to the person when we interact. I don't see how it could be possible to confuse an ILI and ILE in a real situation after interacting with the person for some time.

But, I have noticed that for example H-SEIs can be quite philosophical. Here is a fresh facebook status update from an H-SEI whom I know quite well.

"I am no longer the sum of all those words I have collected over decades. I am now throwing away all my notes and unsent letters, I no longer have to remind myself to remember what doesn't fit into my mind by itself. And if I am carrying in one hand all that I have saved over time, in my other hand I carry loss and sorrow. And they are both worth the same." (my translation)

(The person is married to her dual since 2 years, they have just bought a home)

[Aleksei]

I use DCNH rather extensively, so I can't think of anyone I could retype assuming DCNH -- it's already a factor.

As for your example, I'd not be surprised if the subject in question were an SEI, rather than H-NT -- the temperaments have some amount of validity, but the relevance of clubs in typing seems pretty low.

[Jonathan]

But, I have noticed that for example H-SEIs can be quite philosophical

Well, from a practical standpoint, how do you know that someone is an H-SEI, as opposed to any other kind of SEI? From my limited understanding, an H-SEI would just be the most "standard" kind of SEI, because that would mean that the person's temperament (Ip) matches the DCNH (H).

[Aleksei]

My experience is the standard SEI is a C, not an H. SEI has an inherently ambiverted bias -- the reason for that probably being that Si isn't truly as introverted as you might think.

[Jonathan]

My experience is the standard SEI is a C, not an H. SEI has an inherently ambiverted bias -- the reason for that probably being that Si isn't truly as introverted as you might think.

C is by definition emphasis on Se or Ne, right? So a C-SEI is one who either somehow emphasizes the dual function Ne, or the ignoring function Se (or both?)?

How can standard SEI be C, unless what Socionics calls Si should have been called Se?

[Aleksei]

C is by definition emphasis on Se or Ne, right? So a C-SEI is one who either somehow emphasizes the dual function Ne, or the ignoring function Se (or both?)?

Not quite. DCNH identifies motivational/behavioral tendencies (developed by Gulenko) that bear passing resemblance to the IM elements they're modeled after, but aren't connected to them. DCNH does not strengthen IM elements, as these tendencies can be activated through the use of other elements. DCNH Se-subtype denotes impulsivity; Ne subtype denotes a creative/visionary streak.

How can standard SEI be C, unless what Socionics calls Si should have been called Se?

Actually, yes. In MBTI circles a point of confusion regarding Socionics Si is that it includes numerous tendencies that Jung and Myers identified as Se. And while there is an argument for why these areinternal (they refer to internal sensations), they still correspond to C-ish behaviors -- particularly impulsivity (Manifests, generally, as gluttony).

[Jonathan]

Not quite. DCNH identifies motivational/behavioral tendencies (developed by Gulenko) that bear passing resemblance to the IM elements they're modeled after, but aren't connected to them. DCNH does not strengthen IM elements, as these tendencies can be activated through the use of other elements. DCNH Se-subtype denotes impulsivity; Ne subtype denotes a creative/visionary streak.

Okay, I may have been a little confused by the fact that the article is auto-translated, and that they show IM symbols next to each DCNH letter.

However, I think I read clearly this part:

Strengthening the linear-assertive functions , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D).
Strengthening of the mobile-flexible functions leads to the appearance of a creative subtype (C).
Strengthening of the balanced-stable functions gives a normalizing subtype (N).
Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions engenders a harmonizing subtype (H).

That really sounds as if he's talking about about strengthening of actual functions. But suppose he weren't...then isn't that like saying that the qualities normally attributed to the IM elements don't have to be attributed to them? In other words, all the behaviors that we think of as being caused by the IM elements could also be caused without them....in which case, what use are the IM elements?

For example, H according to Gulenko is associated with distant, initiating, connecting. But the definitions of those sounds a lot like introverted, perceiving, dynamic.

If these aren't attributed to the IM elements, then what are they to be attributed to? One then has a dichotomous model whereby certain behaviors are hypothesized to be caused by certain things called IM elements, but those same behaviors (or extremely similar ones) are not hypothesized to be caused by anything in particular, but just "are." That's what I have trouble with.

Actually, yes. In MBTI circles a point of confusion regarding Socionics Si is that it includes numerous tendencies that Jung and Myers identified as Se. And while there is an argument for why these areinternal (they refer to internal sensations), they still correspond to C-ish behaviors -- particularly impulsivity (Manifests, generally, as gluttony).

Right...and my problem with it is that to the extent that Si is seen as awareness of the external environment around one, it seems both extraverted and static, which bothers me a bit...but that's another issue.

[Nowisthetime]

But, I have noticed that for example H-SEIs can be quite philosophical

Well, from a practical standpoint, how do you know that someone is an H-SEI, as opposed to any other kind of SEI? From my limited understanding, an H-SEI would just be the most "standard" kind of SEI, because that would mean that the person's temperament (Ip) matches the DCNH (H).

I know lots of SEIs. From spending time with them I noticed the DCNH pattern (after reading Gulenko, of course). So by comparing different persons of the same type the subtype-pattern appears in practice. I don't see it as a problem. To determine the subtype without knowing many persons of the same type would be difficult, though.

Calling someone a standard SEI is just a matter of terminology from my point of view. I see the subtypes as equal.