You can easily prove that! Just tell me the DCNH type of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit...Originally Posted by tuturututu
It is due to confirmation bias. But in this case I'm sure of the correlation I described...
True.
I cannot do that because, in my opinion, in most of people, DCNH subtype is changeable. Therefore making absolute DCNH categorization of all people quite futile. Of course, you can categorize them once and for all in an absolute way, by spliting DCNH continuum into two, perhaps 50-50, categories. However, given that people are (so it seems) normaly distributed on DCNH dichotomy continuums it often makes the task futile(EDIT: 02/06/2010 - or not). DCNH relativity level is just repulsing. Only place where it's proper is the place where all relativity is proper => regarding relations between objects.You can easily prove that! Just tell me the DCNH type of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit...
Last edited by Trevor; 02-06-2010 at 08:28 PM.
I don't try to standardize V.I. of the 16 main types. I just try to standadize V.I. of DCNH types.
If you think my observations are wrong - tell us the DCNH types of 10 celebrities where it doesn't fit!
I fail to grasp the implication.
We don't need to lead the same discussion in two threads...
People of different types look different. That's why V.I. is possible (besides facial expressions and body language).
People of the same type but different subtype will look different, too. If that wasn't the case we shouldn't use the term subtype.
If DCNH is right different DCNH types will look different.
You presume subtype implies it's unchangeable *and* outwardly visible.
Authors of the theory don't. They allow for the possibility of subtype change.
It is well-known to all that the structure of the psyche is mobile. How to correlate this truth about the dynamics of personality with respect to the fixedness of a sociotype through the stretches of time? There are, thus far, no sufficiently valid answers to this regular question in the existing socionics literature, but within the framework of our theory it is possible to answer it as follows. Subtype is capable of evolving. It is a semi-rigid formation, which can change under spontaneous environmental effects or through goal-directed training. The rate of change is small however: for the explicit change of subtype many years are necessary. Apparently if this does occur, then not more than 1-2x times during a person’s life.
Change, in essence, originates from and revolves around the scale “Ignoring-Connecting”. If you, investigating the psychological type of an individual, reveal that this scale is not determined, this means that man is in an intermediate state. But if a similar state according to one reason or another remains for a long time, then appears the fifth subtype – transitional. We will designate it 0.
You probably noticed that the DCNH system described in this article from 1995 is not the same as the DCNH system Gulenko describes in an article from 2006 (D and H are switched). Gulenko might be wrong with his idea of changing subtype, too...
Which isn't enough to conclude that subtype "must be" related to permanent physical traits.
Just type enough people and you will see...
Next example: ESE.
I apologize for using german politicians and Formula 1 drivers again but it's hard to find American examples I'm sure of....
D-ESE (round face): Juan-Pablo Montoya (Formula 1, Nascar)
C-ESE (oval face): Gerhard Schröder (former German Chancellor)
N-ESE (rectangular face): David Coulthard (Formula 1)
H-ESE (square face): Rubens Barrichello (Formula 1)
ＡＣＴＵＡＬＬＹ it might be that subtype can change along with changes in facial structure． why not？ ppl's faces ｏｆｔｅｎ ｄｏ ｃｈａｎｇｅ ａｓ ｔｈｅｙ ｇｅｔ ｏｌｄｅｒ．people's strength in lower numbered functions also tend to grow stronger with age. the two phenomena could be interrelated. changes in facial structure may be indicators and products of changes in the body and brain. it's not a large leap of logic. it's definitely plausible. if someone smiles more and more often over the course of a few years as a result of life changes and changes in mood, that is going to strengthen and muscularize their jaw bone, and create 'smile lines'. if someone moves into a new job that requires them to be alert to and concentrate on small visual details (air traffic control for instance), over time, the muscles around their eyes, and the contours around the eye will change slightly as a product of adaptation. if one has a job that requires analysis of large amounts of complex data, they may take on a furrowed brow look over the years....feedback and feedforward processes may account for the underlying neurophysiological mechanism.
why exactly strengthening of functions causes roundness/squareness/ovalness/rectangularness is hard to say, but don't dismiss the pattern just because there doesn't seem to be a logical or clear reason for it. that doesn't mean a reason does not exist.
this seems absolutely crazy to me (although my husband's face does look the most like the D-ESE example in this thread).
IEI-Fe 4w3
In other words, a person who has been developing his or her superego function can look like his or her superego, and can even attract peeps from conflicting quadras.
Awesome for mass confusion, but taxing for self.
She is wiseWhy I love LSEs:
beyond words
beautiful within
her soul
brighter than
the sun
lovelier than
love
dreams larger
than life
and does not
understand the
meaning of no.
Because everything
through her, and in her, is
"Yes, it will be done."
A couple years ago I was put in charge of decorating the college for Valentine's Day. I made some gorgeous, fancy decorations from construction paper, glue, scissors, and imagination. Then I covered a couple cabinets with them. But my favorite was the diagram of a human heart I put up. So romantic!
D-LIE (round face): Josef Ackermann, German top manager
C-LIE (oval face): Silvio Berlusconi, Italian Prime Minister
N-LIE (rectangular face): George H.W. Bush
H-LIE (square face): Bill Gates
And I'm still waiting for examples which disprove the pattern!!
Last edited by JohnDo; 01-12-2010 at 03:05 AM.
Another person who thinks Bill Gates is an LIE. Thank you for existing.
And I'm still waiting for examples which disprove the pattern!!
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Is it the boy from The Sixth Sense? I know neither his name nor his type but if you mean his facial structure changed - it looks oval and oval to me. Adults have broader faces than children, of course...
DCNH Theory - Behavioral Differences
Can't seem to pinpoint my subtype, whether I'm creative or harmonizing.
I know for a fact that I'm initiating - clearly expressed irrationality, no doubt in my mind... but I'm unsure about the degree of extraversion/introversion and (especially) connecting/ignoring.
I can't do it in accepting/producing subtype form either... Wikisocion seems to be a little vague to me, since I can identify fairly well with both - or think I do, anyway.
What is the observable disparity between them? What kind of situations would they act differently in, and what exactly would they do differently?
I'm an SLI, 9w8-5w6-2w3 sx/sp, by the way.
Determining your subtype is only reliable if you already know enough people of your own main type. If you know 5 SLIs for sure you can compare them, determine their subtypes and determine your own subtype.
If you are the only SLI you know for sure subtyping is a rather pointless exercise.
If you are not even sure of your main type - don't think about subtypes.
You could post some pictures so that we can verify your typing...
do you have more of a square jaw or a sesame seed shaped jaw?
going by JohnDo's VI method...
square jaw*/ square face =creative
sesame seed jaw/ oval face =harmonizing
*rectangular faces can also have square jaws, but of course they have longer faces
Last edited by xixi; 02-15-2010 at 07:52 AM.
lol
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
No, that's wrong. My method is a bit more complicated. It's not really a method but rather a discovery btw....
base - round
creative - square
demonstrative -oval
ignoring - rectangular
A C-LII has a square face, a H-LII an oval face. But that's only for Ixxj!
His self-typing is ISTp.
base function:--- harmonizing subtype --- round face
creative function:--- dominant subtype --- square face
demonstrative function:--- normalizing subtype --- oval face
ignoring function:--- creative subtype --- rectangular face
I have a friend who's an ISTp.
Compare? When you say it like that, I have noticed that he's more contained than I am. I'm the one who likes speculating and joking around and what not, and he's usually the one who just listens and laughs at what people say (when he's not drunk or high, anyway...)
I guess this points more toward creative subtype for me.
I posted some pictures a while back but deleted them, too lazy right now to post them again.
Going by your system, I would be a creative or normalizing subtype, and my friend would be of a harmonizing subtype.No, that's wrong. My method is a bit more complicated. It's not really a method but rather a discovery btw....
base - round
creative - square
demonstrative -oval
ignoring - rectangular
A C-LII has a square face, a H-LII an oval face. But that's only for Ixxj!
His self-typing is ISTp.
base function:
creative function:
demonstrative function:
ignoring function:
How have you come to these conclusions, though?
I'm more than a little skeptical, in all honesty, but I'm no expert.
It is not an acknowledged method but I discovered this pattern by typing dozens of people.
...square face means having strengthened creative function, but that doesn't mean 'creative subtype'...No, that's wrong. My method is a bit more complicated. It's not really a method but rather a discovery btw....
base - round
creative - square
demonstrative -oval
ignoring - rectangular
A C-LII has a square face, a H-LII an oval face. But that's only for Ixxj!
His self-typing is ISTp.
base function:
creative function:
demonstrative function:
ignoring function:
harmonizing/dominant/etc...is not defined as the position of the strengthened function, but its nature...
Last edited by xixi; 02-24-2010 at 07:18 AM.
True (if you ask me)...
True. DCNH subtype is defined by the strengthened function, not by its position.
The problem is that shape of face seems to depend not only on the strenthened function but also on its position.
DCNH --- Visual Identification
Aiss is of the opinion that I never explained what I mean by a "roundish" or a "longish" face e.g.
Here are some pictures of persons who where typed by Ekaterina Filatova. I'll subtype them by their facial structure to illustrate what I mean when I'm talking about a "rectangular face" or something like that. See Visual Identification of Subtypes.
Sooner or later this approach might help to find doppelgängers more easily. The problem is that one picture is not in all cases enough because the facial structure can be difficult to determine sometimes. So yes, I probably will make some mistakes but with more pictures it would be reliable. I'll start with roundish/longish...
SEI \ ISFp
roundish:
longish:
ILE \ ENTp
roundish:
longish:
LII \ INTj
roundish:
longish:
Last edited by JohnDo; 09-07-2010 at 05:58 AM.
ESE \ ESFj
roundish:
longish:
LSI \ ISTj
roundish:
longish:
EIE \ ENFj
roundish:
longish:
[/B]
IEI \ INFp
roundish:
longish:
SLE \ ESTp
roundish:
longish:
ILI \ INTp
roundish:
longish:
Last edited by JohnDo; 09-09-2010 at 11:44 AM.
SEE \ ESFp
roundish:
longish:
ESI \ ISFj
roundish:
longish:
LIE \ ENTj
roundish:
longish:
My opinion is that given there is no criteria offered for these typings, they are mostly useless.
EII \ INFj
roundish:
longish:
LSE \ ESTj
roundish:
longish:
SLI \ ISTp
roundish:
Last edited by JohnDo; 09-09-2010 at 11:49 AM.
IEE \ ENFp
roundish:
longish:
Last edited by JohnDo; 09-07-2010 at 06:30 AM.
What do you mean?! This thread is supposed to offer criteria, actually. So why should there be criteria offered to offer criteria? Criteria for criteria for criteria...?
Is there a way to define/operationalize "roundish," "longish," "rectangular," and the like? Even if it's speculative and hypothetical, if you provided some specific dimensions (of facial structure) to look for, we might be able to better assess and apply them to people in our own lives.
Whether your system logically makes sense or not, I'd really like to take a stab at "DCNH-VI-ing" the people around me; but if I have to go through the filter of "because JohnDo says...", it might take a while.
yeah your face is roundish and longish and so is your moms face BURN
Expect it to take an eternity....
- A face is roundish if it is approximately as long as it's broad.
- A face is longish if it is much longer than it is broad.
Just type enough people without VI, then compare your typings to the VI pattern.
Clearly a roundish face, not much longer than broad:
Clearly a longish face, much longer than broad:
Hard to tell from this perspective:
DCNH subtypes and walking styles
How to type someone just be the way they walk:
Dominant
Normalizing: move as a train, on imaginary rails
*
Creative
Harmonizing: move in smooth trajectories
*
Dominant
Creative: move quickly
*
Normalizing
Harmonizing: move slowly
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Reply With Quote
