Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
I think this is a very valid question...and without even bringing MBTI into it. The standard answer of course is exactly the first response in the thread: You're not *supposed* to assess subtypes until you've first determined the type. It's a very logical and comfortable answer. But the problem is of course that stuff written about DCNH sounds like stuff written about different temperaments, or about functions beyond the main ones that would be associated with the type.
Exactly! It (meaning DCNH) adds a very practical layer to the Sociotype by adding behavioral differentiators to the mix in order to create subdivisions within a given type. However, it takes a certain level of care (when typing someone) to determine what aspects of the person would be purely cognitive and what parts are more behavioral. A pure differentiation between the two has a lot to do with the question that I am asking. Undeniably, they are intertwined to a certain degree, but it takes a certain level of discrimination to separate these two elements when typing anyone.

Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
So it seems likely that if DCNH is valid at all, then some aspects of it could give out "false signals" that might confuse someone about a given person's type. After all, people aren't like a simple computer program; they might spit out any behavior at any time, and you can't say "wait, I haven't typed you yet; you're not allowed to display DCNH behaviors at this stage of the game."
Yes...This is where is kinda gets confusing in terms of applying DCNH here. However, I really think that DCNH matters here because you could totally have a certain temperament (based on IM Elements/Model A) but then find yourself with a behavioral component that may run counter to the type that you just designated. I really believe that as an EIE-H (who considered myself as an MBTI-based INFP), solidifying my Socionics type was a really tough to do.

Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
That may not be a problem most of the time, for someone with a clear sense of types typing someone who's easy to type. But I think that for anyone who believes in and uses the DCNH theory, it's a valid question to ask how one teases one thing out from the other....For example, suppose one has a "D-ILE." Well this means that the person's main IM elements are Ne and Ti, but the person is in some way emphasizing a Je something...either Te or Fe. Surely that could get confusing...
I completely agree with FDG that the DCNH subtype uses parameters that are somewhat shifted from the actual IM elements, and reflect more behavioral parameters (rather than the IM elements themselves). A D-ILE would be using a 'pseudo Je' component (since it is behavioral/trait based) rather than by simply adding on more Je to the typical Model A(/B) arrangement for the ILE.

In other words, I kinda see a D-ILE as an idea generator who holds back nothing towards making others very much aware of the novel ideas that are being thought of. I'm not sure if Thomas Edison was the type of guy who represented a D-ILE (since I am not sure of whether he was the type of person who assertively promoted or defended his novel inventions and ideas...My gut feeling is that he was, but I am not 100% sure), but he is sort of the archetypal prolific and outspoken inventor who I could picture as being a D-ILE.

Thanks again for seeing the value of my initial question!