Identifying DCNH Subtypes

[Korpsy Knievel]

I would think that a D-LII would be have a moderate energy level due to the mix between the even-keeled IJ Temperament and the D (pseudo-EJ temperament). This would imply (using some trait-based MBTI-like assessment) a moderate I/E and a clear-cut rational type.

Contrastingly, I would expect a C-ILE to have a considerably higher energy level since in this case we are talking about the EP temperament and the C (pseudo EP temperament). Thus, I/E would be heavily on the E side, while J/P would show a high irrational flavor.

Perfectly sensible. Saberstorm's elevated energy level can be ascertained from the sweatiness exhibited in the self portraits he posted in the members gallery tonight. And regarding heightened irrationality he's repeatedly demonstrated a chronic incapacity for conclusively determining whether he's taking a shit or eating soup.

Obviously, Socionics does not aim to be trait based in general, so these comparisons only go so far, but at least to my understanding there is a large energy difference between D-LII and C-ILE.

To whom is this obvious and on what basis? Without being facetious, I assume you've read at least a few type profiles formatted as functional descriptions of each IE in its assigned position within Model A. They lists traits galore, each collection constituting one of the sixteen primary socionics archetypes that is sought for and recognized by its characteristic qualities of thought and action. Am I misunderstanding or did you mean something else?

Personally I find that DCNH attempts to rescue falsified stereotypes with more stereotypes, recursively filling the original theory's holes while also replicating its errors. Due to this design flaw, which is amusingly symptomatic of its author's thinking, I neither utilize DCNH nor regard it as a positive contribution except in the production of muddle. Since you appear enthusiastic about DCNH I mention this to assist you in deciding whether or how to respond to my commentary here.

[mikesilb]

Thanks for your willingness to flesh out some of these nuances between Sociotype and DCNH. Really informative actually!

Dominant for example is not necessarily a "dominant person". Often someone who is very aware, involved in the environment and people around them.

Would it be a fair thing to call a Dominant (D) subtype as a proactive person who is able to (either via emotions/ or implementations/) take the bull by the horns and confront life directly? This is the way that I view this subtype, and I want to see if this is what you are talking about here.

You are talking about IP sociotype as having low energy levels. But I know many SEIs who are energetic and are very involved in their environment. Particularly C- and D-types. (the C has very scattered energy, going in many directions). On the other hand an H-LSE gives out very little energy, seems reserved and sensitive, but she can still easily use Te to "get things done", but it's done in a unassuming way, she doesn't waste any energy, doesn't energize other people.

I see what you are saying...Assuming that I am right about being a H-EIE, (regarding the EIE part), I can use overtly emotional information by others and use a certain emotional tone in order to make a person smile, laugh, etc. I can also use it to generate drama and to hurt others too (although I don't like to do this...but at least I am capable of doing that). I guess that I have a certain flair for the dramatic side of things (although admittedly, I can be very serious and focused as well, where drama takes a back seat). I wouldn't call myself an extreme drama freak...However, I know the effects of my direct words and actions on others, and I can modulate them as I need to.

With all this said, as an H subtype, I am also doing all this in a very soft, accepting, and unassuming way. There is more of a 'go along to get along' side to me that modulates the way that I use . It is as if I play a soft peacemaker role, so that I 'don't risk rocking the boat' in jeopardizing relationships. As a phobic 6 (Enneagram-wise), I will tend to play things safe, rather than to boldly risk asserting my emotions in a manner that doesn't care whether or not I lose or hurt people along the way. So I guess that my EIE-ness (as a Harmonizing type) has a more hesitant, softer energy to it in general.

I've understood that it's like this:

DCNH is about energy
Sociotype is about information

From Wikisocion's temperament pages, I gathered more that the temperament (which is obviously an extension of the Sociotype) is about energy. I think that these pages are really confusing me, because now you are saying that it isn't temperament that directs your basal energy levels, but rather DCNH directs this energy level (which after thinking about what DCNH subtypes embody, actually makes sense).

So if DCNH are more about energy than Sociotypes (which appear more cognitive/informational), what does the Socionics temperament really measure or show in any given person? In other words, it almost sounds like the DCNH 'sub-temperament' might be more indicative of one's REAL temperament/energy levels than the Socionics temperament itself. Is this true? Am I missing something or is my argument flawed in any way here?

Sometimes DCNH is thought of as functional strength in model A, regardless of what type you happen to be. But sometimes it's thought of as a completely separate phenomenon, although somehow related. It's like you can have -information (model A) and -energy (DCNH). I don't really know how to think of it, but I don't think that much.

I get this very well...Actually sticking with is kinda useful here. For example, as a potential EIE (assuming that I am not an ESE), I tend to shut out direct bodily sensations since I am often focused on 'larger concepts/themes/goals'. Thus, to 'smell the roses' as I am thinking about these larger goals/ideas (etc.) can be a hard thing to do. Meditation can be very helpful for me in this regard because it can allow me to slow down and to remain fully in the present moment (with all its sensory engagements). So to me, this looks like information (and I often neglect this area).

However, -energy is a whole different story. I think that I may very well be an Si-EIE (as a subdivision of the H-EIE). In other words, I use the energy to smooth out difficulties with others, to get along with others in an agreeable way. To look like a soft peacemaking, friendly, approachable kind of person. (I contrast this with the -EIE [also H-EIE] who might be more withdrawing/brooding and who may enter more of an imagination/daydream state if an internal harmony is not met). Assuming that I am right about these definitions, I can actually relate to the energy very well, but not necessarily the -IM element. (This is why I once thought that I was an SEI, but I have strong doubts about this currently).

Since you're EIE. I was thinking of taking a risk and throw in some famous EIE people for DCNH comparisons. Some people will of course disagree, but I hope that we don't need to start another type war here. If someone disagrees, just look at it as my own impression of something. But my typings are correct I promise.

D-EIE Tony Robbins
C-EIE Charles Manson
N-EIE I don't have any examples
H-EIE Michael Jackson (pretty nice interview)

That was definitely helpful actually! Thanks for mentioning these examplars. It really shows me (although I knew this before creating this thread) that any type can exhibit a decently wide range of energy levels. There is no doubt that (for example) MJ and Tony Robbins have a dramatically different energy level. However, the emotional content that defines still dominates in both these individuals. They both know how to articulate the language of well enough, irrespective of whether their energy level is higher or lower. I think that this is what you were aiming to show here.

Oh, one more thing. Some people claim that you have to be sure of the sociotype before you can tell the DCNH subtype. But I don't think it's true. The sub- in subtype is from a logical perspective. In real life, subtype is many times more obvious than sociotype, especially before you get to know the person.

This reminds me so much (by analogy) of the Enneagram and how the instincts (instinctual stackings...as defined as subtypes of the Enneagram type) interplay with E-type. To me, Enneagram and instinct are orthogonal/perpendicular to each other, and since they relate to different domains, one part can serve to subtype/subdivide the other part. However, one can theoretically determine the dominant instinct (and the dominant instinctual stacking) without knowing the Enneagram type. Likewise, one can theoretically determine the DCNH without the Sociotype as well.

Speaking of this, does anyone know how well a potential correlation between DCNH and the North, South, East, West leadership styles is? From what I gather, the correlation is actually very strong. What do you think? Assuming that the correlation is good, perhaps this could be used to determine DCNH separately from Sociotype (which I don't necessarily recommend, but at least it demonstrates that these two areas are orthogonal to each other and can be used to subdivide any Sociotype).

[Nowisthetime]

Would it be a fair thing to call a Dominant (D) subtype as a proactive person who is able to (either via emotions/ or implementations/) take the bull by the horns and confront life directly? This is the way that I view this subtype, and I want to see if this is what you are talking about here.

I guess you can say that, but maybe it's a little vague or existential. Have you read the three DCNH articles. I'd rather refer to them.

If I want to subtype someone in an analytical way, I usually use the subtype dichotomies or the corresponding functions, or both. I think they are useful. I like the dichotomies very much, I think they give great insight into how the awareness of the mind works in people.

From Wikisocion's temperament pages, I gathered more that the temperament (which is obviously an extension of the Sociotype) is about energy. I think that these pages are really confusing me, because now you are saying that it isn't temperament that directs your basal energy levels, but rather DCNH directs this energy level (which after thinking about what DCNH subtypes embody, actually makes sense).

It depends what one means with energy of course. I don't claim that these are theoretically correct names. An N type can have problems approaching people and initiating contact in a natural way, it's easier for them to be just formal/dry, or they have to force it. It's not about shyness necessarily. It's lack of outgoing energy. But when an N is with a D, the D provides the energy for this. It becomes shared between the couple and the N can feel connected to the other person as if he had given the energy himself, without having to force anything. This is my impressionistic interpretation of this, but that's the way it feels like for me, and how I've seen it in other people too.

I've many times seen how H:s live up when an unpredictable C is nearby. They need someone who can break through their "trance". Then they feel more free and get energized.

I think that this is what you were aiming to show here.

I guess so. I also like to compare the D and the C generally speaking. They are both contact types, as one easily can see, but while the D seems very aware of the surroundings, reacting to small changes, very present, then the C is like lacking sensitivity for the environment, and only going for contact. The D is still tied to the surroundings but the C is acting totally independently.

About separating subtype vs main type: I watched the film "Repulsion" recently (Polanski 1965). The girl in the film is totally Harmonizing, she couldn't be anything else. But what is her main type? I'd vote ESI, but I'm not sure. That's a lot harder to say. Just mentioning this, since I thought about it recently.

[mikesilb]

D-EIE Tony Robbins
C-EIE Charles Manson
N-EIE I don't have any examples
H-EIE Michael Jackson (pretty nice interview).

I have a very different type of question that just came up...Here it goes:

I can easily tell that these three people are with the appropriate DCNH subtypes. This I see really well. My question is this: How can we tell beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are EIEs? What are the definitive factors that make each of them EIEs? (Beyond the obvious fact that all EIEs do , then , etc.) For example, what is the common factor involving Tony Robbins, Michael Jackson, and Charles Manson that places all three within the EIE space. Could you say that this determining factor is a certain emotional awareness and expression, or is this merely the tip of the iceberg of how EIE wins for each of them.

I am beginning to wonder if I have a relatively easy time seeing DCNH, but have a harder time seeing how the Informational elements determine the Sociotype. So I want to play with the possibility that DCNH is easier to spot for me, while Sociotype determination/discrimination is where I am having trouble.

What do you think regarding this question?

[717495]

Michael Jackson ain't no EIE, lol

[mikesilb]

Michael Jackson ain't no EIE, lol

OK, I certainly buy into the fact that MJ may or may not be an EIE. (IEI/SEI could be alternative possibilities here).

As a replacement to MJ, we could include Bono, Freddie Mercury, and Steve Vai and we can still answer the question above.

[Saberstorm]

You can also spot evolution/involution really easily. These Reinin traits are also called result/process. Result thinkers are more random, chatty, find it hard to integrate themselves into a workflow yet are also prone to seeing the end result easily through out the production and because of their ability to juxtipose data in a jumble atop a jumble, can see many new connections in a manner that is different than pure Ne. Process thinkers are more focused, into the workflow, they are absorbed into it, and mostly elaborate on it. It is very easy to see in a workplace.

EIEs are rational and process. IEIs are irrational and result. ESEs are rational and result - the Reinin Traits are good for spotting types.

[Olga]

Sorry, that did not manageto read all posts in this thread. I would like to answer main questinos regarding mistakes in DCNH how I see them and you can check out yourself.
All these problems with DCNH arise simply because of one mistake - it is not attched directly to the socionics typology and namely to the 4 groups of types which in fact are connected to temperaments and not just temperaments. There is more to it. That is why the very similar concept of associative typology is more correct and advanced. The qualities of types which we call socionics temperaments and the meaning of DCNH are included in a new concept just as criteria.

I do not divide cognition from behaviour in a new concept. You do not have to determine the type first in order to see the subtype. You just need to have the right criteria to deterimne the associateve type or the type of psychic energy (TPE). In other words you need to have the right criteria to determine straight ahead the group - one of the four - to which the person belongs: Ego- Superego - Id- Superid.
We can do that on the basis of 3 dichotomies- extraversion -introversion, rationality - irrationality, dynamics - statics. This is what Jung called a direction of personality. On the level of the IM - paires of fucntions are related to each TPE and each group: Ego - Te + Fe and etc.

Once you determined the leading TPE you can see the next prominent TPE as you do when you describe your temperament - not melancholic but melancholic - choleric and etc. Type and subtype should be understood on the level of the grooup first before you relate it to the group fo 16 types.

So you can not be D-D type or Ego- Ego type - this is not correct. Firs of all you need to be sure that this is definetley Ego-type and Ego type cna have only 3 subtypes Id, Superid or Superego. This is how you differentiate correctly the qualities of the type on one hand and the difference between the the group of the people of that type.

So if you are EIE- type you will belong to Ego - group as a direction of your personality EJ and between the people of your type you will be either Id- or Superid- or Superego - subtype. To measure who is more D or Ego -quality is not relevant and not importantfor the purpose neither of determining the type of the person no for the understanding of the differences between the group of EIE - types.

Does it makes sense? I am sorry that the article about associative typology neather the test are not translated into English yet. if youcan help me in any way to do that like checking mistakes or anything I will be very thankful ( socionics4you@yahoo.com).
If anybody wish to talk to me - I will be on the videochat on the 20th October at 6 pm London time http://tinychat.com/ouhg5

[Saberstorm]

Okay, so what she is saying is that you cannot subtype in a manner that gives you an extra dose of your core temperment. There are no D Ejs, no C Eps and so on. Or to subtype them as their core temperment is unnessissary. OK. (However, she calls her system "associative socionics" which may be different from whatever socioncis we use here.)

[FDG]

Nowisthetime's posts in this topic are great, especially the characterization of C and D subtypes, which is oftentimes left unclear (but, as he says, is pretty clear in a real life setting).

[Olga]

Okay, so what she is saying is that you cannot subtype in a manner that gives you an extra dose of your core temperment. There are no D Ejs, no C Eps and so on. Or to subtype them as their core temperment is unnessissary. OK. (However, she calls her system "associative socionics" which may be different from whatever socioncis we use here.)

OK, she assumes that you are not using here exactly "humanitarian socionics", are you?
Thanks for interpreting correctly the core of my message.

[Olga]

Or to subtype them as their core temperment is unnessissary.

. Unnessissary for the purpose of sybtype in DCNH. But nessissary for the typing and subtyping in the system of TPE - types. Basically, you need to know the TPE -profile to be able to subtype. The prinzip is similar to the profiles in DCNH but the criteria is different partly as we use non-verbal criteria too.

If you FDG have got ENTJ type and an extraverted profile ( extraversion is stronger and more prominent in you than rationality or dynamics) then Ego will be your main TPE and your subtype TPE will be Id. On the level of TPE your profile will be Ego - Id and on the level of 16 types you subtype will be ENTP.
How can you check it out for example yourself? You do the tests and sometimes you get ENTJ and sometimes ENTP - mainly those two types. And so the others may mix you with ENTP.

[FDG]

. Unnessissary for the purpose of sybtype in DCNH. But nessissary for the typing and subtyping in the system of TPE - types. Basically, you need to know the TPE -profile to be able to subtype. The prinzip is similar to the profiles in DCNH but the criteria is different partly as we use non-verbal criteria too.

If you FDG have got ENTJ type and an extraverted profile ( extraversion is stronger and more prominent in you than rationality or dynamics) then Ego will be your main TPE and your subtype TPE will be Id. On the level of TPE your profile will be Ego - Id and on the level of 16 types you subtype will be ENTP.
How can you check it out for example yourself? You do the tests and sometimes you get ENTJ and sometimes ENTP - mainly those two types. And so the others may mix you with ENTP.

Sorry but I don´t know what TPE is, I mean, either its abstract representation as a form of behavior or its practical expression in everyday life. At the moment, I´m somewhat content with ENTj + creative DNCH; my interest in socionics is more behavioral than structural-psychological.

[Olga]

Sorry but I don´t know what TPE is, I mean, either its abstract representation as a form of behavior or its practical expression in everyday life. At the moment, I´m somewhat content with ENTj + creative DNCH; my interest in socionics is more behavioral than structural-psychological.

Of course. I understand that. Is it anytest that you can check and prove to all that you an ENTJ creative? O you just suggest it based on your subjective opinion or on the opinion of others around you? So if we can prove - we win, because it will be objective and factual
I am not sure what you mean by the difference between behaviour and theory or structural - psychological? My theory is based on the psychophysiology, is it good enough or not? Typology in a sense has also got a reference to psychophysiology as we inherit a certain type, isn't it?

[FDG]

Of course. I understand that. Is it anytest that you can check and prove to all that you an ENTJ creative? O you just suggest it based on your subjective opinion or on the opinion of others around you? So if we can prove - we win, because it will be objective and factual
I am not sure what you mean by the difference between behaviour and theory or structural - psychological? My theory is based on the psychophysiology, is it good enough or not? Typology in a sense has also got a reference to psychophysiology as we inherit a certain type, isn't it?

Well, I don´t think there are many tests for DNCH, especially if you don´t know russian? So yeah, it´s a self-diagnosis. Besides, since psychological variables in self-surveys are still unobservable by an external point of view, it would still be a subjective assessment.

What I mean is, that I personally don´t look at how a function could be explained by biology or a peculiar psychological structure in our thinking, but rather at its practical manifestations. It´s suboptimal yeah, but that´s the only thing that I´ve found to be useful.

[Absurd]

Oops. Socionics harvest.

[Olga]

Well, I don´t think there are many tests for DNCH, especially if you don´t know russian? So yeah, it´s a self-diagnosis. Besides, since psychological variables in self-surveys are still unobservable by an external point of view, it would still be a subjective assessment.
.

I think we can understand each other as I personally do not have anything against what you said. Just would like to mention that objectivity is not a myth if we use reliable instruments like tests. If you say for example that you are an ENTJ and I will ask you to do the test and the test confirm your type I will not have to rely just on your opinion of your type but can see the proof. If the test will be not verbal, for example, and it still shows to me that you are an Ego-type then I will be even more sure and so on. When I will eventually translate the test and some of my articles I will invite you to do the test, OK?. At the moment I have got only one article translated but it may be difficult to understand sometimes: http://www.socionics4you.com/index.p...theory/archive

[Absurd]

Lots of categories on forum, small traffic, though.

[Olga]

What I mean is, that I personally don´t look at how a function could be explained by biology or a peculiar psychological structure in our thinking, but rather at its practical manifestations. It´s suboptimal yeah, but that´s the only thing that I´ve found to be useful.

There are many different ways in which we can approach this question. The poin is that not everything is at is sounds or looks like. You can call something as black but it may be white in reality. Unfortunately many people buy it - you just need a good package or a big name. That is why to understand the real thing we need to think critically and ask questions. And we can not go without logical thinking and Ti.

Shall we start with socionics temperaments and the system DCNH and ask ourselves: what is the basis for this system and how it relates to the socioncis typology? As far as I can see it relates very loosely. And why? Because the idea grew out of the temperaments and temperaments are not related strictly to the 4 basic groups in socionics. For example? You can be ENTJ with choleric temperament and then you are DD in the DCNH- system. If you are sunguine you will be DC and etc. You can not relate the temperament as a major criteria on which you decide about a type and that is why Gulenko could not say that the DCNH reflects the 4 group of types. The whole subtype theory was based on a criteria which was not strong enough to adjust it to the typology.
There are a few subtype theories which are adjusted loosely and hardly ever relate to socionics, It is similar to the analogy if you call enegramm system or any other typology a subtype system for the socionics typology.

[Absurd]

choleric temperament and then you are DD in the DCNH- system. If you are sunguine you will be DC and etc. You can not relate the temperament as a major criteria on which you decide about a type and that is why Gulenko could not say that the DCNH reflects the 4 group of types.

That's something I came to as well some time ago, but never checked it. I mean, I did - on myself.

[Olga]

The next question to ask about the DCNH - how the humanitarian school actually determine the subtypes, based on what?
The short answer by Gulenko was: by the role in the group and the stronger functions in the profile. There was also a bit more information about it:
1. By anasysis of the profile of the person and the 3 functions which are repaeted.
2.By the observation of people in the group which do the tasks starting from simple to more complex.
I wonder if you understand the meaning of all that? I tried to ask questions but I did not get the answers. If you wish to check it out ourselves you more than wellcome otherwise I will carry on pointing to the controversy of the DCNH system and not just that.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

You can try and ask Gulenko on the facebook if you want.

[Olga]

That's something I came to as well some time ago, but never checked it. I mean, I did - on myself.

I am glad to hear that. It is so simple and so obvious. The Gulenko school does improve concept with a time. I remember that in 2008 Gulenko talked just about two profiles DC and HN and now they have as many as I have in my concept. Although I told him about that in 2008 on the seminar in Moscow that it is just logical to have also DH and DN and etc. Even though it does not fit perfectly with Eysenck theory where it is not possible to have something like flegmatic- choleric or sunguine-melancholic temperaments.
Apparently the colours also are used now in DCNH as illustraion only and in colour approach also there some changes. Gulenko does not his own colour theory and I am not sure if he will ever mention mine colour theory.
He based before on Lushers colour theory F- was red, for example, but now DCNH also uses colours and those colours are also very similar to my model with the only difference of green related to N which is not like in model Butterfly...I wonder where all these changes come from? It must be something in the air.
So we do have now D - red. C- yellow H- blue and N- green. The colour theory of associative socionics is slightly different but existed much earlier.

[Absurd]

I am glad to hear that. It is so simple and so obvious.

Yup, got right there circa two years ago and forgot what I was thinking/had other things to do.

So we do have now D - red. C- yellow H- blue and N- green. The colour theory of associative socionics is slightly different but existed much earlier.

Exactly.

[Saberstorm]

So associative socionics is a varation of plain ol socionics. Good to know.

[mikesilb]

Hi Olga,

I spent some time today reading your previous posts and your article. I find it quite intriguing that you are removing the emphasis from temperament and placing it more on the Ego ( and ) - Id ( and ) - Superego ( and ) - Superid ( and ) interplay and the oppositions that occur when each of these 4 'TPEs' interact with each other in a way that produce:
1. Favored extraversion
2. Favored introversion
3. Favored rationality
4. Favored irrationality
5. Balanced dynamic
6. Balanced static

I also find it interesting that you eliminate the concept of the initial TPE being identical to the secondary TPE. (In other words using DCNH language, no EJ-Ds, no EP-Cs, etc.) In a way, this is good because then you are keeping the subtype as a subdivision of the original type, rather than by using two different measures to determine type and subtype (like for DCNH, the temperament and then the sub-temperament). In this case, measure #1 is TPE 1 (Ego, Id, Superego, or Superid) and measure #2 is TPE #2 which must oppose TPE #1 (and hence cannot be identical to TPE #1 since TPE #1 is already used).

To me, a good way to test/validate your theory this would be to take people who are typed with the identical temperament and subtemperament, according to DCNH, and to determine whether or not an obvious alternative subtype (using your Butterfly Theory) could be visibly determined.

An example that was used in this particular thread is Tony Robbins. According to the DCNH theory (and assuming that his type is correct), he would be an EIE-D. Obviously, according to your theory, this possibility would not be possible. Thus, he would have to be transferred to (using your language) either an Ego-Id type (EIE-C), Ego-Superego (EIE-N), or an Ego-Superid type (EIE-H).

The question is whether or not one could visibly determine which one his secondary TPE would be? Obviously, we would have to find an opportunity when Tony Robbins is NOT being EJ-like. The question is whether or not a suboptimal TPE would show up.

You could perform this test on any person who was previously assessed to have the D-EJ, C-EP, N-IJ, or H-IP double type-subtype combination. Thus, can a readily visible alternative be determined. This is what could determine how well a switch from DCNH to your subtype theory would work.

Personally, I hope that you are on to something because this would generate a nice paradigm shift in the Socionics universe. However, I want to see cases where these 'double types/subtypes' could be easily and readily transferred to a different category that works within your Butterfly Model.

Does anyone else have more 'double types' to test? Let's give this a shot to see if this theory works robustly in more cases. What do you think?

[mikesilb]

Olga,

I have a quick question for you. In terms of the oppositions that would result in a clear introvert or a clear extravert, would this be based on Socionics introversion/extraversion (based solely on IM Elements) or would it involve entirely social introversion/extraversion (based on Eysenckian-based social traits)? Does a clear convergence between IM Elements and social introversion/extraversion need to exist in your theory, or could they be different? Let me know your thoughts about this!

Thanks!

[Beautiful sky]

This is fairly easy:

Constructivist and Emotivist dichotomies separate these so listen to what they say and how they want to be perceived
ESTj, ENTj
ESFj, ENFj

[Nowisthetime]

Michael Jackson ain't no EIE, lol

Do you know any Ni-Harmonizing extroverts irl? They can be surpisingly "introverted" in their behaviour. We can argue about this forever, but weather or not it's true, he sure works well as an H-EIE example.

[717495]

Okay

We definitely have a very different opinion of what an EIE is like then, or really what Fe fundamentally is.

[mikesilb]

Okay

We definitely have a very different opinion of what an EIE is like then, or really what Fe fundamentally is.

Now THIS would be the type of conversation that I would love to hear (either in this thread or another thread)!

People have asserted that I am an EIE (and if not an EIE, well either ESE or IEI could be valid runner-ups)...that I clearly exhibit .

The other thing is that while I consider myself a social introvert, people see my enthusiasm, (kinda like a puppy dog), friendliness, and desire to connect with others, and hence they assert that is in the driver's seat. (BTW, I also at times have a flair for the dramatic and am known to have a bad and sudden temper as well...so it ain't all positive).

So, this particular question of "What defines /EIE" is certainly something that I would personally gain from!

[717495]

Fe is best understood by gathering direct impressions of real EIEs and cross-confirming them with what the essence of Fe is (ethics interpreted objectively. This is essentially their clear focus.) It's not understood well by condoning lame stereotypes like having emotion and connecting with people (or dancing passionately on stage for that matter.) I'll PM you some good EIE example videos a bit later.

[Nowisthetime]

Hi again!

I can easily tell that these three people are with the appropriate DCNH subtypes. This I see really well. My question is this: How can we tell beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are EIEs? What are the definitive factors that make each of them EIEs? (Beyond the obvious fact that all EIEs do , then , etc.) For example, what is the common factor involving Tony Robbins, Michael Jackson, and Charles Manson that places all three within the EIE space. Could you say that this determining factor is a certain emotional awareness and expression, or is this merely the tip of the iceberg of how EIE wins for each of them.

I'm not the right person to answer this. How can you tell if someone is a man or a woman? The woman can have shot hair, dark voice and maskuline features, but still you know. You don't have to make complicated mathematical mesurements of the face in order to tell. You just know. So it's an organic thing, I'm an synthetic person, I go by impressions, I can identify them and remember them. And when one has typed hundreds of persons one just knows. But it's impossible to put this into words. Of course there is a whole web of other indicators also. They don't really proove anything, but they give hints. Tony Robbins has a good understanding of developement and change, He affects people, Charles Manson is surprisingly philosophilcal in an Ni way, very dramatic, and MJ is a superb dancer, something I know EIEs can be. Also in the case of MJ and the common IEI typing, I don't really see creative Fe. But even here there are impressions involved that cannot be put into words. So bottom line is: It's not possible to know for sure anything, but you type more and more people, you see it and this phenomenon exists and we can relate to it.

In this case it's of course even harder because we have never met these people, but comparing them with real people I've met and interacted with for a long time, it's possible to make comparisons.

I am beginning to wonder if I have a relatively easy time seeing DCNH, but have a harder time seeing how the Informational elements determine the Sociotype. So I want to play with the possibility that DCNH is easier to spot for me, while Sociotype determination/discrimination is where I am having trouble.

What do you think regarding this question?

Last year I was introducing socionics to an Ni-H-LSE girl (I know her well, typing is 100%). I made her take the test. She got IEI and she thought it was pretty ok. Yet she is sooo LSE. I think sociotype is something very "rigid" and "deep" that will become clear as you spend more time with a person. DCNH type is more shallow (If you want to call it that), yet very visible. You mentioned MBTI in your original post. I think it's pretty common that an Te-D-ILE will type himself ENTJ in MBTI (I think I know one example). Or an N-ILE will consider himself INTP. But in the long run this will lead to problems because they don't match with real life LIEs and ILIs that they meet, so something is off.

I think a lot of people base their impressions of a sociotype by the subtypes that they have encountered so far. As they meet more and more people they will have to re-evaluate their impressions of the type. Some years ago my impressions of ILE, my dual, was based on the D and N subtypes, but then I met more people and C and H also became known to me. At first I thougth they were different types, but once I got to know them and the chemistry between us it became clear.

[mikesilb]

Last year I was introducing socionics to an Ni-H-LSE girl (I know her well, typing is 100%). I made her take the test. She got IEI and she thought it was pretty ok. Yet she is sooo LSE. I think sociotype is something very "rigid" and "deep" that will become clear as you spend more time with a person. DCNH type is more shallow (If you want to call it that), yet very visible. You mentioned MBTI in your original post. I think it's pretty common that an Te-D-ILE will type himself ENTJ in MBTI (I think I know one example). Or an N-ILE will consider himself INTP. But in the long run this will lead to problems because they don't match with real life LIEs and ILIs that they meet, so something is off.

I think a lot of people base their impressions of a sociotype by the subtypes that they have encountered so far. As they meet more and more people they will have to re-evaluate their impressions of the type. Some years ago my impressions of ILE, my dual, was based on the D and N subtypes, but then I met more people and C and H also became known to me. At first I thougth they were different types, but once I got to know them and the chemistry between us it became clear.

I think that what you placed in your post is actually extremely profound and I will probably send a few posts in reply to what you just wrote.

But in a nutshell, I think that your entire posts hits on something that I have been thinking about a lot in the past few weeks. Most notably, that once Sociotype and the distinct IM-elements that are used are defined AS ARCHETYPES!

In other words, archetypes can never be completely pinned down or perfectly defined. Yet, there is a general, intuitive, big-picture definition of what each archetype is, to the point that we are able to connect enough dots and to use/apply them in highly practical ways.

I get the feeling that the best that we all can do with the IM Elements (and a given type) is to try our best to narrow down what each of these archetypes are (while trying to make sure that we are not interfering with other archetypes in a manner that might create confusion between two terms). Yet, we will most likely never generate perfectly precise definitions, since (as in your example of being able to visually tell a female from a male), certain new characteristics may come up which may appear to contradict other characteristics. So we do the best that we can.

In the archetypal world (and I think that the Socionics types and IM Elements solidly belong here...as distinct archetypes), we can give our definitions the best shot of pinning them down. However, we will likely never pin them down perfectly since they are still abstract prototypes. Yet, we will try.

I think that this is what you are saying in your previous post, and I tend to agree with you about this (based on my understanding of how these IM Elements interplay in each of our lives).

[Olga]

So associative socionics is a varation of plain ol socionics. Good to know.

What means plain socioncis for you?

[Olga]

Hi, Mike!

Very pleased about your posts. And sorry for delay with an answer. I was busy in the Russian forum discussing the idea of the foundation of association for socionists in Russia and beyond. The socionics' society of Russia is divided and not scientific in the approach in many ways as it is not posible to know exactly what happens in the other schools. The leaders of the schools are not friendly enough to discuss their theories honestly and do not understand each other well. Situation is very sad and I hope that socionics in the West will not encounter all these problems.

I will look very carefully in what you wrote and answer in detail. At the moment I just wish to ask you why you did not write also favoured about dynamics but balanced?
I do like a lot the way you interpet the theory and wrote about it in English. Thank you, very impressed!

[Olga]

I also find it interesting that you eliminate the concept of the initial TPE being identical to the secondary TPE. (In other words using DCNH language, no EJ-Ds, no EP-Cs, etc.) In a way, this is good because then you are keeping the subtype as a subdivision of the original type, rather than by using two different measures to determine type and subtype (like for DCNH, the temperament and then the sub-temperament). In this case, measure #1 is TPE 1 (Ego, Id, Superego, or Superid) and measure #2 is TPE #2 which must oppose TPE #1 (and hence cannot be identical to TPE #1 since TPE #1 is already used).

Exactly.

To me, a good way to test/validate your theory this would be to take people who are typed with the identical temperament and subtemperament, according to DCNH, and to determine whether or not an obvious alternative subtype (using your Butterfly Theory) could be visibly determined.

To validate my theory I do not need the DCNH double typing because for me it is nonsence. There is not ranging cathegory - how much are you an Ego -type. It is a nominal cathegory: you are either Ego-type or you are not. Like with types as well. You can not be equally Ego -Id type. ONe is type and another is subtype.
And what actually mean the double DCNH typet hat you have not got any other type as compensation? No, this is not possible.
It just means that you are more bright Ego type then another Ego type. What this brightness could mean? Is it an objective or subjective criteria? We need to understand that. What is that makes him/her to be different from Ego-Id, Ego-Superego and Ego-superid types? May be what makes people to be a brighter version of their types does not depend on the typology at all but belongs to individual qualities?

The other important thing is that to type into DCNH - types you have to have a range of criteria. The criteria in humanitarian socionics is descriptive or observable. However, I would prefer to use the criteria of associative socionics which I believe is more sufficient for the purpose of typing - the partly non-verbal criteria and tests.
About visibility of types or subtypes - I am not sure that this is a valid objective criteria, in fact it must be a subjective one as it depends on the eye of the beholder. What I see you may not see and etc. The good point and advantage of associative approach that we have the criteria which you can confirm by testing.
I am not against a DCNH approach in general and if it could be corrected, it could be a sub -criteria for a new approach like a sub-system.The associative concept is more wider and global in the reference to DCNH.

[Olga]

I would assume if we decide to test who is the most Ego-type of a group of Ego-types there must be a particular criteria like a dominance test or creativeity test for C-types. An this in itself could be different from what the concept of Ego-type or D is. To say more the other TPE/DCNH types may score high on the dominance test and have Ego or D as subtype. May be it is true for the system of DCNH as if it is based on the criteria or dominance or creativity only.
Could be some of the SEE more dominant than EIE? Yes, of course.

In this case the DCNH system relateto something which is not directly relevant to typology and hence it is not a criteria on which you can base your typing.
In my last brief chat with Gulenko I understood that the criteria on which they type into DCNH types is related to quadras and the role in the group.

The role in the group - this is not related to typology directly. I think it is more related to psychology. The quadras is a not clear concept for typing but a "second -hand" construct. To type something into something you need a clear and direct criteria. This criteria has always been dichotomies and functions which are basics elements of the dichotomies. Nothing new in this sense. If the criteria does not go back to the original dichotomies we have to seriously doubt this criteria as we can not test it and prove it.

[Olga]

An example that was used in this particular thread is Tony Robbins. According to the DCNH theory (and assuming that his type is correct), he would be an EIE-D. Obviously, according to your theory, this possibility would not be possible. Thus, he would have to be transferred to (using your language) either an Ego-Id type (EIE-C), Ego-Superego (EIE-N), or an Ego-Superid type (EIE-H).

The question is whether or not one could visibly determine which one his secondary TPE would be? Obviously, we would have to find an opportunity when Tony Robbins is NOT being EJ-like. The question is whether or not a suboptimal TPE would show up.

The question here is: why visibility of the types and subtypes is more important than objective proof of them by testing? It will be always a subjective area of perceiving the types based on the personal experience and training. It is important and handy for private purpose of typing but does nothing for science.
And if I do not see types written on the forhead of every passenger on the road surely I do not see their subtypes too.

[Olga]

Personally, I hope that you are on to something because this would generate a nice paradigm shift in the Socionics universe. However, I want to see cases where these 'double types/subtypes' could be easily and readily transferred to a different category that works within your Butterfly Model.

I mentioned above that we need clearly to understand the meaning of double types in DCNH. I laways thought and think now that this just shows that the compensation of the other TPE is there but not as big as in other cases. Like with any other dichotomy.Some people have 20% Intuion and 80% of sensorics and this means that this person will notice it himself and that would be very clear to to others. If the person is not sure about the dichotomy that could be that the distribution is 60 % to 40% and he will doubt and other will be less sure.
Only this way the double types of DCNH can make sense for me personaly. You type the person into Ego-type for example but you can not see clearely what the compensation could be exaclty because two other TPEs are present in nearly equal mesures.

[Olga]

Olga,

I have a quick question for you. In terms of the oppositions that would result in a clear introvert or a clear extravert, would this be based on Socionics introversion/extraversion (based solely on IM Elements) or would it involve entirely social introversion/extraversion (based on Eysenckian-based social traits)? Does a clear convergence between IM Elements and social introversion/extraversion need to exist in your theory, or could they be different? Let me know your thoughts about this!

Thanks!

This is irrelevant, I think. We test dichotomies partly non verbally. So we do not bother very much if the person percieves himself very sociable or not (based on Eysenckian-based social traits). There will be enough criteria related to psychophysiology to conclude about the extroversion and introversion.
For example, in case of the extraverted profile we assume to have the personality with high level of extraversion and this means also very sociable (based on Eysenckian-based social traits). In other profiles the extraversion will be balanced and it may happen that the person will not be very sociable (based on Eysenckian-based social traits). But we still can class him as an extravert based on the other two dichotomies present Id ( statics and irriationality) or Ego ( dynamics and rationality).