Identifying DCNH Subtypes

[JohnDo]

There are three methods of looking at DCNH subtypes:

1.) Dichotomies
DCNH is a sub-temperament theory. That means that, for example, the EJ-subtype is more extraverted and more judging than an average representative of a particular main type.

2.) Adjectives
The EJ-subtype is also called the Dominant subtype. But as I tried to clarify in this thread, the adjectives should not be taken literally. Not every IP-subtype is really "harmonizing", not every EP-subtype is really "creative".

3.) Information elements
Gulenko explains that, for example, the EJ-subtype has strengthened and . He says that , , and are "strengthened in pairs". The problem is, if you expand the DCNH system logically you can easily get 8 and 16 subtypes - but you will come to a different conclusion:

A D-ENTp, for example, is nothing but an ENTp-Exxj if you want to use 16 subtypes. That means that a D-ENTp can be an ENTp-ENTj, ENTp-ESTj, ENTp-ENFj or ENTp-ESFj. (I hope everyone agrees so far).
The problem is that ENTp-ENTj and ENTp-ESTj, theoretically but also practically, have much stronger but unfundamentally weaker than an average ENTp. For ENTp-ENFj and ENTp-ESFj it is the other way round: They have much stronger but insignificantly weaker than an average ENTp.

Conclusion: Using the DCNH system it makes more sense to say that, for example, the D-subtype has either much stronger or much stronger than an average representative of a particular main type.

[tcaudilllg]

There are three methods of looking at DCNH subtypes:

1.) Dichotomies
DCNH is a sub-temperament theory. That means that, for example, the EJ-subtype is more extraverted and more judging than an average representative of a particular main type.

2.) Adjectives
The EJ-subtype is also called the Dominant subtype. But as I tried to clarify in this thread, the adjectives should not be taken literally. Not every IP-subtype is really "harmonizing", not every EP-subtype is really "creative".

3.) Information elements
Gulenko explains that, for example, the EJ-subtype has strengthened and . He says that , , and are "strengthened in pairs". The problem is, if you expand the DCNH system logically you can easily get 8 and 16 subtypes - but you will come to a different conclusion:

A D-ENTp, for example, is nothing but an ENTp-Exxj if you want to use 16 subtypes. That means that a D-ENTp can be an ENTp-ENTj, ENTp-ESTj, ENTp-ENFj or ENTp-ESFj. (I hope everyone agrees so far).
The problem is that ENTp-ENTj and ENTp-ESTj, theoretically but also practically, have much stronger but unfundamentally weaker than an average ENTp. For ENTp-ENFj and ENTp-ESFj it is the other way round: They have much stronger but insignificantly weaker than an average ENTp.

Conclusion: Using the DCNH system it makes more sense to say that, for example, the D-subtype has either much stronger or much stronger than an average representative of a particular main type.

I think the only thing we all agree on is that you are clearly delusional.

We're all tired of you... so why not join some rebel forces group in Zimbabwe and meet the fate of your equally deluded idol?

[JohnDo]

I think the only thing we all agree on is that you are clearly delusional.

We're all tired of you... so why not join some rebel forces group in Zimbabwe and meet the fate of your equally deluded idol?

Yeah, I actually thought of joining some rebel forces. But currently I'm busy with socionics .

Why do you quote my whole writing if you don't say anything about it?

You are certainly more delusional than I am. I will open a thread with a poll

Please vote.

[tcaudilllg]

Yeah, I actually thought of joining some rebel forces. But currently I'm busy with socionics .

Why do you quote my whole writing if you don't say anything about it?

You are certainly more delusional than I am. I will open a thread with a poll

Looking forward to the results!

But I'd better buy some popcorn first!