Identifying DCNH Subtypes

[Olga]

No comments for so long? What could it be?
I have got something interesting for you to think about:

As you know in socionics' theory there are 2 models which relate to energy: mine and Gulenko. Those who has read the article about the Butterfly model they know that I refer to the definition of energy as psychic. This is in line with the theory of Jung and Freud. A few days ago we have a new definition of energy from Gulenko which is called "socionics'energy". Would you believe it? I wonder what you think about a new definition:

"Socionics' energy - tension of the psyche (individual or collective) as a potential form and discharge/relief of tension as an
act ( kinetic form).

Freud libido, life impulse (elan vital) Bergson, passionarity Gumilev - are examples of different forms of socionics' energy!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Humani...31906516864613

[Olga]

I wonder if anybody is interested in what is written on that facebook page?

"What DCNH-type has a group defined by the relationship:

1. Through the relation to it by parallel groups - those who are at one with her ​​communicative field
2. Through the internal relations within the group: authoritarianism means dominance, bureaucracy - Rationing, polycentric network - creativity, decentralized network - harmonization.



Inside the ants as a species is always the same organization, so to determine the type of group you refer to their relations with other anthills. But this information is not known to us, so the role of this group, we can not determine".

[Creepy-]

How do you feel after reading this amount of information? How do you feel among people who explain and talk a lot? They start and never end, only become more exited. Do you feel good? They are not interesting? You wish to get away from them? Are you drawn to people who are quiet and disciplined? What do you think of people who argue a lot and push their system on others? What do you think of dogmas? And why do you think I asked this? Because ENFj is usually interested in systematic and disciplined people who force others. They can't do nothing when someone is like that. ENFj totally takes them over, becomes himself like that and can't take those opinions away from he's mind.

Hope you didn't get hurt.

[mikesilb]

Hi Olga and/or Basyl,

Thank you for looking out for me and for wanting to know that I was OK and wasn't hurt in any way. I definitely appreciate this, and frankly all is well. I have been focused lately on slightly tangential material and haven't provided as much focus on this topic.

Anyway, here's the thing:

There are multiple theories that pertain to subtypes, which as a socially introverted Socionics extratim/extravert I am interested in since these theories have the potential to describe my inner and outer experience a bit more accurately than in their absence (although a solid EIE description would suffice as well). Thus, I am very interested in the nuances within a given Sociotype.

Now I have tended to follow DCNH and essentially still do. I like how it keeps the Informational/Cognitive content (that drives the IM Elements) separately from the Social/Behavioral domain. However, I find that both of these phenomena are quite real, and I appreciate the overlay of behavior onto the Socionics material. While it may not make for the purest model theoretically (since DCNH is certainly measuring parameters that are separate from the IM Elements, and hence does not make for a pure 'subtype' by definition), I still think that dividing up the Sociotype into various sectors (DCNH) that pertain to real-life socio-behavioral activity makes quite a bit of sense. To me, it is good to know that EIEs are not all assertive people (although they, as EJs, would like to make decisions that move their lives forward and that connect with the people around them in insightful ways).

Now Olga, I have seen your model and appreciate many parts of it. Naturally, I have a choice as to which theory I will choose to focus on and follow going forth. Honestly, I like the general theoretical construct (pertaining to four regions of the psyche) that provides the foundation for the TPEs and how there can be an optimal and suboptimal TPE. That all sounds good to me.

With that being said, I have two issues with your theory. The first has to do with the role of testing and assessment. I personally do not feel that most assessment methods in this area can robustly isolate the correct type/TPE. Thus, I strongly question the power of assessments to pinpoint the accurate type. While they can provide some preliminary indication of type, they can only go so far due to all sorts of error that can creep in as a result of both the test maker and the test taker.

Now admittedly, this error would also occur by utilizing observational data (in the manner that you pointed out). However, if in certain cases (of celebrities) a consensus typing would occur where multiple people would provide some guesstimate of someone's type, perhaps the combination of responses may (or may not) converge onto a specific type or types. In my opinion, given the high volume of people on this board, it is quite conceivable that a given celebrity's type could be reduced to a select few (or perhaps one) option(s). This consensus would be useful as it helps provide some framework as to how well the theory matches real-life people and scenarios. It isn't theoretically perfect, but it is at the very least, on the right track (potentially). So I happen to be a fan of consensus-based observational typing, especially where celebrities are concerned.

The second issue that I have with your typing method is that it is based on color-preferences (which other people have already stated in prior threads that whether or not these correlations to given TPEs/types reflect precise typological preferences is far from conclusive). I believe that testing based on color preferences is merely testing color preferences (rather than reflecting the IM Elements or types themselves). Until that correlation becomes a truly causative phenomenon (i.e., that color preference can indicate temperament/TPE/type), I think that the foundation is somewhat shaky.

The good thing is that these two difficulties that I have with your method are actually tangential to your theory itself. Perhaps by simply dropping the color associations, you should be able to strengthen portions of the theory that can actually rival DCNH. Also, by testing this material on people/celebrities who have been typed with a relatively strong consensus (and not by a single type diagnosis, etc.), you could actually see whether you could safely observe and apply your dominant and subdominant TPEs to that particular person.

Until I know more about how well double-typed individuals shift to suboptimal TPEs, I am not clear as to how well Butterfly compares to DCNH. I would not ignore the validity of other theories and to state that a model is nonsense until you can solidly state that your model has a definitive advantage over the other one. I am a fan of seeing Gulenko's DCNH theory go toe-to-toe with yours to determine which one has greater robustness in situations that are not as obvious (i.e., the 'double temperaments'). However, until that point, I am not going to stop being interested in DCNH just because it overlays Sociotype with social-behavioral issues. In fact, I am actually MORE impressed with that because it is attempting to use real-life energetic and social behaviors as an (albeit artificial/arbitrary...but yet, still) highly observable/relatable parameter in the real world.

So in a nutshell, I am still very interested in your Butterfly Model. However, for that interest to be taken to the next level, a solid comparison to other methods would be really pivotal.

I hope that this helps clarify my thoughts about all this. Thanks again for your genuine interest in wanting to know where I currently stood with regards to everything!

[Nowisthetime]

Michael Jackson ain't no EIE, lol

Now I actually think you were right and I was wrong. MJ might not be EIE. I would type him IEI now, like many others do. But still harmonizing.

For H-EIE I would suggest Salvador Dali.

[mikesilb]

Now I actually think you were right and I was wrong. MJ might not be EIE. I would type him IEI now, like many others do. But still harmonizing.

What made you change your mind about this? To me, I would have still potentially thought EIE since MJ since he wanted to make the most impressionable show that would impact his crowd in a profound way (EIE). Yet, at the same time, his reserved, sensitive, and soft spoken nature would place him more in a Harmonizing space. So to me, MJ kinda sounded right as an EIE.

If you look at what you wrote earlier that:
Information - Sociotype
Energy - DCNH ,

I still think that this holds up. Why might IEI Harmonizing be more right than EIE Harmonizing, based on your new impressions?

(BTW, this is important for my typing too, since I initially thought SEI, then IEI, and then after people have commented that shows up dominantly, I switched to EIE-H which I still think is right).

For H-EIE I would suggest Salvador Dali.

I just saw the video. I can see why you might say that Dali seems Harmonizing (due to his interplay with the unconscious in a Jungian kind of way). My problem ultimately with this is that based on your statement:

Information - Sociotype
Energy - DCNH ,

I still get this sense that Dali has a high and dramatic energy that would fit more of the D-EIE. Or perhaps, actually he could serve as a great example of a D-IEI (or perhaps C-IEI).

For example, his love of art and of mystical objects that speak into the collective unconscious appears to bring out so clearly and vividly. However, he is so vocal and expressive about it that seems to look EIE-like, but I am actually wondering if that energy is more about being either Dominant (or Creative) about the manner in which his IEI-ness shows up.

In many ways, I would assert that Dali is the exact opposite of Michael Jackson (and in many ways provides the perfect embodiment for the question that I initially raised in my initial post in this thread).

MJ looks like a soft-spoken, sensitive EIE (H-EIE, or more specifically, Ni-EIE [using DCNH])
Dali looks like a highly assertive, energetic IEI (or EIE). (D-IEI, or more specifically Fe-IEI [using DCNH])

What do you think about this? How can we discriminate between these two people?

Wonderful choice of examples here! Provides great food for thought!

[Spiro]

One more thing. Have you read this:



Pretty interesting. Physical compatibility. If that's a correct translation I don't know, but if it is, I would agree.

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)

EDIT: 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.

I don't give a shit what letter you put in front of EIE. It won't be enough to transform Manson into one.

[mikesilb]

I just saw the video. I can see why you might say that Dali seems Harmonizing (due to his interplay with the unconscious in a Jungian kind of way). My problem ultimately with this is that based on your statement:

Information - Sociotype
Energy - DCNH ,

I still get this sense that Dali has a high and dramatic energy that would fit more of the D-EIE. Or perhaps, actually he could serve as a great example of a D-IEI (or perhaps C-IEI).

For example, his love of art and of mystical objects that speak into the collective unconscious appears to bring out so clearly and vividly. However, he is so vocal and expressive about it that seems to look EIE-like, but I am actually wondering if that energy is more about being either Dominant (or Creative) about the manner in which his IEI-ness shows up.

In many ways, I would assert that Dali is the exact opposite of Michael Jackson (and in many ways provides the perfect embodiment for the question that I initially raised in my initial post in this thread).

MJ looks like a soft-spoken, sensitive EIE (H-EIE, or more specifically, Ni-EIE [using DCNH])
Dali looks like a highly assertive, energetic IEI (or EIE). (D-IEI, or more specifically Fe-IEI [using DCNH])

What do you think about this? How can we discriminate between these two people?

Wonderful choice of examples here! Provides great food for thought!

After thinking about this some more, here are my rankings for Dali's type:

1a. C-IEI
1b. C-EIE
2. D-IEI
3. H-EIE

I consider 1a and 1b to be near tied. 1a looks strong because it places highest which is precisely what Dali spends so much time painting about and even discussing. (Think Jung/collective unconscious and symbolisms). However, 1b looks strong too because it has some of that trademark EIE sharpness and energeticness. The question ultimately is: Is he a strong extravert or a socially extraverted Socionics introvert?

I am starting to think that his outgoing nature comes more from showing the Creative subtype rather than the Dominant subtype (using DCNH language). There is more of a bizarre dynamic to Dali rather than a purely assertive dynamic. This is why I place 1a/1b ahead of 2.

Finally, I place 3 the lowest since if DCNH is energy based while Sociotype is information based, I see Dali's energy as being simply too high ('assertively bizarre') to be a Harmonizing subtype. To me, H subtypes are way more soft spoken, and I simply don't see Dali going in this direction.

So these are my clarifications. Any thoughts about this?

[mikesilb]

I have just realized that my type is ESE (alpha), rather than EIE (beta). Thus, this will slightly modify/distort the way that I looked at this thread earlier. I just wanted to update you on this development.

[Olga]

I have just realized that my type is ESE (alpha), rather than EIE (beta). Thus, this will slightly modify/distort the way that I looked at this thread earlier. I just wanted to update you on this development.

Please, make a list of your favourite songs and pictures up to 6-to 10 and post the into the thread usic of the types please. Can you do it for me, please? If you can choose the songs wich you always loved and can coent on the and the pictures - would be great. the pictures which you could put on the wall into your room or house.

[Olga]

What made you change your mind about this? To me, I would have still potentially thought EIE since MJ since he wanted to make the most impressionable show that would impact his crowd in a profound way (EIE). Yet, at the same time, his reserved, sensitive, and soft spoken nature would place him more in a Harmonizing space. So to me, MJ kinda sounded right as an EIE.

If you look at what you wrote earlier that:
Information - Sociotype
Energy - DCNH ,

I still think that this holds up. Why might IEI Harmonizing be more right than EIE Harmonizing, based on your new impressions?

(BTW, this is important for my typing too, since I initially thought SEI, then IEI, and then after people have commented that shows up dominantly, I switched to EIE-H which I still think is right).




I just saw the video. I can see why you might say that Dali seems Harmonizing (due to his interplay with the unconscious in a Jungian kind of way). My problem ultimately with this is that based on your statement:

Information - Sociotype
Energy - DCNH ,

I still get this sense that Dali has a high and dramatic energy that would fit more of the D-EIE. Or perhaps, actually he could serve as a great example of a D-IEI (or perhaps C-IEI).

Fundamental mistake of the DCNH is in your words. You can keep guessing and observing for the rest of you lifes. Collect a bigger croud to ask for opinion. LOL
Don't you see it, that this approach is flawed and hinders the typing of people, don't you?

[Olga]

Why do you, guys, separate sociotype from behaviour and information from energy while it is all in harmony in one type and coexist as a form+ content?
Does it mean that I must think like ESI and act like IEI? Are you mad?

[Olga]

Sorry for not replying earlier - I do not get announcment of the posts on this forum straight away. Can anybody help me with that?

Now I have tended to follow DCNH and essentially still do. I like how it keeps the Informational/Cognitive content (that drives the IM Elements) separately from the Social/Behavioral domain.

Did you ever asked the question if this statement is actually true- that we think "hot" and do "cold" on the regular basis? Where is the rationale for this statement? Does it happen to you or people around you? Is it ok to think that people normally think and say one thing and do exaclty the opposite?
How on earth could we be able to type people into 16 types and how could Jung derive the individual differences from his observation if people would be not themselves in sound and action?

[Olga]

However, I find that both of these phenomena are quite real, and I appreciate the overlay of behavior onto the Socionics material. While it may not make for the purest model theoretically (since DCNH is certainly measuring parameters that are separate from the IM Elements, and hence does not make for a pure 'subtype' by definition), I still think that dividing up the Sociotype into various sectors (DCNH) that pertain to real-life socio-behavioral activity makes quite a bit of sense. To me, it is good to know that EIEs are not all assertive people (although they, as EJs, would like to make decisions that move their lives forward and that connect with the people around them in insightful ways).

Could it be that what you see is not exactly what you have been told? Yes, I understand it did make sense to you that you can notice the diffrences on the level of DCNH but is this phenomena what people say it is..... or may be it can be interpreted in a different way?

For example, my concept is about Types of psychic energy. What is if you do not believe that this kind of energy exists, would you still take it as the package without questioning and finding your own understanding of the phenomena?

Did you ever thought that the DCNH in behaviour is merely temperaments which you are registering or may be something else? Gulenko calls it the role in the group. By saing that he detaches the observable quality from typology. Is that right to do it? How right and under what circumstances? Why does he do it and what he wants to achive by doing that?

[Olga]

OK, subtype in Gulenko's term is the role in the group. In terms of DCNH if you are CC ( creative type and subtype) then in all differen situations no atter what type surround you you will be very obvious as creative? What if the dominant person comes a long and put you into submissive mode so you become more introverted and hence get the normative or harmoniios subtype. Can not this happen potetially?
What can we determine then - typical quality or situational which has got nothing to do with typing?
Or if the two CCs come in one group - will they not change to something else? will it be then CCH or CCC or CCD?
Where the DCNH experts here on the forum? I do no want to talk to myself but I want my questions to be answered, please. I am just an ESI type and I am sure there are experts with DD and CC and DC and etc.

[noid]

Basically, Dominant tries to forcibly change their surroundings in pursuit of a goal, Normalizing establishes a "domain" and makes sure everything is orderly and "correct" within his domain, Creative explores new ideas and then spreads them back out into the world, and Harmonizing seeks peace and harmony with all, and may retreat if such cannot be established.

wow, fuck, I'm DOMINANT ! I'm DOMINATING ! IM A ROCK ! YOU CAN4T MESS WITH ME §§§!!§

[lynn]

Most people seem to have a mixed subtype, with one main type leading and the second one as modifying the behaviour. So basically, the DCNH subtypes have subtypes as well. It's like sun sign and ascendant.

I just tried to compared examples of NFs and it's actually really easy to observe.
All of them dynamic and determined types, but
DC is more creative + people orientied
DH is softer + receptive / vulnerable
DN is more static in their expression + "strict"

1)

EII-DC - Lights


2)

EII(?)-DH - Sasha Alex Sloan


EIE(?)-DH - Zella Day


3)

IEI - DN - Lariss



+ Examples of EIE-DN would be Taylor Swift and Cher Lloyd.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

Oh boy, I don't like mixing DCNH types, it's over-complicating things way too much. But the best way to identify DCNH is how they behave in a group.

D sub will be the engine of the team, they will be pushing others toward some action or objective.

C sub is the brainstormer.

N sub is the person who ensures everyone follows the necessary guidelines for success.

H sub makes sure the group is cohesive and doesn't rock the boat.

[lynn]

I think it's useful to know that types are mixed and also easier when you have to work together with people, because sometimes you are not aware that people can have different energies and a different direction how their process moves and will find out to "late" that you're not really compatible in your work method or goal you're trying to achieve.

e.g. the CN I've been working with will start a process by trying out all different options but then zone in on the only right option, which has to look perfect and flawless, really perfectionistic and rigid without any open-ended possibilities, which can be extremly stressful working together if you don't value this.

I've also met NCs who are quiet, private and work efficiently and appear calm and reflective and then when you ask them about their values it's all about "how to break all the rules" and they can accidentally doing some illegal stuff when working on their creative projects or creating "chaos".

[Bethanyclaire]

I’m one of 4 siblings and I think we are the 4 different subtypes. H-first born, D-second born, C-third, N-4. As a harmonising type I’m very easy-going and kinda quiet, fairly kind-natured, my dominant type brother has lots of personality but can be quite troublesome, C-sister is fairly independent and fun-seeking, N brother- sensible and smart.