I don't think I fully understand this model, but...
It seems like a D-EII... is not possible? Or what would that look like?
I don't think I fully understand this model, but...
It seems like a D-EII... is not possible? Or what would that look like?
Actually, D-EII is one of the examples she (Vera is a woman's name in Russian, right?) gives:Originally Posted by Ryu
Any combination of type and subtype is possible, at least in this model.Dominant Dostoevsky [EII] is sort of "an iron fist in a velvet glove": after a demonstration of softness and ethics emerges an equally demonstrative condemnation and desire to "educate".
Quaero Veritas.
Now we're beginning to talk about realistic characterizations!
That the Creative subtypes don't clearly express their type's traits may help explain my personal typing circus. I assume many people hold the opinion that I'm difficult to type.
I think this is partly why I've been mistyped as ILE on occasion.
But do you think some combinations are more common or less common than others? Or do you think they're evenly distributed?
I love your writings on DCNH subtypes. Keep up the good work.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Thanks.
As for whether certain combinations are more common than others, in a way it intuitively makes sense that the Ego-based subtypes would be more common than the others (i.e., Creative and Normalizing in Static types, Dominant and Harmonizing in Dynamic types). However, there is no hard reason for that to be the case. You would have to do a statistical analysis of a large number of people to be sure, and I don't have the resources to do that.
I've been wondering when someone would catch that; I've been meaning to write a disclaimer about that myself. If you read the rest of the article, the author describes several types of subtype systems, before getting to Gulenko's system. She describes Gulenko's system accurately, and then just before she begins describing the four subtypes individually, she writes this (this is a really rough translation):
To be honest, unless I'm misunderstanding something, that doesn't really jive at all with Gulenko's description. I'm not sure if the author is misunderstanding something, or trying to import ideas from a different subtype system, or what. Because of that, I'm hesitant to call these descriptions absolutely definitive, however they do otherwise appear to be substantially accurate, outside of the weird bits correlating DCNH subtypes to functions rather than information elements.Subtype in this frame of reference is connected not only with the meaningful filling of one aspect or another, but also with the special features of the structure of the typological model. Specifically - the Dominant demonstrates additional strengthening of the base function (possibly due to the functions of the weaker), the Creative - creative, the Normalizing - role, the Harmonizing - PoLR. The discussion deals precisely with structural updating, i.e., with transferring of the strategy of the actualized function to the behavior of man as a whole.
Like all descriptions, this should be viewed as a description of the DCNH subtypes, not the description.
Quaero Veritas.
I think I already thought about it last weak but... don't know why I didn't mention it... had some different problems...
It is just a different system with the same names.
This system:
strengthened base function - dominant subtype
strengthened creative function - creative subtype
strengthened role function - normalizing subtype
strengthened vulnerable function - harmonizing subtype
Gulenko's system:
base and role - dominant for EJ, creative for EP, normalizing for IJ, harmonizing for IP
creative and vulnerable - dominant for IP, creative for IJ, normalizing for EP, harmonizing for EJ
suggestive and ignoring - dominant for IJ, creative for IP, normalizing for EJ, harmonizing for EP
mobilizing and demonstrative - dominant for EP, creative for EJ, normalizing for IP, harmonizing for IJ
Yes, I'm aware of how DCNH works, you don't have to spell it out for my sake. Unless you were doing it for the benefit of the others reading this thread.
If you read the original article, Borisova is specifically talking about Gulenko's system. She mentions Gulenko by name, and summarizes his two articles on the subject (the same ones that were formerly on wikisocion). She does appear to be describing Gulenko's four subtypes, she seems to just add in this other stuff about strengthened functions which contradicts what Gulenko said about strengthened elements, in much the same way you add in stuff about face shapes and subtype being permanent which contradicts what Gulenko said about subtype being changeable.
What her basis is for adding that material, I do not know.
Quaero Veritas.
For others only
No, that's not really the same. My method of face detection is just an interesting dicovery which leads to the conclusion that DCNH subtype is not changeable. Borisova does not add discoveries to DCNH - she defines a completely different system...
Hmm ok, that makes me think of Minde a little bit, then.
But I don't particularly agree with her therefore being more socially extraverted.
Removed at User Request
No, this is not DCNH, at least not the DCNH Gulenko describes! DCNH is a subtype system of socionics, the only useful one in my opinion...
The system in this article is not the system Gulenko described in 2006, either! D and H are switched, that makes a big difference. The intertype relations are also described differently!
There is no subtype theory in Russian according to Dr. Volkova
There is or are issues like insecurities that are acquired outside of type, I guess you could call that nurture.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I'm rolling up the sleeves and giving this a try
I've read two articles on DCNH subtypes from wikionics* and here is what I can recall:
They wanted to explain why certain types of the same socionic type exhibit different behaviour along the extroversion and introversion scale. From closer observation the same socionic type found in two people (or more) would manifest differently in terms of their first and secondary function.
Example: two people of the same type ISFP would not entirely act the same. One person acts extroverted and another acts introverted (hmm...how interesting they thought). They deduced the concept of extroveted-introvert to account for these differences of the same type.
The concept applies as needed to all introverts who demonstrate extroveted behaviour. Inversely, they realised the same phenomena with extroverts and so deduced the concept of introverted-extroverts. Hence the need for subtypes in addition to socionic typology. I think most of us can mostly agree to this - adimittedly it is a fiction in terms of what type made them realize there is subtypes and to further pursue investigating to other types.
From memory,
the dominant types are: ESFJ, ESTJ
, ENTJ
the normalizing types are: INTJ, INFJ
, ISFJ
Dominant and normalizing are compatible with each other in terms of their way of life and intimate relationships. Honestly not sure what that means yet for socionics as understood on socionics.com. I mean intimate relationships seems to include marriage I would assume. To prioritize amongst these two groups obviously duality would be most favourable but I'm unsure if that remains true when introducing the all other groups.
the creative types are: INTJ, ISTJ
the harmonizing types are: ESFJ, ENFJ
Creative and harmonizing are compatible with each other, so on, ecctera. Like I was mentioning before, I'm not sure if an ESFJ
The article mentions supervision, beneficial and activiation relationships. Familiar terms used in an unfamiliar way.
Dominants activate creatives, creatives activate normalizing, normalizing activates harmonizers, and harmonizers activates dominants.
Dominants supervise creatives, creatives supervise normalizing, normalizing supervises harmonizers, and harmonizers supervise dominants.
Dominants benefit creatives, creatives benefit normalizing, normalizing benefits harmonizers, and harmonizers benefit dominants.
Try compare that to your understanding of socionic interrelationships. I'm too exhausted and confused as to what it really means for socionics. This is only what I remember, the article gives a brief description of each type and there is more diagrams and relationships mentioned.
Some people argue if there is such a thing as subtypes and if so, is that a more ideal duality? - according to DCNH yes. However that complicates the socionics.com description of duality alot more than expanding upon it. If DCNH is true then socionics may have some revisions to consider.
As far as relevancy of enneagram system, at first it appears very general and contrived but then you discover there is wings and instinctual types which accounts for some differences in behaviour of the same type but then there is tri-types, ie. 5-2-9. Unbelievably, some people on the internet have gone through the bother of describing all the different combinations for a 5 tri-type.
Carl Jung is like the Charles Dawin for psychological types but dame this got way more confusing than evolution(Enneagram is influenced by Carl Jung's typology as is socionics).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
