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...Originally Posted by Pinocchio
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).
Nah I don't think this kind of version of the theory makes sense, why would only static types be creative or normalizing and only dynamic types be dominant or harmonizing? All that it says is "Ji functions are normalizing, Je functions are dominant, Pe functions are creative, Pi functions are harmonizing". That's rather simplicistic, in my opinion.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Interaction defines intertype relations
I assume they derived extroverted-introvert and introverted-extrovert from different degrees of interaction. I indicated each subtype with their corresponding function and that can be slightly misleading because the original article utilizes diagrams to illustrate the manner inwhich dominant interacts with normalizing, etc. The emphasis is not on defining type by function, i.e. static, dynamic, etc., nor definining relationship by function but on how each individual type interacts and given their interactions with one another, certain patterns of behaviour emerges that can be organized into intertype relations disregardless of presumed behaviour that we see in socionics. Hence the rift.
I'll do my best to recall the traits of each type to breath more life into 'this version of the theory'. Take for example the dominant type. For both the logical and ethical types they are more aggressive in behaviour and more critical in their statements. They will assume a position of authority and leadership or try to gain such a position. They behave with disregard for the rules and can even act against the law. For dominants who are introverts, they will not presume leadership roles but certainly remain well aware of who is in control.
The normalizing type is regarded as acting in the interest of society/community/group/etc. The logical type has an aptitude for logical analysis better than all other types. The ethical type is characterized as being highly anxious as to what behaviour fits in with the group. The normalizing type reminds the dominant to obey the rules and the law.
The creative type is characterized as being the most independent minded. They frequently are ingenious with their creations and there is an internal harmony or symmetry within their creations. Their behaviour changes frequently. I can't remember the sensory type too well. The intuitive type is known for fantasies that have an intellectual bent. They also show signs of consideration for the well being of others which the harmonizing type greatly appreciates. They often do not follow through with their plans, i.e. career.
The harmonizing type is characterized as being 'clingy', they can get into a relationship that they can not get themselves out of. They often consider themselves condemed in some way. The feeling types of the harmonizers are the most ethical of all the types. The sensory types pay great attention to their asetheticism, the intutive types do as well but to a lesser degree. The intuitive types can have trouble with autistic behaviour - not sure what that means in a literal sense. From experience I'd guess they say and do things without really comprehending but don't quote me.
If that is too simple then I'd suggest taking a look at the original article because it is worth reading. The manner inwhich I'm interpreting socionics.com and DCHN subtypes is a certain types interaction defines their intertype relationships - functionality of type is not equitable to explain interaction and therefore define intertype relationships. Interaction is the source of knoweldge in psychological typing and bywhich we can determine the intertype relationship; functionality is meaningless without interaction. I'll stop here.
Haha. This is good. Thanks, Krieg.
Sigh. Can I have a new subtype please?
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
miscommunication
warrior librarian - your a LII intuitive subtype that means your the intuitive creative subtype. The harmonizing intuitive subtypes are introverted intuition: INTP, ENTJ, INFP and ENFJ. Try to be a bit more objective, it can increase your mood and help you think clearer especially when trying to make sense of all of this.
Wont INFj introverted feeling be a dominant subtype?
Won't INFj of introverted feeling subtype be a dominant subtype?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
the normalizing types are: INTJ
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
the harmonizing types are: ESFJ
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
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote