DCNH subtypes by Vera Borisova: Dominant, Creative, Normalizing, Harmonizing

[The Exception]

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.

I think you're confusing the two subtype theory with DCNH. With the two subtype theory, there's increased emphasis on either the dominant or the creative function, nothing else. With DCNH it's possible that the increased emphasis is going elsewhere besides the dominant or the creative function. With H subtypes, the increased emphasis is on the demonstrative (8th) and mobilizing (6th) functions.

[chip]

I think you're confusing the two subtype theory with DCNH. With the two subtype theory, there's increased emphasis on either the dominant or the creative function, nothing else. With DCNH it's possible that the increased emphasis is going elsewhere besides the dominant or the creative function. With H subtypes, the increased emphasis is on the demonstrative (8th) and mobilizing (6th) functions.

I'm fairly certain that DCNH is centered around the idea of extroverted-introverts and introverted extroverts, and the corresponding inter relationships that follow. Implicitly, one type has two different subtypes. The definition of subtypes in DCNH is consistent with the idea of subtypes who have a proficiency for one of their two main ego functions. Typically we understand INTJ to have two subtypes: logical and intuitive. In DCNH INTJ corresponds to have two subytpes: normalizing and creative. To synthesize the two systems means the creative subtype/intuitive subtype is the extroverted-introvert and there're all one and the same subtype only described in two different systems. The article I read from wikosocion made the implication clear without mention of including all eight ego-blocks into the explanation. I'm not sure where you sourced that.

Either I have confused the subtypes found on other websites to be consistent with DCNH by an act of synthesis or your confused. We can not both be right and both be wrong when were saying different things about the same thing.

[Aiss]

I'm fairly certain that DCNH is centered around the idea of extroverted-introverts and introverted extroverts, and the corresponding inter relationships that follow. Implicitly, one type has two different subtypes. The definition of subtypes in DCNH is consistent with the idea of subtypes who have a proficiency for one of their two main ego functions. Typically we understand INTJ to have two subtypes: logical and intuitive. In DCNH INTJ corresponds to have two subytpes: normalizing and creative. To synthesize the two systems means the creative subtype/intuitive subtype is the extroverted-introvert and there're all one and the same subtype only described in two different systems. The article I read from wikosocion made the implication clear without mention of including all eight ego-blocks into the explanation. I'm not sure where you sourced that.

Either I have confused the subtypes found on other websites to be consistent with DCNH by an act of synthesis or your confused. We can not both be right and both be wrong when were saying different things about the same thing.

You're fairly wrong here, as DCNH is a four subtype system not by differentiating between two subtypes each of static and dynamic types, but by identifying four subtypes applicable for each type.

That, in short, means that Harmonizing LII has strengthened Ni (demonstrative) and Si (mobilizing) functions. Creative ILI has strengthened Ne (ignoring) and Se (suggestive). Dominant LSE - Te (base) and Fe (role). Etc.

System described here obviously differs in that author relates each subtype to strengthening one of the functions of mental ring. I personally think this may be a better approach, not that it makes identifying subtypes any easier without considering them separately for each type.

There have been attempts at relating DCNH subtypes to more common accepting/producing system, which kind of fail (IMO) because while grouping rational/irrational together makes more sense, introversion/extroversion also makes a difference; in effect, people with strengthened elements in id will probably have troubles identifying with either of two subtypes.

Gulenko mentions the possibility of there rather being 8 subtypes (i.e. strengthening a particular element, whether by its positioning or not), which would solve these problems, except he then goes further with cross-type theory taking it beyond the subtypes and into a remodeling of socionics. I think I've read somewhere about a different approach by Filatova, but I couldn't find any articles about it.

[Krig the Viking]

I'm fairly certain that DCNH is centered around the idea of extroverted-introverts and introverted extroverts, and the corresponding inter relationships that follow. Implicitly, one type has two different subtypes.

From Gulenko's article on DCNH:

Isolating four subtypes

This degree of detail is needed when, for example, you have the problem of selecting one of three-four uniform candidates for a vacant post, or if there are several representatives of the same type which have to work together and it becomes necessary to solve the question of which to appoint for different tasks.

He's pretty clearly talking about one type having four different subtypes. It's talked about fairly explicitly throughout the article. Are you perhaps thinking of a different article?

[chip]

Okay time to admit I'm wrong. shit. The article begins with: "Why are people of one type so different?" the answer DCNH. To be intersubjective: is that the right beginning?

[Krig the Viking]

Okay time to admit I'm wrong. shit. The article begins with: "Why are people of one type so different?" the answer DCNH. To be intersubjective: is that the right beginning?

"Right" in what sense?

[chip]

"Right" in what sense?

proper/correct/true/the way things are meant to be done/etc.

[Aiss]

proper/correct/true/the way things are meant to be done/etc.

Not something you're going to get in socionics, then. You can say what's right or wrong in context of the specific theory, but it doesn't mean you're meant to use this one - especially true when comparing subtype system, alternative models, and similar.

[Krig the Viking]

proper/correct/true/the way things are meant to be done/etc.

Sorry man, I still don't quite understand the question. I feel dumb. Are you asking if the sentence is grammatically correct?

Krig I know this may come as a shock, but do you think it just might be possible that Gulenko was, on the matter of eight subtypes -- gasp -- WRONG? Flat out wrong? He wouldn't be the first!

Er -- so you're saying you believe in the four-subtype version of DCNH, but not the eight-subtype version? Why? It seems like a logical extension of the theory to me.