Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 59 of 59

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

  1. #41
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,097
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you think of this?

    Subtypes and compatibility:

    From most to least compatible:

    Dual subtype > Identical subtype > Subtype you supervise > Subtype who supervises you

    The last two could be switched or could be on an equal compatibility level. I put subtype you supervise as more compatible than the subtype you supervises you for no real good reason other than I'd rather be the supervisor than the supervisee.

    So the order of most compatible to least compatible matches for each DCNH subtype:

    D subtype: N > D > C > H
    C subtype: H > C > N > D
    N subtype: D > N > H > C
    H subtype: C > H > D > N
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  2. #42
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    What do you think of this?

    Subtypes and compatibility:

    From most to least compatible:

    Dual subtype > Identical subtype > Subtype you supervise > Subtype who supervises you

    The last two could be switched or could be on an equal compatibility level. I put subtype you supervise as more compatible than the subtype you supervises you for no real good reason other than I'd rather be the supervisor than the supervisee.

    So the order of most compatible to least compatible matches for each DCNH subtype:

    D subtype: N > D > C > H
    C subtype: H > C > N > D
    N subtype: D > N > H > C
    H subtype: C > H > D > N
    Yeah, that sounds about right, with the addition of the point that not all Subtype Identicals are created equal: Dominants will clash all the time, Creatives will clash if they are both "on" at the same time, Normalizers with ignore each other, and Harmonizers will try to get along with each other (but it will be kind of boring).

    However, since DCNH subtype deals with external behavioural strategies moreso than internal information processing, subtype relationships tend to be more obvious and therefore less problematic -- in other words, you're less likely to become seriously interested in someone with an incompatible subtype.

    On the other hand, a Conflictor with a compatible subtype is at least initially going to be more appealing than a Conflictor with an incompatible subtype. The same would be true across the board. So there could be some problems there, at least for people who are not familiar with socionics.
    Quaero Veritas.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default hmmm a baffling case of

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    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.

  4. #44
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    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.

  5. #45
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    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?
    Quaero Veritas.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Okay I can admit when I'm wrong but only if I'm wrong

    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?

  7. #47
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    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?
    Quaero Veritas.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    "Right" in what sense?
    proper/correct/true/the way things are meant to be done/etc.

  9. #49
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    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.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,859
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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!

  11. #51
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    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.
    Quaero Veritas.

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default by process of elimination

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    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.
    Okay my interest is reality which I take to be singular meaning there is only one reality so when learning different thorhetical models of behaviour, well, I see them all converging like a sperm race and in the end, at the risk of sounding silly but to quote from the movie highlander: "there can only be one".

  13. #53
    Shytan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII 4w3 Sx/sp
    Posts
    512
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Wont INFj introverted feeling be a dominant subtype?

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    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 , ENFJ , ISFP , ISTP , INFP , INTP .

    the normalizing types are: INTJ , INFJ , ISFJ , ISTJ , ENTP , ENFP , ESTP , ESFP .

    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 , INFJ , ISFJ , ISTJ , ENTP , ENFP , ESTP , ESFP .

    the harmonizing types are: ESFJ , ESTJ , ENTJ , ENFJ , ISFP , ISTP , INFP , INTP .

    Creative and harmonizing are compatible with each other, so on, ecctera. Like I was mentioning before, I'm not sure if an ESFJ is more compatibile with a INTJ or a ENTP ? Socionics would say INTJ and ESFJ are compatible but DCNH would say ESFJ and ENTP are more compatible - that is my interpretation.

    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).
    Won't INFj of introverted feeling subtype be a dominant subtype?

    C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479

  14. #54
    Ania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    2. Creative Subtype
    Everyone wants to be unique. I'm not like that...

    The Creative subtype, conversely, is the least similar to its main type description. It is the most flexible subtype. There is a strong inclination toward "Mirror" type, as though the 1st and 2nd functions have switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the extravert to the introvert. And in general, all characteristic type features seem to be diluted and watered down for the Creative subtype.

    It seems that for Creative subtype the intertype relations are also "watered down" – as he conducts himself "outside the box" by the standards of his type.

    Creative subtype, one way or another, finds himself in the sphere of ideas and creativity, and this doesn't have to be something artistic – it may well be scientific or a hobby; generally, a creative element is introduced into any pursuit, otherwise the Creative subtype feels uninterested. If someone else's result or product comes into his hand, the Creative subtype will remake, "improve it", think it over.

    For Creative subtype it is easiest to show and realize himself over the 2nd function, but in principle, other variants are possible.

    On another note, if the result or product of the Dominant subtype is immediately demonstrates and "hyped up" – the Creative subtype can easily create "for himself", to write knowing his writing won't get published, or for a narrow circle of those for whom it may be needed or interesting.

    The Creative subtype is not very discerning of various social-relational games, but he doesn't protest if he gets pulled into such a game.

    He easily takes off, "a person with eccentricities", capable of an unusual and generally foreign to his sociotype actions (for example, an LII who doesn't only go hitchhiking himself, but also takes his wife and children along for the trip).

    The Creative subtype is not interested in anything besides that which is truly interesting to him – in the sense that he ignores everything else (passively or actively). Including people (for Creative subtypes of logical types: "those people are like wooden poles"). May actively renounce something if it hinders him personally. By these means, Creative subtype "slips by", since a renounced topic is not important to understand because it's outside the scope of his interests.

    Creative subtype attitude towards norms or standards is negative or indifferent, which is especially clearly displayed on the aspect of role function: that is, a person of Creative subtype does not strive to abide by "generally accepted" standards. (Julia (Balzac) was genuinely surprised at my attempt to wash the fruit bought at the market – what for? At my explanations "So that they are clean", and that "I may eat unwashed fruit, but they should be given to a small child" Julia just waved her hand dismissively.)

    4. Harmonizing Subtype

    Most important is the weather in the house…


    Quite lively and recognizable by his main type's description, however, in comparison with the classic type description he is "suspiciously" nice. It seems that the negative traits of a sociotype have no relation to the harmonizing subtype.

    Soft and delicate; although these qualities are somewhat limited by the capabilities of the type. That is, an ethical type of Harmonizing subtype is usually a very ethical person. He always wants to do something so that everyone is well. Even a logical type, but with logical type for some reason it turns out to be "he wanted to do best, but it turned out as always".
    In contrast to the Normalizing-Dominant dyad, Harmonizing and Creative is a complementary pair with a "delicate structure of the soul". Especially, of course, the Harmonizing subtype: sensitive, worrying, touchy, altruistic, self-sacrificing.

    Like the Dominant subtype, the Harmonizing subtype functions as a connector, that is, he establishes the necessary links to the environment. But where Dominant does so crudely and directly, Harmonizing does so by careful manipulation (he is capable of manipulation that provides multiple moves, for the purpose of making another person become well).

    The Harmonizing subtype monitors social desirability and conforms to it. ("A gentleman is that man who calls a cat a cat, even having stepped on it in darkness…") This especially applies to relational and gender stereotypes. Moreover, if the Harmonizing subtype has armed himself with a gender stereotype, he doesn't simply behave in accordance with it, but moves it closer to an ideal. This is the Ideal Man ("I'm going to earn money for my beloved!") or an Ideal Woman.

    The Harmonizing subtype doesn't really want to do something "for himself". Now, if it was for a close person, then – anything they wish.

    Always ready to help, to go for agreements and compromises, often thereby inconveniencing himself. Often he lives with a sensation of discomfort and stress, and consciously goes for this. If something is coming together on its own - this isn't sufficiently valuable to him. But if he does something for someone else, that's he didn't wish to do - this will be a significant Good Deed. Therefore Harmonizers are often doing something with their painful function. When people talk about PoLR as a "secondary creative function", this is about Harmonizing subtype.

    The Harmonizing subtype cannot stand it when anyone argues or scolds, or disharmonizes their environment somehow. Here again he tries to help, to fix the situation, since it makes him feel badly.

    He is well aware of how he must behave so that others won't feel badly. Evaluates those around him from the point of view of the ethicalness of their behavior, strives to educate them. Worries and feels himself bad if he has committed some unethical act.
    The Harmonizing subtype finds it difficult to insult people "directly", to fault and accuse a person even if he/she has deserved it. He either tries to express his displeasure and resentment delicately, or he keeps silent and sulks. Even when it is already evident that he thinks poorly of someone, it is put across something like this: "I think poorly of you, but for the sake of our good relationship, I won't say anything about it". As a result, a "delicate hint" coming from harmonizing can be much more offensive than a direct "attack". For example: "Thank you for the lack of birthday congratulations. It was very nice, ladies and gentlemen." The Dominant subtype would have said: "It's my birthday! Quickly, everybody congratulate me!" And no problem…

    Or another situation - a guest hasn't taken off his shoes at the entry as the home owner would have liked. The Dominant subtype puts a stop to this business at the root: you won't have time to enter, you will immediately be told where to remove your boots. ("Where are you going? Stop! - they will say.) The Normalizing subtype will mutter to the side: "Why is it that everyone walks in their boots past the green rug, which is is the size of the entire lobby?" (and he himself will put the shoes where they must go). The Creative subtype might not notice anything; or he will notice, but consider it too unimportant to say anything about it. But the Harmonizing subtype will keep silent out of delicacy, but will remember: "how could a guest enter in his shoes, is he a bad person?!"

    .

  15. #55
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง Fitesville
    TIM
    LSI-H
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    4. Harmonizing Subtype

    Most important is the weather in the house…


    Quite lively and recognizable by his main type's description, however, in comparison with the classic type description he is "suspiciously" nice. It seems that the negative traits of a sociotype have no relation to the harmonizing subtype.

    Soft and delicate; although these qualities are somewhat limited by the capabilities of the type. That is, an ethical type of Harmonizing subtype is usually a very ethical person. He always wants to do something so that everyone is well. Even a logical type, but with logical type for some reason it turns out to be "he wanted to do best, but it turned out as always".
    In contrast to the Normalizing-Dominant dyad, Harmonizing and Creative is a complementary pair with a "delicate structure of the soul". Especially, of course, the Harmonizing subtype: sensitive, worrying, touchy, altruistic, self-sacrificing.

    Like the Dominant subtype, the Harmonizing subtype functions as a connector, that is, he establishes the necessary links to the environment. But where Dominant does so crudely and directly, Harmonizing does so by careful manipulation (he is capable of manipulation that provides multiple moves, for the purpose of making another person become well).

    The Harmonizing subtype monitors social desirability and conforms to it. ("A gentleman is that man who calls a cat a cat, even having stepped on it in darkness…") This especially applies to relational and gender stereotypes. Moreover, if the Harmonizing subtype has armed himself with a gender stereotype, he doesn't simply behave in accordance with it, but moves it closer to an ideal. This is the Ideal Man ("I'm going to earn money for my beloved!") or an Ideal Woman.

    The Harmonizing subtype doesn't really want to do something "for himself". Now, if it was for a close person, then – anything they wish.

    Always ready to help, to go for agreements and compromises, often thereby inconveniencing himself. Often he lives with a sensation of discomfort and stress, and consciously goes for this. If something is coming together on its own - this isn't sufficiently valuable to him. But if he does something for someone else, that's he didn't wish to do - this will be a significant Good Deed. Therefore Harmonizers are often doing something with their painful function. When people talk about PoLR as a "secondary creative function", this is about Harmonizing subtype.

    The Harmonizing subtype cannot stand it when anyone argues or scolds, or disharmonizes their environment somehow. Here again he tries to help, to fix the situation, since it makes him feel badly.

    He is well aware of how he must behave so that others won't feel badly. Evaluates those around him from the point of view of the ethicalness of their behavior, strives to educate them. Worries and feels himself bad if he has committed some unethical act.
    The Harmonizing subtype finds it difficult to insult people "directly", to fault and accuse a person even if he/she has deserved it. He either tries to express his displeasure and resentment delicately, or he keeps silent and sulks. Even when it is already evident that he thinks poorly of someone, it is put across something like this: "I think poorly of you, but for the sake of our good relationship, I won't say anything about it". As a result, a "delicate hint" coming from harmonizing can be much more offensive than a direct "attack". For example: "Thank you for the lack of birthday congratulations. It was very nice, ladies and gentlemen." The Dominant subtype would have said: "It's my birthday! Quickly, everybody congratulate me!" And no problem…

    Or another situation - a guest hasn't taken off his shoes at the entry as the home owner would have liked. The Dominant subtype puts a stop to this business at the root: you won't have time to enter, you will immediately be told where to remove your boots. ("Where are you going? Stop! - they will say.) The Normalizing subtype will mutter to the side: "Why is it that everyone walks in their boots past the green rug, which is is the size of the entire lobby?" (and he himself will put the shoes where they must go). The Creative subtype might not notice anything; or he will notice, but consider it too unimportant to say anything about it. But the Harmonizing subtype will keep silent out of delicacy, but will remember: "how could a guest enter in his shoes, is he a bad person?!"
    I just figured out why I'm like this...



    (lol this guy is EII)

    My internal reaction: You little shit... I'll strangle you.

    My external reaction: Being tolerant and understanding.

    Internal reaction = natural state that cannot be externalized, because I learned to keep quiet and to not cause problems for my parents when as a kid my home environment meant to walk on eggshells and the constant dread of conflict (which might get worse if I stood up for them) erupting any minute has trained me to be this way.
    Last edited by shotgunfingers; 11-18-2020 at 06:14 PM.
    LSI-H - - Melancholy|Sanguine - 6w5-8-4 Sp - LFVE MBTI ISTP
    Oldham's Sensitive & Vigilant Type

    When all beauty is tarnished, when all thought is profaned
    They'll cry out for men to invoke the iron rods again
    Now this our secret flame will illuminate the night
    And its sparks fly on the wind and set the world alight


  16. #56
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง Fitesville
    TIM
    LSI-H
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ania View Post
    I wonder if harmonizing subtype people are easily mistyped given how they are supposed to “stress their PoLR”
    I certainly seem to express one thing while internally things are not like that at all.
    Its like one has to tell themselves that: "Its ok to be yourself, to set boundaries and assert your will."
    Its easier to be myself imo on the forum while posting and I'm not very agreeable here, which reflects more how I really am without the baggage.

    Theoretically I could just do exposure therapy, a kind of experimental letting lose within reasonable limits ofc, I should not endeavor to be stupid.

    "he wanted to do best, but it turned out as always". <== yeah..
    Last edited by shotgunfingers; 11-18-2020 at 07:36 PM.
    LSI-H - - Melancholy|Sanguine - 6w5-8-4 Sp - LFVE MBTI ISTP
    Oldham's Sensitive & Vigilant Type

    When all beauty is tarnished, when all thought is profaned
    They'll cry out for men to invoke the iron rods again
    Now this our secret flame will illuminate the night
    And its sparks fly on the wind and set the world alight


  17. #57
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง Fitesville
    TIM
    LSI-H
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    2. Creative Subtype
    Everyone wants to be unique. I'm not like that...

    The Creative subtype, conversely, is the least similar to its main type description. It is the most flexible subtype. There is a strong inclination toward "Mirror" type, as though the 1st and 2nd functions have switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the extravert to the introvert. And in general, all characteristic type features seem to be diluted and watered down for the Creative subtype.

    It seems that for Creative subtype the intertype relations are also "watered down" – as he conducts himself "outside the box" by the standards of his type.

    Creative subtype, one way or another, finds himself in the sphere of ideas and creativity, and this doesn't have to be something artistic – it may well be scientific or a hobby; generally, a creative element is introduced into any pursuit, otherwise the Creative subtype feels uninterested. If someone else's result or product comes into his hand, the Creative subtype will remake, "improve it", think it over.

    For Creative subtype it is easiest to show and realize himself over the 2nd function, but in principle, other variants are possible.

    On another note, if the result or product of the Dominant subtype is immediately demonstrates and "hyped up" – the Creative subtype can easily create "for himself", to write knowing his writing won't get published, or for a narrow circle of those for whom it may be needed or interesting.

    The Creative subtype is not very discerning of various social-relational games, but he doesn't protest if he gets pulled into such a game.

    He easily takes off, "a person with eccentricities", capable of an unusual and generally foreign to his sociotype actions (for example, an LII who doesn't only go hitchhiking himself, but also takes his wife and children along for the trip).

    The Creative subtype is not interested in anything besides that which is truly interesting to him – in the sense that he ignores everything else (passively or actively). Including people (for Creative subtypes of logical types: "those people are like wooden poles"). May actively renounce something if it hinders him personally. By these means, Creative subtype "slips by", since a renounced topic is not important to understand because it's outside the scope of his interests.

    Creative subtype attitude towards norms or standards is negative or indifferent, which is especially clearly displayed on the aspect of role function: that is, a person of Creative subtype does not strive to abide by "generally accepted" standards. (Julia (Balzac) was genuinely surprised at my attempt to wash the fruit bought at the market – what for? At my explanations "So that they are clean", and that "I may eat unwashed fruit, but they should be given to a small child" Julia just waved her hand dismissively.)
    this explains why I seem more like a irrational type and why I relate more to SLE reinin dichotomies, while not actually being SLE. IF I manage to ditch the harmonizing baggage, a more introverted version of SLE would be the result. Interesting.
    LSI-H - - Melancholy|Sanguine - 6w5-8-4 Sp - LFVE MBTI ISTP
    Oldham's Sensitive & Vigilant Type

    When all beauty is tarnished, when all thought is profaned
    They'll cry out for men to invoke the iron rods again
    Now this our secret flame will illuminate the night
    And its sparks fly on the wind and set the world alight


  18. #58
    a two horned unicorn renegade Comatose Lamiac 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    tickling your PoLR
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF 7 so/sx
    Posts
    5,755
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunfingers View Post
    Its easier to be myself imo on the forum while posting and I'm not very agreeable here, which reflects more how I really am without the baggage.
    As per self typing IRL I have little doubts. I just kind of blend in to people expectation of myself and by this I mean I don't ever seem normal. I have fooled lots of people. People have lots of conceptions of myself and it is kind of funny to just give food to confirmation bias. It is just about playing along and it is weird. Somepoint in time it might be necessary to pull a rug under their feet which is a bit upsetting operation.
    Measuring you right now

    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  19. #59
    Decisive Queen StarPath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    TIM
    Executive
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am either the dominant or the normalizing subtype.
    ESI-Se - 1w2 sp/so - 136 - VLEF - Lawful Neutral - Ravenclaw
    1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5
    Virgo Sun - Aquarius Rising - Scorpio Moon


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •