DCNH subtypes: different psychoforms of IEI-INFps

[silke]

I really don't see how DarkAngelFireWolf69 could have derived four subtypes within confines of Model A to begin with.

Information elements exist as part of dichotomous constructs, which means that 'strengthening' one will shift the focus away from whichever elements lie on the opposing ends the dichotomies (since all elements exist only in relation to each other).

For an IEI type, 'strengthening' of Fe leads to:
-> weaker Ti on basis of E-I dichotomy
-> weaker Te on basis of T-F dichotomy
-> stronger Fi on basis of E-I dichotomy with Te
IEI with 'strengthened' Fe will also have 'stronger' Fi and 'weaker' Te and Ti.

According to this assignment of subtypes to 'strengthened' elements:
D: Fe and Te
C: Se and Ne
N: Ti and Fi
H: Si and Ni
it becomes impossible to tell dominant and normalizing subtypes apart, since you cannot strengthen Fe without automatically strengthening Fi in relative proportion (and vice versa, if you choose to strengthen Fi, then Fe likewise will get augmented). This precludes existence of separate D and N subtypes. So how did DarkAngelFireWolf69 manage to derive them?

[gooey]

Damn. I've never thought about that before...that's an excellent point. You also subtly suggest this: How would anyone explain a strengthened Fe AND a strengthened Te if they are counter to one another based on model a?

[Saberstorm]

Is not the first system of subtypes (the two type model) based on being dominate towards ODD numbers (all of them, 1,3,5,7) or EVEN numbers (all of them, 2,4,6,8)? If so, there is no contradiction in being domenate towards one function; one is a suite of functions strengthened, the other is a single function strengthened.) They should not contradict. An IEI has all EVEN numbers active + function 4 "enflamed" and alert. It is subtle, but I am fine with it. It works without apparent conflict.

Think of the energy subtypes as a "inflamed brusie," and the accepting/producing subtypes as a natural preference.

[gooey]

it doesn't contradict inert/contact, but it does seem to contradict dcnh

[Krig the Viking]

I really don't see how DarkAngelFireWolf69 could have derived four subtypes within confines of Model A to begin with.

Information elements exist as part of dichotomous constructs, which means that 'strengthening' one will shift the focus away from whichever elements lie on the opposing ends the dichotomies (since all elements exist only in relation to each other).

For an IEI type, 'strengthening' of Fe leads to:
-> weaker Ti on basis of E-I dichotomy
-> weaker Te on basis of T-F dichotomy
-> stronger Fi on basis of E-I dichotomy with Te
IEI with 'strengthened' Fe will also have 'stronger' Fi and 'weaker' Te and Ti.

According to this assignment of subtypes to 'strengthened' elements:
D: Fe and Te
C: Se and Ne
N: Ti and Fi
H: Si and Ni
it becomes impossible to tell dominant and normalizing subtypes apart, since you cannot strengthen Fe without automatically strengthening Fi in relative proportion (and vice versa, if you choose to strengthen Fi, then Fe likewise will get augmented). This precludes existence of separate D and N subtypes. So how did DarkAngelFireWolf69 manage to derive them?

What you're describing is essentially how one's "club" affects function strength, but I think you're overlooking the effect that temperament has on function strength. An LII, being in the NT club, has strong Ne, Ni, Te, and Ti. However, without temperament, these would all be equally strong, with no difference between them. The IJ temperament strengthens Ti and Fi within their respective blocks, so that Ti is stronger than Ne and Fi is stronger than Se (with corresponding effects in the Vital ring). Club x Temperament = Type.

What DCNH describes is the result of people developing an increased emphasis on a particular temperament, which may or may not match up with their core temperament. C-LII, for example, is an LII who emphasizes the EP temperament in his behaviour. That LII has, for whatever reason, adopted a persona of an EP type, which over time will tend to strengthen Se and Ne, as those two functions are being used more frequently and become stronger and more experienced than in most LIIs.

In theory you could also have a "club" subtype system -- LII with an ST subtype, for example, meaning that this particular LII puts more emphasis on his ST functions than normal. Combining the two leads to a full 16-subtype system: an sle-LII, for example (which is my own subtype).

I'm not sure DarkAngelFireWolf69 would agree with me on the details of this, but that's how I see it.

[gooey]

Yo krig or anyone else, got any examples of a d-iei? I wasn't really satisfied with the Lennon example krig...not even too sure if he's iei to be honest

[Krig the Viking]

Michael Moore might be D-IEI. I'm somewhat lacking in D-IEI examples so far, unfortunately. Someday I hope to have several examples for each type/subtype combination, but it's a slow process.

My impression of you so far, gooey, is C-IEI. You seem to question everything, which has the side-effect of making you appear a bit scattered and directionless, which tends to be the case with Creative types. D-IEI would be more assertively linear, disregarding anything that isn't relevant to achieving whatever goal the D-IEI is pursuing at the moment.

[silke]

That's my understanding too, but a lot of people seem to disagree with me when I bring it up, so maybe it's not universally accepted?

These dichotomies are fundamental to socionics though, so if these people disagree they must have omitted some basics, cuz information elements can't be treated as some independent entities that just freely float in some kind of ether of one's mind, unconnected and unaffect by each other.

it doesn't contradict inert/contact, but it does seem to contradict dcnh

And a big bonus of inert/contact scheme is that it can be easily observed with real people

What you're describing is essentially how one's "club" affects function strength, but I think you're overlooking the effect that temperament has on function strength.

What I am describing is how DCNH is not supported by Model A and the fundamental relations that exist between information elements. Clubs don't have anything to do with this.

An LII, being in the NT club, has strong Ne, Ni, Te, and Ti. However, without temperament, these would all be equally strong, with no difference between them. The IJ temperament strengthens Ti and Fi within their respective blocks, so that Ti is stronger than Ne and Fi is stronger than Se (with corresponding effects in the Vital ring). Club x Temperament = Type.

If you draw out all the information elements of an LII type and then connect them with lines that symbolize the dichotomies (inverse relationships) that are in effect between the elements, then you will see that strengthening Ti will also strengthen Te and weaken both Ne and Ni in the same proportion due to relationships that exist between these elements. An LII with strengthened Ti will thus be both D and N subtype within DCNH, since accentuated Te is assigned to D subtype and accentuated Ti is assigned to N subtype. Strengthening of Ti will always cause proportionate strengthening of Te, thus you have no way of telling whether this LII is D or N subtype.

Accentuating any function causes a domino effect across the entire functional model of a type. If you trace these effects across all the relations between the elements, it becomes clear that the model does not support existence of four temperaments within itself.

What DCNH describes is the result of people developing an increased emphasis on a particular temperament, which may or may not match up with their core temperament. C-LII, for example, is an LII who emphasizes the EP temperament in his behaviour. That LII has, for whatever reason, adopted a persona of an EP type, which over time will tend to strengthen Se and Ne, as those two functions are being used more frequently and become stronger and more experienced than in most LIIs.

The issue is that DCNH attributes these differences in personality manifestations to 'strengthening' or 'weakening' of different information elements, but it is clear that Model A does not actually support this. If you believe that these temperamental variations truly exist, then you should describe them on basis of something else rather than 'strengthening' or 'weakening' of IEs because the formulation under DCNH is inconsistent with the very basics of socionics.

[Krig the Viking]

If you draw out all the information elements of an LII type and then connect them with lines that symbolize the dichotomies (inverse relationships) that are in effect between the elements, then you will see that strengthening Ti will also strengthen Te and weaken both Ne and Ni in the same proportion due to relationships that exist between these elements. An LII with strengthened Ti will thus be both D and N subtype within DCNH, since accentuated Te is assigned to D subtype and accentuated Ti is assigned to N subtype. Strengthening of Ti will always cause proportionate strengthening of Te, thus you have no way of telling whether this LII is D or N subtype.

Accentuating any function causes a domino effect across the entire functional model of a type. If you trace these effects across all the relations between the elements, it becomes clear that the model does not support existence of four temperaments within itself.

What is your basis for the statement in bold? Do you have a link to a source of some kind?

It doesn't really make sense from where I'm sitting. An LII's Ti is 4 dimensional, while his Te is 3 dimensional. If the two were strengthened proportionally, shouldn't they be the same dimensionality? And why is an LII's Ni stronger than his Te, if Ne and Ni are both weakened?

Let's try this from a different angle. If you look at the structure of Model A, it's clear that there are two dichotomies associated with function strength. The first is the obvious one, Strong and Weak. This is what causes the "club" phenomenon -- an NT has Strong Intuition and Thinking, but Weak Sensing and Feeling. But if you look at the dimensionality of the functions, there's clearly a second dichotomy that affects function strength: Bold and Cautious. That's what separates Extraverts from Introverts, and when combined with the Valued/Unvalued dichotomy, creates Temperament.

I don't know what sources you're working from, but it looks to me like our basic disagreement is whether it's the Inert/Contact dichotomy that affects function strength, or the Bold/Cautious dichotomy.

[mu4]

I think temperament accentuation is possible, because undifferentiated overlapping Ep/Ej/Ip/Ij information processing modules within a person's psyche might be accentuated..

I think there may be significant overlap with information processing in functions and that it is only the irreconcilable differences in functions with a core connection that causes conflict.

Such as Fe vs Te, Ti vs Fi, etc.

Temperament imo is more core then the nuanced deliberation of differentiated information processing functions, and I think a person could have a irregular temperament.

I think it's worthy to note that although socionic model is regular and perfect theoretical differentiation would appear regular. Reality is highly irregular and people can develop in highly asymmetric fashion. Given the way socionics is formulated, it's possible to actually explain these irregularities systematically as well, which is kinda of cool.

[Codie]

This is all too confusing even if subtypes make a difference, i don't believe in subtypes anymore.. again. Gooey, you could think of it this way, your sociotype is like a Info processing "template" that you share with others of the same type but the design may look very different due to genetics, background, your soul, enneagram, astrology, upbringing - whatever etc.. this could account for the many differences within the same type.

[gooey]

Diamond, what you just said was literally perfect.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Finally, we can move into a post-typological phase of history.

[gooey]

What do these look like? Please provide video examples if you can.

[silke]

DCNH dominant IEI examples








DCNH creative IEI examples

[gooey]

I laughed very hard at this...so thanks.

[silke]

I laughed very hard at this...so thanks.

yeah ... DCNH can be funny like that

[gooey]

haha yeah...(secretly begins losing faith in DCNH )

[Saberstorm]

I think this needs a serious discussion...

[gooey]

well, if you or anyone else is able to provide me with interesting evidence as to the differences between a c-iei or a d-iei, then I'll be willing to look at it...but I'm confident you might have problems in this seeing as how dcnh is really difficult to grasp and, from my experiences, difficult to see in reality...thus sort of chipping away at its credibility...but i'm open for a discussion (hence why i made the thread)

[Saberstorm]

I like DCNH. However, I think that socionics is too theory-laden.

What I like about it is this: the type descriptions are all stereotypes. What good are stereotypes? Essentially the type descriptions are emergent characteristics, not primary. I prefer to go by the Renin traits. The Renin traits are more primary. They are not stereotypes, but instead they are like an axiology. An axiology is a structure for taking actions. The renin traits are how a person actually goes about building their life.

The information elements are things they have an interest in, and thus they notice these IE in there environment with a certain pattern of priority and value the socionics people call functions, but an IE is merely something they notice, and a function is its priority. It is not how they build or process that information into action. That is what the renin traits are doing.

I view the Renin traits as the central axial of the person's character. They are primary. I see the functions as a system of prioritized environmental searching, and the IE are what are being looked for. If a type description is a stereotype drawn from the object of the person's search, type descriptions are therefore unstable and variable.

The upshot of this is, something needs to show how the same set of Renin traits can exhibit deviation from the stereotype description. I fit ****** pretty well, but not other EIEs - I am not Freddie Mercury nor am I Bono. There is a need for a subtype system that pulls a person away from the stereotype. Using energy levels (meaning deviation from temperament EJ/IP/EP/IJ seems good enough.

I think the DCNH system suffers from its effort to explain why the deviation exists. They should first try establishing that a coherent pattern of deviation from the stereotypes exists but that this deviating does not effect conformity to the axiology. They need to should how (but not why) they deviate. They went for a bridge too far; DCNH tries to explain facts without first establishing that they are there.

I believe that there are subtypes in this pattern. I support DCNH. But the Russian socionics people obscure the existence of this pattern by their socionics nattering. I agree that there is a need for DCNH theory 2.0.

Damn, I need to rewrite this post for greater clairity. I will get to that after supper...

[dinki]

This is all too confusing even if subtypes make a difference, i don't believe in subtypes anymore.. again. Gooey, you could think of it this way, your sociotype is like a Info processing "template" that you share with others of the same type but the design may look very different due to genetics, background, your soul, enneagram, astrology, upbringing - whatever etc.. this could account for the many differences within the same type.

I totally agree with you that this is why people seem so different, yet I still believe in sub types. To me, for example two IEIs both have fe, but how their fe manifests is totally unique to them - some use deadpan humor, others are more high energy, others subtly warm - all fe, but how it plays out is down to their individual characters (not types).

I am definitely dominant sub, I really strongly relate to it. But I also have had another IEI dom sub friend and how we were dominant was very different. He was more manic, excitable and hyperactive in how he dominated - like he'd be like *OMG WHY ARE YOU IN A MOOD?! GET OUT OF IT! NOW! GODDD* - using half joking dramatics to influence your behavior. I am more like aggressive, edgy, 'urban', snappy (to use descriptions from other people) with like a more edgy magnetism or emotional brightness.

I feel like I use a pressuring magnetism often in social interaction. I hate the unrefindness of being a dominant, like my blunt opinions just come right out (and being ni, fe I KNOW that these opinions are adversely effecting me, but I find it hard to stop them from coming out) - and I can get quite aggressive, which has led to self-destruction and depression. Ugh. But I do love the magnetism and dominating my social environment. I am trying to learn how to curb this aggressive streak.

Another thing I wanted to add which I have observed. Like when dominants can't dominate (at least with this IEI and I) or don't wish to, they get super introverted and kind of suck he energy out of their environment? For me being strong in fe, I often like to dominate by juicing up the social environment and getting juice out of people, but if I feel like I can not juice it up (like people won't respond well, it'll just bounce off) or I feel like I can't get much out of the people I am with - then I just like 'check out'.

[Ningyo]

I totally agree with you that this is why people seem so different, yet I still believe in sub types. To me, for example two IEIs both have fe, but how their fe manifests is totally unique to them - some use deadpan humor, others are more high energy, others subtly warm - all fe, but how it plays out is down to their individual characters (not types).

I am definitely dominant sub, I really strongly relate to it. But I also have had another IEI dom sub friend and how we were dominant was very different. He was more manic, excitable and hyperactive in how he dominated - like he'd be like *OMG WHY ARE YOU IN A MOOD?! GET OUT OF IT! NOW! GODDD* - using half joking dramatics to influence your behavior. I am more like aggressive, edgy, 'urban', snappy (to use descriptions from other people) with like a more edgy magnetism or emotional brightness.

I feel like I use a pressuring magnetism often in social interaction. I hate the unrefindness of being a dominant, like my blunt opinions just come right out (and being ni, fe I KNOW that these opinions are adversely effecting me, but I find it hard to stop them from coming out) - and I can get quite aggressive, which has led to self-destruction and depression. Ugh. But I do love the magnetism and dominating my social environment. I am trying to learn how to curb this aggressive streak.

Another thing I wanted to add which I have observed. Like when dominants can't dominate (at least with this IEI and I) or don't wish to, they get super introverted and kind of suck he energy out of their environment? For me being strong in fe, I often like to dominate by juicing up the social environment and getting juice out of people, but if I feel like I can not juice it up (like people won't respond well, it'll just bounce off) or I feel like I can't get much out of the people I am with - then I just like 'check out'.

Sounds like an IEI I knew, and confirms my own suspicions that I am not D-IEI, most likely C-IEI or N-IEI. Wondering what the equivalent would be for the other three--what would cause them to liven up or tune out. The D-IEI I knew used to also pester people to share useless Te trivia with her and then try to get everyone else into it, like trying to build a conversation around a line like, "I had no IDEA my favorite drink at Starbucks has x amount of calories!" Half the time my eyes would just glaze over as soon as she started.

[Ningyo]

Accidental double post.