DCNH Forum Member Typings

[Gilly]

IMO the "dual strengthening" model of DCNH subtypes (the one that claims that the subtype strengthens both functions of the temperament) makes sense of many of the more confusing forum members' types here. Also it accurately explains some of the more obvious stand-out traits of particular forum members.

For example:

Me: H EIE
Joy: H LSE

Joy and I both have naturally engaged, dominant personalities, and yet we display lots of adaptive, nonstandard type behaviors that have caused both of us a lot of confusion in settling on types. This, according to DCNH theory, is typical of Harmonizing subtypes.

Maritsa: C EII (many nonstandard viewpoints, erratic behavior, has a "spat"-ish kind of behavior, periodic assertivenes and overconfidence)

discojoe: D LSI (emphasis on practicality in both lifestyle and beliefs, enjoys having an emotional impact on others)

Jimbean: C LSI (obviously nonstandard beliefs, confusion with EP temperament)

strrng: N IEI (increased focus on direct logic and harsh judgments of people)

Pinnochio: C LSI (stubborn, often excessively assertive or stubborn, but also holds some fairly out there/absurd beliefs

Ashton: C LIE (can have a blithely over-assertive presence, holds non-standard viewpoints)

tcaudilllg: C LII (nonstandard viewpoints, sometimes commanding and insistant but generally displays behavior consistent with Se PoLR)

For those who aren't familiar with DCNH theory:

System of DCNH Subtypes - Wikisocion

[discojoe]

I wonder if a lot of people on this forum are Cs.

[xerx]

Joy and I both have naturally engaged, dominant personalities, and yet we display lots of adaptive, nonstandard type behaviors that have caused both of us a lot of confusion in settling on types. This, according to DCNH theory, is typical of Harmonizing subtypes.

I thought that was C subtype.

[Satan]

you're comparing yourself to joy. gross!

[Gilly]

I thought that was C subtype.

Well we're both EJ temperament with H subtype; that's what I was getting at.

H is the one that under-expresses type-specific behavior.

[Galen]

I guess I'd be uh, N?

[discojoe]

I guess I'd be uh, N?

Nah, you'd be an H.


GET IT?

[Wynch]

Judging by the breakdown of the dichotomies for each subtype, I would expect to be a C sub-type. That said D-ILE would explain a lot of the reasons why I waffle towards EXE. I'm certainly either D or C.

I'm not particularly familiar with DCNH to do anything beyond applying what I've just read of the theory. Any thoughts/suggestions Gilly?

[JohnDo]

IMO the "dual strengthening" model of DCNH subtypes (the one that claims that the subtype strengthens both functions of the temperament) makes sense of many of the more confusing forum members' types here. Also it accurately explains some of the more obvious stand-out traits of particular forum members.

It is almost impossible to type other people on the internet so subtyping them doesn't make sense to me at all. Last year I also tried to type and subtype people here but without V.I. it just doesn't work...

Joy and I both have naturally engaged, dominant personalities, and yet we display lots of adaptive, nonstandard type behaviors that have caused both of us a lot of confusion in settling on types. This, according to DCNH theory, is typical of Harmonizing subtypes.

Not necessarily. You frequently considered ILE as your base type so chances are good that, using complete subtypes, you are EIE-ILE, actually. That would make you a C-EIE in DCNH.

This typing is even consistent with the V.I. pattern I discovered: Your face is something like a thin oval which means that the base function of your subtype should be the demonstrative function of your base type. is ILE's base function and EIE's demonstrative function, indeed...

btw: ILE-EIE is not possible because EIE's base function, Fe, is ILE's mobilizing function which would lead to a broad or piriform oval...

[Crispy]

I thought that was C subtype.

C subtype said something close to it. It was supposed to be the "most ambiguous" regarding regular type. H was more adapting to the needs of others.

[Blaze]

i don't believe in that subtype theory. it lacks parsimony.

[Gilly]

Judging by the breakdown of the dichotomies for each subtype, I would expect to be a C sub-type. That said D-ILE would explain a lot of the reasons why I waffle towards EXE. I'm certainly either D or C.

I'm not particularly familiar with DCNH to do anything beyond applying what I've just read of the theory. Any thoughts/suggestions Gilly?

I would tend towards D for you: with more pronounced rational characteristics, less overt impulsiveness, more grounded, consistent energy, a side of EJ makes sense. Also you don't really have the same sort of nervousness/giddiness as C-ILEs; I had one for a roommate, and she had this very sort of anxious pressure about her coupled with a sort of natural carefree-ness and tendency towards impulsivity, whereas you seem vastly more "in control" and self-possessed by comparison.

[Gilly]

psychosis

I'll pass.

[stanprollyright]

I think I'm a C. Possibly H

[April]

C here. Looks like I'm in good company.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If I am making sense of all this correctly, I am probably a N or a H...but it really depends on how I intepret my behaviour.

[anndelise]

I finally got around to reading the OPs link. I can't say that it's cleared anything up for me.

It says that there are three dichotomies:

First dichotomy: contact/distance.
The first pole indicates the predominance of the need for contact, and the second the need to maintain distance.

Second dichotomy: terminating/initiating.
I understand terminating as the ability to finish what was started and a tendency towards regulation. Initiating, as the opposite tendency to initiate and to easily move on to something else, with corresponding disorder in matters and affairs.

And the third additional dichotomy is connecting/ignoring.
The level of sensitivity to changes in the environment is assumed to be the basis of this scale. Connectors are very sensitive to such changes, whereas ignorers, as the name suggests, are capable of turning no attention towards this.

I have a difficult time figuring out the first (probably due to the sx/sp thing?). I feel a combination of both needing/desiring contact, while at the same time needing/desiring distance.

Initiating is an easy one. I desire the ability to finish what I've started, but I rarely do it. And when I do, it's a HUGE thing for me. Usually, I start something, get an idea and start something else, get distracted and start something else, etc etc etc. It's only been within the past 4 years or so that I've started cycling through initiating the same types of projects. Such that for those projects I've started working on "next step" actions so that I've got the room to quickly switch projects, while still feeling that SOMEthing is getting done towards the achievement of a project.

The third dichotomy is an easy one too. Possibly due to my history, I'm quite sensitive to changes in my environment, and in those close to me.

So, if by going by the dichotomies:
split on contact/distance
initiating
connecting


According to the linked site:

• contact, terminal, connecting - dominant subtype (D);
• contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C);
• distant, terminal, ignoring - normalizing subtype (N);
• distant, initial, connecting - harmonizing subtype (H)

This would put me as a harmonizing subtype.

Why are there no subtypes of
contact, initial, connecting?
contact, terminal, ignoring?
distant, terminal, connecting?
distant, initial, ignoring?
If you have three dichotomies, that leads to 8 options, not 4.

So then I look at:

• Strengthening the linear-energetic functions , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D).
• Strengthening of the mobile-flexible functions leads to the appearance of a creative subtype (C).
• Strengthening of the balanced-stable functions gives a normalizing subtype (N).
• Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions engenders a harmonizing subtype (H).

If Strengthening means what I think it means, then I'd say that
I don't understand what it means to strengthen "linear-energetic" functions..
I already feel quite mobile-flexible that there's no need to strengthen those functions.. (the two disorder labels I have are linked with an 'overabundance' of this, actually)
I feel very unbalanced and unstable and have put in time trying to strengthen those functions.. (to help balance the previous 'overabundance' above)
I feel quite comfortable with how receptive-adaptive I am, so no need to strengthen those functions.

This would place me as a normalizing subtype instead.


So then I look at the descriptions given:

Dominant will manage the leadership role better than others,
Creative – the generator of ideas,
Normalizer – the finisher,
Harmonizer – the corrector

I suck at managing and finishing anything, so not D nor N.
I'm not very good at correcting, so not H.
I'm much more comfortable generating ideas with others, so C.


then:

Any type of behavior that has as its priority the satisfaction of common group needs can be both primary and secondary. Primary needs are needs of a concrete, current nature (food, health, shelter, family, intimacy and so forth). Secondary needs are deep, lofty (a quick promotion, social status, spiritual peace, knowledge and so on). Questionnaires with the use of this scale have yet to be created.
Experimentally these subtypes are derived through their internal role within an octal group of identicals.

• Dominating, along the primary axis generates the intragroup role of the motivator (psychologists call this the informal leader), and along the secondary axis role - the engine (formal leader).
• Creative, along the primary axis acquires for itself the role of contactor, and on the secondary the role of group innovator.
• Normalizing along the primary axis is the conscience of the group, and along the secondary its coordinator.
• And finally, primary harmonization leads to the role of decorator, and secondary to the role of expert.

motivator, informal leader, yes..I played this role quite often up until I had my daughter
formal leader no.
contactor, no i don't think so
innovator, no, i don't consider myself creative enough to be an innovator
conscience of the group...preferably not
coordinator, hell no
decorator, lol not
expert, lol not


and finally

Here I derive the following patterns...

• Strengthening function forms demonstrative-artistic behavior. Corresponds to primary domination through emotional pressure, the skill to inspire or frighten. Primary domination in animals is connected to bright colors, cries, expressive mimicry and gestures.
• Strengthening function forms the lingering behavior. This method of domination is secondary. This is the business leader, who persistently and emphatically gets his own way.

Both these models of behavior are frequently encountered together, being combined through the role mask. This bears out the fact that domination, although it is manifested through two varieties, is nevertheless a one-piece process.

no, and no

• Strengthening function forms excitable behavior. This treats creativity as primary and instinctive. It gives nonstandard, rapid solutions during extreme, critical (for survival) situations.
• Strengthening function forms affective-labile behavior. This is secondary creativity, connected to intellectual fantasy, nonstandard ideas, directed not towards output based on dead-end situations, but to the solutions of future problems.

Both these functions frequently work together as two sides of a united innovation-introductory process.

I don't quite get the first. I'm already excitable, and I already tend to give nonstandard 'rapid' solutions for situations. So it's not limited to survival/critical situations.
The second is natural every day behavior, not something that's consciously strengthened or such. There's no need for me to strengthen it, it's already like breathing. So maybe I don't understand what "strengthening functions" means.

• Strengthening function gives alarming-over-anxious behavior. This is the primary-axis setting, which does not require formal commitment to traditional rules.
• Strengthening function leads to the formation of formal-pedantic behavior. It is secondary in nature in response to the satisfaction of common group needs. It is based on regulation, instruction and official laws.

Both these models of behavior can act together, strengthening each other. Conscientiousness and pedantic relation to one's responsibilities are considered two sides of normalizing behavior.

Again I feel that I don't understand what "strengthening function" means, as to me, strengthening Fi reduces the over-anxious behavior that I have a tendency towards. But I'm not formally committing to traditional rules, ...and I'm not sure how that fit in on the descriptions.
I also don't get the second one.

• Strengthening function is responsible for the formation of asthenoneurotic behavior. This is primary, vital harmonization, connected to the value of solid comfort.
• Strengthening function forms shut-off, self-submerged, up to autistic behavior. This is secondary harmonization in terms of a spiritual-mental plan.

Both these models of behavior are equivalent, i.e. they are frequently developed together and strengthen each other. It is well known that for the meditation of the mind it is necessary to relax the body.

The first seems kinda natural/desirable, who wouldn't want it? :wink:
The second doesn't seem to fit.




So, basically, I haven't a f'n clue what the heck the DCNH stuff is supposed to be describing. The OP's link didn't help clear it up for me, either. Reading it feels like reading a bunch of random stuff that got thrown together willy-nilly. Seeing that others grasp it..or claim to...doesn't do much for my self-confidence.

[DirectorAbbie]

I'm D.

[Not A Communist Shill]

So, basically, I haven't a f'n clue what the heck the DCNH stuff is supposed to be describing. The OP's link didn't help clear it up for me, either. Reading it feels like reading a bunch of random stuff that got thrown together willy-nilly. Seeing that others grasp it..or claim to...doesn't do much for my self-confidence.

I don't grasp it either...or see much of a point.

[Gilly]

Strange, it seems to make everything fit perfectly to me.

[discojoe]

Strange, it seems to make everything fit perfectly to me.

Yes, it explains why I am so bizarre, for example.

[stanprollyright]

I don't grasp it either...or see much of a point.

I think I grasp it as much as I care to, but I still don't see the point, either. The whole thing is based on these dichotomies that are even more vague than Reinins, some of which basically exist already as regular type dichotomies. So there are dynamic statics and extroverted introverts, huh? Kind of silly. And the other big problem I see is that your subtype simultaneously strengthens two opposing functions (both Ni and Si, for example). Maybe I'm misunderstanding that part and your subtype only strengthens one of those two, but then why aren't there 8 subtypes, one for each element? And it doesn't address the idea that by focusing on one function you neglect others.

[Galen]

Nah, you'd be an H.


GET IT?

I do not.

[anndelise]

Is anyone in the know gonna answer my question?

Why are there no subtypes of

• contact, initial, connecting?
• contact, terminal, ignoring?
• distant, terminal, connecting?
• distant, initial, ignoring?

If you combine three dichotomies, that leads to 8 options, not 4.

[discojoe]

Is anyone in the know gonna answer my question?

Why are there no subtypes of

• contact, initial, connecting?
• contact, terminal, ignoring?
• distant, terminal, connecting?
• distant, initial, ignoring?

If you combine three dichotomies, that leads to 8 options, not 4.

Why there need to be?

[anndelise]

Why there need to be?

because if the theory is actually built off of 3 sets of dichotomies, that gives 8 options, not 4?
because by deleting the other half, the theory risks cutting out people who might identify with one of those 4?

[xerx]

The theory is built on two dichotomies:

contact / distance = extroversion / introversion
terminating / initiating = rational / irrational

The other dichotomy: connecting / ignoring = dynamic / static is derived by combining the first two, since

(extroversion + rational) OR (introversion + irrational) = dynamic
(introversion + rational) OR (extroversion + irrational) = static

So there are only two basic or unique dichotomies, meaning: 2 x 2 = 4 possible combinations.

Additionally, you can derive any one of those dichotomies from the other pair. So, for example, extroversion / introversion can be derived from dynamic / static and rational / irrational.

I hope that answers your question.

[anndelise]

The theory is built on two dichotomies:

contact / distance = extroversion / introversion
terminating / initiating = rational / irrational

The other dichotomy: connecting / ignoring = dynamic / static is derived by combining the first two, since

(extroversion + rational) OR (introversion + irrational) = dynamic
(introversion + rational) OR (extroversion + irrational) = static

So there are only two basic or unique dichotomies, meaning: 2 x 2 = 4 possible combinations.

Additionally, you can derive any one of those dichotomies from the other pair. So, for example, extroversion / introversion can be derived from dynamic / static and rational / irrational.

I hope that answers your question.

This helped, yes.
It's a shame that the linked site didn't mention this.

Doesn't change the confusion I had regarding the rest of it, heh.
But thank you, jxrtes.

[xerx]

That's OK, Gulenko shouldn't have stupidly assumed that people would know about the underlying systematization behind the Reinin dichotomies.

[Gilly]

Yes, it explains why I am so bizarre, for example.

Yeah it does

[Creepy-male]

I think Isha is a Harmonizing ILE. It would probably explain her fairly restricted, mild presentation on the forums, which is quite at odds with the silly, upbeat Isha whose company I ruthlessly exploit enjoy in real life. She's also patently EP, in that she's always doing or thinking about something. Or fidgeting.

Similarly for me and being a Creative SEI. Even though I project a great deal of expressive energy, I think I check every IP box, in terms of being quite comfortable at very low levels of activity or energy, being flexible in the extreme (in how I respond to situations, and in how I move--I recall Isha describing me as being rather catlike).

I suppose C-sub also explains this "weirdness" I apparently have that Isha keeps talking about. Dee might possibly have been a Creative subtype as well, but he was before my time unfortunately, I only know that Isha thinks I'm his clone.

[Gilly]

Yeah C subs are usually the most "overtly weird" people, IMO. My brother-in-law is C-ESE and he is strange as fuck.

[Wynch]

I would tend towards D for you: with more pronounced rational characteristics, less overt impulsiveness, more grounded, consistent energy, a side of EJ makes sense. Also you don't really have the same sort of nervousness/giddiness as C-ILEs; I had one for a roommate, and she had this very sort of anxious pressure about her coupled with a sort of natural carefree-ness and tendency towards impulsivity, whereas you seem vastly more "in control" and self-possessed by comparison.

Thanks for the input. I guess you could create the contrast between C and D between two people like Riddy and I?

[Gilly]

Yeah, Riddy is probably a good example of C-ILE.

[anndelise]

The theory is built on two dichotomies:

contact / distance = extroversion / introversion
terminating / initiating = rational / irrational

The other dichotomy: connecting / ignoring = dynamic / static is derived by combining the first two, since

(extroversion + rational) OR (introversion + irrational) = dynamic
(introversion + rational) OR (extroversion + irrational) = static

So there are only two basic or unique dichotomies, meaning: 2 x 2 = 4 possible combinations.

Additionally, you can derive any one of those dichotomies from the other pair. So, for example, extroversion / introversion can be derived from dynamic / static and rational / irrational.

I hope that answers your question.

After sleeping on it, my mind popped up a question.
If connecting is defined as: being sensitive to changes in the environment...
couldn't that also be describing extroversion?

I guess I'm just not seeing how:

the need for contact
+ a tendency to initiate then move on to something else
= lack of attention of changes in environment

nor how

the need for contact
+ sensitivity to changes in the environment
= the ability to finish what was started, and a tendency towards regulation


Trying to make sense of this part of the theory....
If I were to describe my most natural self, using the the definitions given, I would say that

• I spontaneously initiate contact with others, with objects, with my environment, but when the insecurities hit is when I then seek some distance from it, but the distance seeking is a learned thing, and not natural for me. (as I said, it seems awfully connected to the sx/sp thing for me)
• I tend to initiate new things and then easily move on to something else. I desire to finish what I've started, but I don't. On the rare occasions that I do, I get so excited that I call those closest to me to share my joy with them, lol. For years I tried to be more of a finisher, but it causes much stress when I do. However, I'm learning how to make better use of the tendency to initiate rather than finish. (we're talking...even just finishing the dishes without getting distracted is a pretty big deal to me, ..and finishing a thought before moving on to a new one? hah!)
• I'm sensitive to changes in my environment. I often feel overwhelmed because I can't seem to push out my awareness of it to concentrate on what's immediately before me. The only time that I feel relaxed and less overwhelmed about all the environmental input is when I'm walking on a trail where there are less things moving, less sounds, less cluttering sights, etc. (However, this may also be a learned thing, due to having had to be hyper-aware as a teenager. Yet I still don't see how it might not just be another description of extroversion.)

But according to this theory, I can't be all that?
It leads me to think that there's something off about the theory.

Let's see, according to this I'm what...a "dynamic EP (with static info processing)" that quickly switches between that and IP at any given moment?

[Gilly]

What you write sounds like C subtype; the connecting thing could just be extreme Si valuing/seeking. Connecting is about more than just your immediate environment, but also your more general circumstances and how they relate to your internal flux.

[anndelise]

What you write sounds like C subtype; the connecting thing could just be extreme Si valuing/seeking. Connecting is about more than just your immediate environment, but also your more general circumstances and how they relate to your internal flux.

the connecting thing is actually more closely related to Fe for me, and how I go about figuring out the general circumstances and how it relates to my internal flux is via Fi, not Si.

how does what I said, though, fit in with

• Strengthening the linear-energetic functions , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D).
• Strengthening of the mobile-flexible functions leads to the appearance of a creative subtype (C).
• Strengthening of the balanced-stable functions gives a normalizing subtype (N).
• Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions engenders a harmonizing subtype (H).

?

As I said before, I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't understand what it means when it talks about "strengthening the [] functions". But how does what I said suggest a strengthening of mobile-flexible functions? You attributed it to Si, I can sort of see how as a teen I had to strengthen my receptivity and adaptivity to survive the environment I was in.

And after leaving that environment, that heightened receptivity and adaptivity caused all sorts of problems, causing me to later start seeking some sense of balance and stability, which has I said before has lead to working on strengthening Fi/Ti functions.



Hmmm, does one's DCNH subtype change over time?
Like, I guess I could make sense of it if as a teen I had to strengthen the receptive-adaptive functions...making me an H subtype as a teen.
But after leaving home, that adaptation interfered with normal life and normal environments, forcing me to seek to strengthen the balanced-stable functions.

This could also explain why some people on this forum see me as a base Fi type when those who actually know and interact with me know that there's no way in hell that I am any J type nor Introvert.

Or it could mean other things, as well as have no meaning, .

[Gilly]

Well it is my general belief that Subtype is typically an adaptive behavior, at least to some degree. I don't know about it changing, though; can't rule it out entirely, but I don't exactly see convincing evidence for it.

[anndelise]

Well it is my general belief that Subtype is typically an adaptive behavior, at least to some degree. I don't know about it changing, though; can't rule it out entirely, but I don't exactly see convincing evidence for it.

You didn't answer my question about how what i had said (that you called C subtype) fit with the strengthening functions quote thingy.

[Nowisthetime]

Judging by the breakdown of the dichotomies for each subtype, I would expect to be a C sub-type. That said D-ILE would explain a lot of the reasons why I waffle towards EXE. I'm certainly either D or C.

I'm not particularly familiar with DCNH to do anything beyond applying what I've just read of the theory. Any thoughts/suggestions Gilly?

Just from watching your video I think you're D. It's always nice to see ILE with subtype duality to me.