We just have to use the same definitions:Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
1.) H-subtype = more introverted and more perceiving than usual
2.) "harmonizing" is a technical term and must not be understood like the colloquial term
We just have to use the same definitions:
1.) H-subtype = more introverted and more perceiving than usual
2.) "harmonizing" is a technical term and must not be understood like the colloquial term
I agree with 1). But I mostly disagree with 2). Gulenko named the IP subtype "Harmonizing" because that word best described it. Dominant subtype "commands, controls, or prevails over others", Creative subtypes are "marked by the ability or power to create", Normalizing subtypes typically "conform to or reduce to a norm or standard", and Harmonizing subtypes seek to achieve a "pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts", "internal calm", and "tranquility".
You want to avoid that last definition, because it clashes with your personal understanding of Harmonizing types, which from what I can tell is closer to Creative than Harmonizing.
Quaero Veritas.
That is my opinion as well. It's very hard to imagine JohnDo as H-LII, since he's acting much less like a Harmonizing type than an average LII here.
It's just the same problem as with the Reinin dichotomies. Everytime there is an issue without a name, a technical term is created by using a colloquial word. That's how every science works. You can't interpret technical terms by looking at the colloquial meaning. Neither in socionics, nor in any other science...
In other words: The 2nd type is ESFj, ENFj, ENTj or ESTj. No contradiction there...
Creative subtype means the 2nd type is ENTp, ESTp, ESFp or ENFp. While "creative" is certainly a good description of Ne, I wouldn't call ESTp and ESFp "creative" types...
The Normalizing subtype has an IJ-subtemperament. In other words, the 2nd type is INTj, ISTj, ISFj or INFj. Gulenko's term "normalizing" rather sounds like and ISTj or ISFj, not really like an INFj and not at all like an INTj. That's why I think "normalizing" is probably not a very good name for this subtype...
The problem is, "harmonizing" is a good word for Si, but not for Ni. Having ISFp or ISTp as 2nd type certainly leads to some kind of harmonization, INFp and INTp not necessarily. It certainly causes many mistypings that Gulenko chose the term "harmonizing" for this subtype...
No. You mix up the terms "definition" and "description". The definition is "H-subtype = IP subtype". Gulenko's description is "pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts, internal calm, and tranquility, blah blah blah, blah blah blah"...
It does seem more likely that Gulenko would begin the idea of DCNH through the splitting of dichotomies rather than an epiphany of four well described subtypes.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Yes, but words are not just randomly assigned, especially for a meticulously precise LII like Gulenko. He chose the word which in his opinion best described the subtype. But it's not just the name -- if you read his descriptions of the Harmonizing subtype, they describe the same thing as the colloquial usage of the word "Harmonizing" -- someone who seeks to achieve a "pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts", "internal calm", and "tranquility". The only reason you're even arguing about this is because your understanding of the Harmonizing subtype is different from Gulenko's, and you don't want to admit it.
Gulenko certainly doesn't say anything like that. His description of Se-Creative: "Strengthening functionforms excitable behavior. This treats creativity as primary and instinctive. It gives nonstandard, rapid solutions during extreme, critical (for survival) situations."
Se is just as creative as Ne, only in different contexts. Ne is about creating new ideas, new concepts, it's big-picture and abstract. Se creativity is more here-and-now, finding new ways of dealing with the physical world, etc. To be "nonstandard" is to be creative, to come up with new ways of doing or looking at things.
All I can say is that you must not know many EIIs and LIIs, or you've mistyped the ones you think you know. Not all IJs are extreme or pronounced examples of this behaviour, but all do it to one degree or another.
As Gulenko describes it: "Strengthening functionis responsible for the formation of asthenoneurotic behavior. This is primary, vital harmonization, connected to the value of solid comfort.
Strengthening functionforms 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."
Ni Harmonizing focuses on a more abstract mental and spiritual harmony, but both Si and Ni subtypes try to create harmony. If you want to disagree with Gulenko on this, feel free, but you should then make it clear that you're proposing your own theory. Your understanding of DCNH is not the same as Gulenko's understanding.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. "Pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts, internal calm, and tranquility, blah blah blah, blah blah blah" is a paraphrase of the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "harmony", which you don't want to apply to the IP subtype.
Quaero Veritas.
So I took the time to work out my IM-EM functional relationships today using the "best way to be X is by Y" method. Pretty true to form.
1st function: the best way to be ethical and make prudent decisions is to be smart.
2nd function: the best way to be positive is to be imaginative.
3rd function: I cannot help everyone equally.
4th function: people should not assert rights without authority.
5th function: I should not win by being disagreeable.
6th function: I can only draw as close to people as they are willing to comfort me.
7th function: The best way for me to increase my capability is to get money by which to commission work.
8th funciton: The best way for me to acheive goals is to draw out plans with the willing.
Collary to #6: unfair behavior disgusts me to no end.
Everyone who is interested in socionics has his own understanding. Simply because it is absolutely impossible to describe anything objectively in this field of knowledge...
In general, LII is famous for non-standard solutions, not for standardization. I'd rather call them "denormalizing" than "normalizing"...
In a way I agree: Adolf ****** (Ni-ENFj) wanted to "harmonize" the world by killing all Jews. Che Guevara (Ni-INTj) wanted to "harmonize" the world by destroying capitalism. Richard Dawkins (Ni-ESFj) wants to "harmonize" the world by abolishing religion.
Alright, they are all harmonizing. But not the way a Si-subtype would be...
Err, yes. I didn't click on the links, thought it would link to Gulenko's descriptions. But that's just what I mean: It doesn't make much sense to look up technical terms in a dictionary. Example: Do you really believe that ISTp and ISFp are strategists?Are they necessarily "skilled in strategy"? Certainly not...
****** was so dom.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote