Okay, first I'll preface this by saying that after looking into it, DCNH is complete and utter horse shit. If you disagree, then turn away for you won't like what I have to say. Otherwise, enjoy.

Obvious problems? Strengthening of functions. Now many spout out diarrhea about how DCNH doesn't mean strengthened functions. But if you look at the articles Mr. Gulenko posted, it's obvious that he thinks otherwise as he uses that oh so troubling word "STRENGTHENED". I'm coming from the source here. Secondly, how is it even possible to strengthen and at the same time!? (D-personality) or and (C-personality). Has everyone forgotten that the foundation of socionics (Jung's theories) state that a preference for feeling also means a repression of thinking (Sensing, intuiting, etc.)? It's very simple actually. So before several of you start spewing bullshit terminology to justify pure silliness of something that is actually very simple to understand, please go die quietly in a corner.

Secondly, on various articles I've seen DCNH type related to the persona. What!? Do you even know what the persona is!? It has nothing to do with energy, nothing to do with information, and everything to do with the way you were brought up and made sense of the world as a child. From the man himself:

For the growing child, the development of a viable social persona is a vital part of adapting to, and preparing for, adult life in the external social world. 'A strong ego relates to the outside world through a flexible persona; identification with a specific persona (doctor, scholar, artist, etc.) inhibits psychological development'.[2] Thus for Jung 'the danger is that [people] become identical with their personas - the professor with his textbook, the tenor with his voice'.[3] The result could be 'the shallow, brittle, conformist kind of personality which is "all persona", with its excessive concern for "what people think"'.

So, please stop this nonsense of relating persona to DCNH. One is a good theory, the other is pure nonsense.

Thirdly, what the F*CK is the LOGIC in temperaments inside temperaments!? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? It's totally inconsistent! "Well, humans are inconsistent..." True, but that doesn't change the fact that you have pronounced traits that are very obvious among examination. Secondly, that's a cop out answer, go fuck yourself.

Fourthly, DCNH isn't observable at ALL in real life and is used to make bullshit typings. People aren't as specific as DCNH would like to make you think. The only subtype systems that are worth anything are those that you can actually SEE And that doesn't exist in DCNH. If it did, why would Gulenko originally have 2 subtypes? It's clear to me that he only saw 2 emerging patterns originally between the types. For the record, patterns that can be observed. Not some silly theory that relates it to something as vague as "energy" and philosophical goals people have in mind.

Fifthly, seriously just use ACC/PRO or INERT/CONTACT. They make much more sense.


If you would like to add on to this list, by all means.