Well VI is someone's face make up is coupled with his type right?Originally Posted by seriousguy
e.g. You can recognize an ESFP's subtype by looking at their face.
but if their subtype changes, than also their face should change. which it doesn't. so dcnh's theory of changing subtype can't be true. Maybe a stationary dcnh is, but idk.
You are conflating 2 subtype theory with DCNH subtype system.
Yes, and that's normal and that's why so many people have troubles with DCNH, it's extremely difficult to recognize a stable "DCNH" behavioral pattern in everyday life for a sufficient amount of time.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
That happens due to poor grasp on DCNH, as it's really the most ambiguous subtype system, and it gets worse when people try to fit it with Model A when they hear about certain functions getting enhanced. For this reason exactly, I talked about dichotomies, so they can at least able to see how dichotomies are playing out in other people, so that later they can assess what they do in real-life.
Where do you base this distinction on? How can you classify a subtype system into ambigious or not? Actually DCNH has 3 defining dichotomies, should be enough to classify people easily. The real problem is that those dichotomies seem to change quickly, whereas Socionics dichotomies seem fairly stable.
I still don't think that's the gist of the problem, personally I just can't use DCNH successfully because people just adjust too much their behavior in different environemnts from the POV of DCNH dichotomies, and that's something they don't really do with Socionics dichotomies, or if they do, they only do it very slowly., and it gets worse when people try to fit it with Model A when they hear about certain functions getting enhanced. For this reason exactly, I talked about dichotomies, so they can at least able to see how dichotomies are playing out in other people, so that later they can assess what they do in real-life.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I have seen the trends in people here who wonder about the DCNH and ask questions like "How is it possible for a Dominant subtype to improve Fe along with Te, as one needs to turn off the one to make the another on?", as they poorly understand the functional enhancement theory that DCNH theory points out when talking about the outward behaviors of subtypes, and so they conflate it with the functions accentuated theory that has the basis in the Model A (wherein, an accentuation or heavy focus on one Ji function leads to poor ability on another Ji function, e.g., when we use the Role, then the Base is turned "off"), which makes it ambiguous and seem to go beyond the Model A boundary. For example, I don't think that the functions themselves are enhanced, but a certain aspect of it is enhanced, e.g., a Dominant type would have an assertiveness and persistence in their goals regardless of their actual dimenstionality of Se, so people would wrongfully assume that the Se is enhanced on its own, which is not true (and you can confirm it through Socionics Britannica School Facebook page), as they simply meant to say that they have assertiveness (which people normally correlates with the usage of Se), so even an Se PoLR with Dominant subtype would appear more assertive than other subtypes (similarly they would appear more zealous/passionate -- Fe and willing to be active and work -- Te). For this reason, I don't rely on functions enhancement or observe it in real-life to type people to see if someone has a certain function that seems stronger than let's say from his strong ego/id block, as people can use whatever function they want for whatever reasons they have.
DCNH dichotomies change, because it needs to change to perform some role (as you said earlier that people varies all the time), and not just a single dichotomy, but all the three dichotomies in a way that makes it comfortable to play the role (e.g., Imagine a Dominant subtype with distant/terminal/connecting, how does that sounds? Such type would need to become contact or generally outwardly focused to actually play the Dominant role and be assertive, otherwise he is fucked up). It doesn't make sense to conflate them with Renin dichotomies for instance, which are based more on the values of a type and does not change (or at least many of them are pretty much stable, like aristocratic/democratic dichomoty, and the remaining 4 Jungian dichotomies may change depending on the subtype).
Do you have trouble seeing the dichotomies in other people or you can't decide which dichotomies you use?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote