A person has a ‚core‘ subtype. The dichotomies try to explain, what that type is about, because of these 3 dichotomies one type is set apart from the others. The descriptions try to lay out these different ‚core‘ subtypes. Even if someone shows a different behaviour in a situation, it‘s just him e.g. adapting to the environment, but his ‚core‘ stays the same and he reverts back to it (or sth. along the lines) – static.
vs.
You have 3 dichotomies. But they are not as definite as they are made out to be. More like gradients/scale that can move up or down. When someone is in a situation, that makes him more contact, initiating etc. (you move up in the distant/contact, initiating/terminal scale - you know what I mean is, you show more behaviour, that is attributed to ‚contact‘ ‚initiating‘ dichotomy), then the outcome is an dominant subtype.
So you can have the same person moving down the scale in another environment, and the outcome could be an normalizing subtype. I went with scales blah bah blah, beacuse I couldn’t think of sth. different to explain it rn. It‘s not like you are one and then you cannot be the other, but more like depending on the circumstances and how you end up on let’s say the gradient, it can change – dynamic.
Bc in life you cannot use one thing for everything, like a one size fits all approach. That’s the thing, when you want to discern your type. I mean what you do? Yeah you look at your behaviour, thinking about ok does this ‚distant‘ dichotomy for example fit me and then you move into this direction, where it can go with ‚well depends on the situation‘, environment, other factors, that can influence how the dichotomies play out and you come up with different conclusions.
Now if the system comes from a very static POV (one size fits all approach), then that would just not be possible. You just have a ‚core‘ subtype. Which would lead us to the question re. DCNH - how does DCNH really fleshes out one dichotomy/one type against the other then? I mean when it starts with the assumption, that people just have one – let’s say ‚core‘ subtype. That would also be looking at it from an let’s say objective standpoint., like what's the measurement?
Bc I think the other standpoint is, that you can look at this and think ‚boah what’s the fucking problem‘. I read, I decide. Done. I will just grab sth. that makes sense to me. Like yeah I can act like this and this, but this one just speaks' the most to me. You know what you picked, makes subjectively the most sense to you (regarding yourself) which is, I think, what everybody will end up with most of the time reg. settling for stuff.



Reply With Quote