My comments to DCNH
These are my comments on DCNH based on 8 years of observations. I am mainly including things that I have thought myself, but in some places I repeat what Gulenko says in his DCNH articles in order to give my comments.
-I am NOT an expert on the theory of DCNH. I just really, really like observing, for a looong time. I know that the theory works and that it is important.
-Some of the things I write might be badly formulated or hard to relate to. But I still want to pour it all out like a bucket of cold water, because maybe someone has had similar experiences. I don't even know how popular DCNH is in this forum right now.
- I didn't want to mention any main socionis typings, because it always leads to arguments with forum users. But I still had to mention a few.
What is DCNH?
DCNH is not just referring to shallow traits. "I am dominant person so I have to be the dominant subtype". Rather, DCNH refers to the phenomenon of immediate awareness. If we say that the main type function is on the "inside" of a person then DCNH is on the "outside".
DCNH is often easier to observe than the main type.
Benefits of DCNH
Basically 4 things imo:
- Fills a huge gap in the understanding of compatibility
- Makes typing easier.
- Better understanding of how humans are specialized
- Avoid common mistypings: H mistyped as IP main type, D mistyped as EJ main type etc.
DCNH is very important when choosing a partner. Most marriages are between D&N or H&C "Subtype duality". People just instinctively pick the best match.
Best matches: "subtype duality": D&N or H&C (as the theory says)
Also quite common: H&N or D&C or same subtype
Less common: D&H or C&N
DCNH is also sometimes the reason why we end up with the wrong partner. You might have the correct DCNH-compatibility with a person, but wrong main type combination. It can lead to attraction, and you start dating, but still something feels wrong (If your partner is your supervisor, for example). This becomes even more evident if you also have good enneagram-compatibility.
There is this classical question why charming and vibrant women chose boring men. Now we know, almost every time you see such couple it is a case of Dominant woman + Normalizing man. It can of course also be the other way around.
Subtype duality creates the feeling that the bond gets tighter when both are pulling in their own direction. The N doesn't have to be outgoing because the more intraverted he is, the more D will connect to him. On the other hand, the N stabelizes the D. The feeling can be compared to dancing.
Observing couples in real life is one of the best ways to learn DCNH. The fact that most married couples are DCNH-matches makes it easy to find a point of reference to start typing from. Most couples you see on the street are D+N.
DCNH is probably the reason for the saying "opposites attract", NOT the main socionics compatibility. That's because DCNH is easier to observe, even for those who know nothing about it.
If you want to use Socionics for match-making among friends you should also control the subtype so you can match D with N and H with C. It's simply a fact that these combination are the best. If you can't do that you could try matching N with H and D with C, or you could go for the same subtype, but you better avoid H&D and C&N.
How common are the subtypes?
D and N are the most common.
75% are D&N (rational subtypes)
25% are C&H (irrational subtypes)
The 4 subtypes
Some people are obvious Dominants, like Barrack Obama or Donald Trump, or most talkshow-hosts. But you don't have to be dominant as a person just because you are the Dominant subtype. Sometimes they seem introverted or shy. The main thing is that they occupy the D functions. Very attached to the environment and people. There is a sense of dynamism.
Sometimes a relaxed D will seem like a H, because of the connectivity-dichotomy.
D has the ability of getting attention to themselves by just being in a room. They are the most present. I think this is one of the secrets of leadership. By seeming so present they get the attention of others and they become the natural leaders. D:s often lead, and they do it naturally, so you almost don't notice it, even when they are bad at it on the intellectual side.
D is obviously the best subtype when it comes to surviving in society and work.
The random D you meet will be a normal, outgoing, social person. That's the impression. The name "Dominant" should be understood in relation to the other subtypes, not as a absolute description.
These can be hard to type (by main type)
It just feels so obvious that the H is their best partner. C behaves often in a random way. Can be sensitive. Can be aware of things that others don't see.
In extreme cases the C can be criminal or borderline criminal. One young C-SEI woman went to bars "to provoke people into fights".
C seems to express everything. If they have psychological problems these will be expressed too. But being C is not the same as having ADHD.
The N needs a steady job or a community where they can be productive. If they are badly socialized they can become totally lost, because they aren't that good at working for themselves. They can work alone, but there is a need for a social context, that someone (a boss etc.) is expecting someting.
N can build up a tremendous bank of knowledge (Noam Chomsky, N-LII)
Some N:s have problems in their social life, dating etc. The trick is to find D:s and then just be oneself around them.
N is very common. Most people you meet on the street are usually N or D
Can be difficult to figure out as a person. They seem to make an effort to follow along or be nice, and they are good at this (almost too good), but sometimes their own uncomfortability shines through. Sometimes the H seems to have a feeling of superiority. Use of functions seems to be "spread out".
The H person can sometimes require more time to develop into an adult. On the other hand, their flexibility sometimes compensates for this. In those cases they can be good at taking on new challanges and responsibilities.
H is a good subtype when there is a need for escapism, to compensate for unlived life. Old people seem to gravitate towards H. (This could be an exaggeration.)
Look at the eyes!
The connecting/ignoring dichotomy can be seen in the eyes. D and H subtypes have more sensitive, soft, dynamic eyes. C and N eyes seem more static, dry, insensitive. Hard to put this into words, though. This is one of the reasons why I sometimes confuse N/C or H/D at first glance.
Harmonizing and Creative and Art
H and C are over-represented among artists. You also find D artists but not so many N.
DCNH and main type functions
When DCNH talks about strengthened function it means regardless of the position in model A. It's like a shallow, expressive use of the information. That's why it doesn't really mean anything to ask how for example a H-LIE can have developed Si, since it is not primarily connected to position in model A. However...
...there is this interesting connection between subtype and main type function. There is not much information on it but it is pretty obvious that it exists. I goes like this:
D (Fe, Te) +base function emphasis
C (Ne, Se) +creative function
N (Ti, Fi) +role
H (Si, Ni) +PoLR
For example: C-SLE has a strong emphasis on creative Ti (but also the randomness of the creative function). D-ESI has a strong emphasis on base Fi
I seems quite natural that the D as the most dominant also has strong base function. Or that C uses creative function alot. But it is a mystery why this is so. I think that the answer is that the subtypes have developed through a real need for specialized work or action. Because dominance/leading works best if you are not only highly aware of Fe, Te but at the same time also go into base function mode, this became a fixed mode of being.
This emphasis on different functions sometimes creates the impression that the person is another type. Especially Normalizers can seem like their super-ego type. N-ESI emulates LII, and N-SEI emulates ILI etc. In the case of normalizing this usually is seen at work. When relaxing the main type shows itself again.
This gets stronger the stronger the need for adaption is in the person. ESI can benefit very much from "being LII" in work and studies.
One can make the following chart based on this:
D - seems like the identical type
C - seems like the mirror type
N - seems like the superego type
H - seems like the conflicting type
This tendency is probably the weakest in H. The other three are easier to observe.
Example of D-SEI. Charming and laughing. Telling a random story, while picking up the phone to call some friends to join her for sushi. At the same time an underlaying strong connection to impressions around her, ever-changing. "Oh look at my hands, are they the same color?". Constant connection to impression not just as an outer fact but as occupying a psychic space.
By observing this over time one can clearly see that DCNH functions are a different thing than the main type functions. The main type functions (for example Si in SEI) seem to be spinning "under the hood" whereas the DCNH functions are on the surface (for example Fe&Te in D). This way mistypings can be avoided.
Just taking DCNH one step further, but not always possible to make the distinction, because they are "blurred".
Romantic attraction gets more intense if there also is a match on 8-subtype level. Te-Dominant matches not just with any Normalizer, but specifically with Fi-Normalizer. One could even claim that Fi-Normalizer + Fe-Dominant are slightly incompatible, and so on.
This is a difficult subject. Gulenko says it's possible, and it probably is. The challange is to bring about a permanent change in subtype. Temporary shallow change is easier and is experiences when we work intensively in a new situation that requires a totally new approach. One could also ask oneself whether it is desirable to change subtype at all, because it's easier to continue working in the same way as before.
I'm not so sure how it would happen but it has been said that it probably requires both inner and outer work. It might be connected to life circumstances that we cannot control very much.
I don't have many examples but here are some:
- The king of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf, is probably an C-ESI who has gravitated towards N-ESI, which he is today. One can see this in old videos of him, where he is younger and also from knowing something about his life. His wife is Harmonizing.
- Steve Jobs, C-LIE, who seemes more like D at the end of his life. Or does he? Maybe there was a slight tendency towards D as a result of his position in Apple. I think Gulenko has mention Jobs as an example somewhere.
- Carl Jung, C-LII, but at the end of his life, from when we have videos of him, he actually seems like all subtypes. He is a rare case, actually he is a bad example of DCNH because of his unusually high level of integration.
Subtype change seems to happen towards adjacent subtypes. C can change to N or D etc. They seem to be close to one another. I don't know the theory behind this.
The subtype of the person you are with at the moment can also influence you so you start gravitating slightly into the direction of the dual subtype of that person.
Dominant: Ellen Degeneres, Doctor Phil, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, David Hasselhoff, Princess Victoria of Sweden, Linus Torvalds, Katy Perry, Li Andersson (Finnish politician)
Creative: Viktor Gulenko, Jaques Derrida, Russell Brand, Roman Polanski, Gordon Ramsay, Björk Gudmundsdottir, Sasha Baron Coen, Mick Jagger, Slavoy Zizek, Carl Jung, Whitney Houston, Dalai Lama, Marie-Louise von Franz (Jungian analyst), W. A. Mozart, Matti Nykänen (Finnish former ski jumper)
Normalizing: Melanie Trump, Noam Chomsky, Hillary Clinton, Chris Hedges, Rick "the Socionist", Viktor Gulenko, Arvi Lind (Finnish news presenter)
Harmonizing: Michael Jackson, Barbara Streisand, Arvo Pärt, Yoko Ono, Lisa Mitchell, Queen Silvia of Sweden, George Michael, Emanuelle Seigner, Paul Auster, Jukka-Pekka Saraste (Finnish conductor)