Creative subtype DCNH

[Tallmo]

Socionics is a very basic - generalized theory attempting to describe 7 billion people by way of only 16 types. Adding on a further typology to try to explain the 'differences' within those people - that's adding on DNCH is an exercise in futility.

There are still 7 billion people with their individual characteristics. No matter what typology you add on to that - in this case another 4 options, you are still no where near explaining the individuality of the person within one of those 16 types of 7 billion people.

So there's no point in even bothering with it - it's a bad deal.

You're missing the point. This is not about capturing the whole individuality. Both socionics and DCNH describe things that are both very pronounced/important in the individual and systematic. It's not just any typology. They are very relevant for understanding compatibility/communication. And because they are systematic phenomena they are easy to describe in a theory and use and also observe. That's the reason why DCNH and Socionics was discovered.

Just because you can't capture the individuality of all humans, doesn't mean that you shouldn't pick out some important patterns and describe them.

[at sirac son of sirac]

You're missing the point. This is not about capturing the whole individuality. Both socionics and DCNH describe things that are both very pronounced/important in the individual and systematic. It's not just any typology. They are very relevant for understanding compatibility/communication. And because they are systematic phenomena they are easy to describe in a theory and use and also observe. That's the reason why DCNH and Socionics was discovered.

Just because you can't capture the individuality of all humans, doesn't mean that you shouldn't pick out some important patterns and describe them.

My opinions different from you. A psychological type captures some vague information about someone, but inter-type relations don't exist the way socionics expects.

[Audacious]

Socionics is a very basic - generalized theory attempting to describe 7 billion people by way of only 16 types. Adding on a further typology to try to explain the 'differences' within those people - that's adding on DNCH is an exercise in futility.

There are still 7 billion people with their individual characteristics. No matter what typology you add on to that - in this case another 4 options, you are still no where near explaining the individuality of the person within one of those 16 types of 7 billion people.

So there's no point in even bothering with it - it's a bad deal.

My opinions different from you. A psychological type captures some vague information about someone, but inter-type relations don't exist the way socionics expects.

If you believe that, then why are you here? I'm genuinely curious. I'm not trying to shoo you away. What is your attraction to such a forum and theory? There must be something you're getting out of hanging out here and commenting or something that you hope to find but are struggling with.

[at sirac son of sirac]

If you believe that, then why are you here? I'm genuinely curious. I'm not trying to shoo you away. What is your attraction to such a forum and theory? There must be something you're getting out of hanging out here and commenting or something that you hope to find but are struggling with.

I have been asking myself the same question.

My opinion on intertype-relationships relations is that it's deeply flawed. I don't believe God made it that people could not get on (opposing quadra, conflictor relations).

I think a type itself, without the baggage, has some element to it, as in functions as a particular set of preferences, so I talk about that, otherwise... IDK.

Maybe I'll fully leave when I've decided on that.