Creative subtype DCNH

[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.