Is there an effective way to determine DCNH type?

[noaydi]

I writed that in another thread but it was too much personnal and the discussion was not about self typing, so I write it here :

Is there a effective way to determine if you are D, C, N or H from introspection ? (it's not the first time I'm asking that, sorry)

I'm hesitating beetween D and N, after that C (C because I like to speak about many things, but Ive still a kind of restrain anyway. Ive seen ppl discussing things as if they had no limit and that's definitely not myself. But if you judge my message on this forum, I try to speak about different stuff borderline idiocy, ect. This is an argument for C)

In the dating domain, for example, I like things being simple. I like a girl wich I feel can relate to myself, and speak about simple things, like if I'm disturbing her, I admit I'm interested into her, and if we can speak more on a bar it could be cool. I'm quite direct in a way. I don't view myself as a predator who flirt with everyone (dominant strategie ?) but I'm looking for girl that I feel I can relate too and that I feel "of my taste". Often, it's smiling and simple girl wich are agreable, and will not try to disrespect you, being cold, impose too much stuff on yourself.

I'm not aware of my "charisma" presence in group aspect even if I can feel Ive some respect from my peer (not as much as many ppl thought). If any, I never felt that extraverted and the center of attention. I'm not the kind of guy who could complain that "if I was not existing, no one will notice". This could be still C or D, possibly N.

Ive to admit Ive never really found my DCNH subtype. I feel a little beetween D and C. IRL, I'm more like dominant, serious, interested about the person I'm discussing with, trying to discuss about idea. On forum/interet, I'm a dumbass sharing endless amount of useless "knowledge" and I sometime feel bad for that. I feel like it's not myself and just vanity.

I'm interested into art but I don't feel Ive the personnality adapted to be a real artist, I'm too much perfectionnist, Im' setting perhaps too high goal where art would be more about being more "percieving" and trying things randomly with joy. Anyway I still do music as a pass time. And now I want to write, I'm feeling like it could be good for my ego (not narcisstically, but just in term of feeling liberated)

I noticed N ppl feel detached from ppl, something that I don't feel very much. I'm more about curiosity toward other people, with sometime wanting to feel superior to them :/ (not with girl obviously, with girl sometime I just brag idiotically).

I'm sharing that with perhaps the idea that finally Ill find my subtype. Hesitating mainly beetween C (due to my reaction on the web) and dominant (how I appear in real life-even if I don't feel Ive that much charisma)

I'm sorry to sidetrack the thread for a personnal typing goal.


About love of winning : OH YES. I love winning. Finnisshing a hard project, succeding in recording a mix that finally look like something, playing in public and the public react in a good way, organizing event, finishing a fruity loops composition, being approved by hierarchie for a goal I have (it was about training ppl in database). All that give faith to myself. Sadly I'm at the same time procrastinator man (Ive some kind of depression) so I win rarely. Plus Ive some personnal defect (I speak to fast, perhaps Ive not that good presentation), so occasion to "win" sadly is rare and it lead to depression. If at least I was more active, didn't fall for drugs (problem wich is now solved).... But I know too that winning is not the goal of life. Best is imo to have an activity where you feel fully engaged, you improve yourself, and you make a good work. Same for "real work", (salary), I can't stand being too much static, I put myself into some challenge in order to succeed in some stuff (this can be too harmonizing)

In all... Help me determine my subtype.

FTR I think subtype can change in life. I know that when I was more unhealthy, it's as if I was playing myself far more like a creative than what I'm (trying to be extraverted at all cost). I was opposed to everything out of vanity. Now I prefer composure, listening to people and have good relationship. I could expand but stop.

Wich feeling I give ? Seriously I don't know. Ive no idea if I'm D, C, N or H. I'm not sufficiently independant to be C imo, H stay a possibility but this was never the feeling other gave me back (plus I'm not that spiritual), dominant or creative is really possible.

[FDG]

forget about this theory

[noaydi]

lol

Anyway I think it's vastly variable while your life and condition of life.

[Tallmo]

The compatibilities are very accurate so you can type yourself by them. D+N and C+H are good matches. Other than that just compare yourself with others, particularly identical, until you have figured out what dcnh is.

Also look at couples that you see irl

Most people have a distinct dcnh subtype

Dont think too much about the descriptions. This is a natural phenomenon

[The Reality Denialist]

Only beta descriptions are available. So if you can extrapolate from there then... maybe yes.


Few examples that go outside of beta according to Gulenko: Jacques Cousteau ILE-N, Donald Trump SEE-D.

Essentially you have to know at least few people of same type that have clearly different ways of functioning and do not go for extremes either.

For example Serhiy Arbuzov is SLE-H. He looks bit like ESI IMO.



He is very different from president of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov SLE-D.


EIE-N Aleksandr Solženitsyn

[noaydi]

Trump ? SEE ? He's SLE...

[The Reality Denialist]

Is Trump like Ramzan Kadyrov? Guy builds "a country" based on united brotherhood (SLE) or someone who pulls out people from somewhere for new project (SEE)?

[Tallmo]

Another thing. Dcnh is a specific typology so you cant type yourself by introspection alone. You have to make lots of comparisons in order to see the phenomenon. Otherwise you will likely look at irrelevant things in yourself. The same challenge as when typing by main type

[FDG]

lol

Anyway I think it's vastly variable while your life and condition of life.

That's exactly the problem. It varies according to your social group or the type of task you're engaged in.

[The Reality Denialist]

So, as long as material is mssing this is a pure guessing game.

Common couples are: D & H, C & C and N & N if we go by the originator Gulenko. DCNH dualization seems bit off and like in socionics it usually takes some time.

• Symmetrical attractive relations. Conditionally this is called subtype duality. They appear between opposite subtypes. They bear a smoothing, harmonizing nature. They are difficult to begin at first, but then partners all the more greatly begin to value the advantages of the division of labor that these relations provide them. The harder the conditions for existence, the more durable they are.

• Symmetrical repellent relations. They are called subtype identity. Their bearing is creative. They appear between identical subtypes. Mutual lift is caused at first, but differences increase in the course of time within the dyad and mutual disappointment begins. Verification of the strength (of the relationship), as a rule, is not performed. They are useful for duplicating, redundancy, preparation for change.

• Asymmetric attractive relations. The working name is subtype benefit. Their nature includes pushing, urging, and one-sided activation. D-subtype prevails over C-subtype. C prevails over N-subtype. Normalizing, in turn, prevails over H-subtype. But harmonizer, by paradoxical means, influences the dominant participant. Thus the circle is locked. These relations are the main accelerators of group dynamics.

• Asymmetric repellent relations. For their designation we will use the code term subtype supervision. They bear the nature of rate setting, retention within the framework, one-sided braking. They are directed in the opposite direction in comparison to benefit. They are useful from the point of view of correction, the correction of errors. Dominant inspects harmonizing. Harmonizing inspects normalizing. Normalizing impedes and corrects creative. And creative - dominant. And here occurs the closing of the outline, only in the reverse direction of the main vector.

For example C's gets tired of D's bossiness in the end ETC. At first fine and dandy.

[The Reality Denialist]

Here we have 3 ESI's

The middle one seems to be D.



Left one is probably N as he has the clearest opinions of everything in other videos.

[Sol]

place 4 papers with those letter on a wall
shut the eyes and turn several times
then throw a dart
the closest paper to a hited eye of your pal is your subtype

[The Reality Denialist]

Let's continue with ESI's. I think this one (Olena) is C version of ESI (and next to her text and between Ben is EIE-N as a child:

[noaydi]

place 4 papers with those letter on a wall
shut the eyes and turn several times
then throw a dart
the closest paper to a hited eye of your pal is your subtype

It broke my window. What I'm supposed to think ?

[Tallmo]

Here we have 3 ESI's

The middle one seems to be D.



Left one is probably N as he has the clearest opinions of everything in other videos.

This shows really well the huge differences between subtypes. That guy is clearly Normalizing, and the woman in black Dominant. She has a much more dynamic and "intensive" vibe about her. The third person could be Creative, I'm not really sure.

N-ESIs can be pretty "smart" because of the LII superego.

Noyadi, good luck at finding your subtype.

[The Reality Denialist]

This shows really well the huge differences between subtypes. That guy is clearly Normalizing, and the woman in black Dominant. She has a much more dynamic and "intensive" vibe about her. The third person could be Creative, I'm not really sure.

N-ESIs can be pretty "smart" because of the LII superego.

Noyadi, good luck at finding your subtype.

The rightmost woman could be C. I kind of sense the troubles she might have with high level conceptual talk (super ego from conflictor). At least I know similar ones and as soon as I talk with them the common ground is lost immediately.

[The Reality Denialist]

Here we have normalizing ESE and probably normalizing (?) LII

[FDG]

This shows really well the huge differences between subtypes. That guy is clearly Normalizing, and the woman in black Dominant. She has a much more dynamic and "intensive" vibe about her. The third person could be Creative, I'm not really sure.

N-ESIs can be pretty "smart" because of the LII superego.

Noyadi, good luck at finding your subtype.

This is honestly really like astrology the way you make it sound.
ESIs ALWAYS have LII superego no matter what "DCNH" subtype they have!

Honestly I agree with Sol this is an "heretic" theory and should not be advised for beginners of socionics. You guys just confuse their minds and take them away from useful, practical applications. I´d rather redirect them to the mathematico-mechanical socionics thread from Smilingeyes.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think DCNH does not really translate to abilities but mental organization and there is always some plasticity. Where disorganization goes like C>H>D>N. Of course C is the most random at generating links (quantity > quality), however what those links are is more or less restricted to a type.

[sbbds]

So far DCNH seems MBTIish to me with a so far unclear or hard-to-verify internal structure. Not enough info yet to seriously make any solid claims beyond vague “vibes”.

[FDG]

I think DCNH does not really translate to abilities but mental organization and there is always some plasticity. Where disorganization goes like C>H>D>N. Of course C is the most random at generating links (quantity > quality), however what those links are is more or less restricted to a type.

That´s still kind of really really vague.

[The Reality Denialist]

I have huge hesitation that Ramzan Kadyrov would become like Serhiy Arbuzov. I'll settle this for all (D), this is interesting (C), this is how it is going to be (N) and let me see where this goes (H).

[The Reality Denialist]

Here we have 3 IEE's. Left one for sure gives some SLE vibes. The rest ones are bit questionable.

[squark]

I have huge hesitation that Ramzan Kadyrov would become like Serhiy Arbuzov. I'll settle this for all (D), this is interesting (C), this is how it is going to be (N) and let me see where this goes (H).

I think whenever something is in the discovery and exploration phase it's filled with Cs and Hs. Then, as it becomes codified and established with set guidelines by the Ns, the Ds step in and establish themselves as "leaders of the field"


--
A personal anecdote:
I quit flying because of all the rules and regulations, which most people don't find cumbersome at all, but to me the freedom of flying was substantially hindered by them to the point where a lot of the joy was robbed from it. I would have loved to have been around before the FAA, back when it was new and unexplored and there was real freedom involved. Talking to an N-SLI and he always saw things the opposite of me, he thought there should be more rules and regulations. It was the safety of the rules that he appreciated. Same when we were kids - I'd street race my car, and he was always a staunch opponent of that, trying to get everyone to go to the track, doing things the "safe" and "right" way. I mean, I get it, it's dangerous and so on, but . . . idk, I guess (and maybe this is lower sp on my part too because I don't care that much about safety) having to keep within certain bounds on official tracks with rules and safety inspections and so on just. . . blehhhh, it just seems no fun at all.

[squark]

Well, I feel like, the thing with Cs is that they will almost always be in an "exploration phase" (because if they are not, they have likely already moved onto something else that is of interest to them, and that they can explore further) regardless of whether the field has become "codified and established" or people have attempted to set themselves as "leaders of the field" - as long as there are new ideas to be explored, as long as there is potential, C might find interest in it.

Sure, the nature of C is to explore. Was talking more about how fields of knowledge develop, and what types are more present in each stage rather than what any individual might be doing.

[guac]

How do you guys go about it?

Like, my brother seems to be pretty damn normalizing, but then I realized he's LII and doesn't N strengthen Ti-Fi, and I do think he's N, but how do you not confuse the DCNH type with the actual type? Am I looking at it wrong?
Personally I find the part about how it strengthens an IE pair and also a function in ego/super-ego the most interesting, so I've paid most attention to that part, but is that just more of a side-note to the theory, and I should focus more on the other stuff?

Also, do you go about (trying to) type people's DCNH with the descriptions of each type in mind?

Thanks.
On the plus side, i figured out my DCNH type. yay.

[The Reality Denialist]

These are from Gulenko's book. Dominant LII managerial, normalizing explainer, of materials creative constant autonomic thinking, harmonizing visionary.

General descriptions of DCNH subtypes lack resolution when it comes to specific types and it becomes too hard without first hand experience.


Doctor Todd Grande is probably best example of normalizing.

Autonomist Marie-Louise von Franz

David Keirsey visionary

Angela Merkel managerial

[Rusal]

When it comes to intertype relations, since seemingly dominant subtype gives off mixed signals and thus confuses some, does that mean they'd potentially get along better with memebers of the opposite quadra? Is there ever a crossover?

[Tallmo]

How do you guys go about it?

Like, my brother seems to be pretty damn normalizing, but then I realized he's LII and doesn't N strengthen Ti-Fi, and I do think he's N, but how do you not confuse the DCNH type with the actual type? Am I looking at it wrong?

That's why you need to meet many LIIs of different subtypes so you can compare them and separate the subtype from the main type. But this is a problem anybody will have when typing, even if they are not aware of DCNH. It's just easier to type when you are aware of the problem.

It's important to keep in mind that the N-LII is not necessarily the best example or the "purest" LII. They just happen to be common in society. The subtype that usually shows the most of their main type is the Dominant.

Personally I find the part about how it strengthens an IE pair and also a function in ego/super-ego the most interesting, so I've paid most attention to that part, but is that just more of a side-note to the theory, and I should focus more on the other stuff?

I think it's best to see DCNH as a separate level in the psyche. It's sort of connected to the main type, but in practice it can be seen as a separate level. Somebody mentioned once that DCNH can be seen as an emergent phenomenon to Model A.

You could probably learn to use DCNH without even knowing about socionics. You'd just type people in 4 types according to the theory.

Any IE can be strengthened on a subtype level. You can find SEIs with strong Se etc. so I think it would be strange to focus only on the ego/superego functions. The DCNH functions seem to be kindof "separated" from the position in model A: A SEI with Harmonizing subtype (strong Ni), is not necessarily using the Role function. Instead the subtype functions seem like secondary, "emergent" functions.

EDIT: DCNH is usually easier to see than the main type

[WVBRY]

I find the attitude a person has towards society is very telling.

I agree that you can tell a person's dcnh without knowing their main type, but I do think knowing the type helps too. Personally, I refer to the descriptions from Gulenko's book to help me pinpoint dcnh subtypes.