Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Why and how each DCNH dominates the other:

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Why and how each DCNH dominates the other:

    Harmonizing dominates Dominant because they are being mean, using indirect ways to correct them
    Normalizing dominates Harmonizing because they are not assertive enough, using passivity to frustrate them, extinguishing their initiatives
    Creative dominates normalizing because they are bored by the order Normalizing craves, using creativity to disrupt and confuse them
    Dominant dominates Creative because they mess with their order using force to get them 'back in line'


    Does this align with your experiences? How would you describe the patterns?

  2. #2
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,502
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ive understood it like this:

    D - base
    C - Creative
    N - Role
    H - Polr

    The subtypes seem to have different emphasis on functions so that creates the domination hierarchy.

    What do you think about that?
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,806
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko's subtypes are baseless and are not Socionics
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    Ive understood it like this:

    D - base
    C - Creative
    N - Role
    H - Polr

    The subtypes seem to have different emphasis on functions so that creates the domination hierarchy.

    What do you think about that?
    How i view them is

    D - External judging functions (Te, Fe)
    C - External perceiving functions (Se, Ne)
    N - Internal judging functions (Fi, Ti)
    H - Internal perceiving functions (Ni, Si)

    I still think, at least it is something i tend to observe, that Producing and Accepting suptype plays a role too.
    So, an ESE Fe for example tents to be strengthened on his accepting functions more than on his other external judging function ime.

    -

    What you said about the emphasis on the function sounds sound to me too, an EIE-Fe needs more Ti and craves order more, than an EIE-Ni who would be more content with disorder, being stronger at perceiving and being able to make sense out of the chaos. This also would be congruent with the observation that judging subtypes are more conformist and keen on social hierarchy than perceiving subtypes who tent do have a more individualistic and democratic approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Gulenko's subtypes are baseless and are not Socionics


    What makes you think so? To me they are pretty observable and play a large role in inter-compatibility, i as harmonizing do dominate dominants while being dominated by normalizers, romantic relations with incompatible subtypes usually don't really work out the way they should and matching subtypes can compensate a lot for not perfect ITR in my experience
    Last edited by Itsme; 05-16-2020 at 09:59 AM.

  5. #5
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,502
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Itsme View Post
    How i view them is

    D - External judging functions (Te, Fe)
    C - External perceiving functions (Se, Ne)
    N - Internal judging functions (Fi, Ti)
    H - Internal perceiving functions (Ni, Si)
    Yes of course. I just meant that there seems to be an actual connection to not only these functions but also to the "positions" (functions) in Ego and Superego. It is the nature of the Base to be strong and self-confident, it is the nature of the Creative to be on/off, half conscious/half uncoscious, random, it is the nature of Role to be stable and connected to standards, it is the nature of Polr to be in doubt and reflective (am I really doing this right?). Something like that. They provide additional explanations to the differences in the subtypes. I think Gulenko has mentioned this in some of his dcnh articles.

    They dominate over each other because of the structure of functions in model A
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    Yes of course. I just meant that there seems to be an actual connection to not only these functions but also to the "positions" (functions) in Ego and Superego. It is the nature of the Base to be strong and self-confident, it is the nature of the Creative to be on/off, half conscious/half uncoscious, random, it is the nature of Role to be stable and connected to standards, it is the nature of Polr to be in doubt and reflective (am I really doing this right?). Something like that. They provide additional explanations to the differences in the subtypes. I think Gulenko has mentioned this in some of his dcnh articles.
    I have to disagree with you here, i think the sub type is more often than not one of the two ego functions.
    So an EJ is more likely to be dominant or harmonizing while an IJ is more likely to be normalizing or creative.

    At least for harmonizing the strengthened Polr does not hold true for me neither, all Ni creative harmonizers i have seen have about zero Si, not being able to control their internal sensing experience at all, being nervous being looked at, twitching when observing things and being highly uncomfortable about an sensing environment that does not fit them.

    The thing i can observe is the emphasis for normalizing with their role function, and for dominant and creative, it still aligns with people being more often the sub types of one of their ego functions than not

    They dominate over each other because of the structure of functions in model A
    Could you go into more detail here? How do the functions interact for domination to happen?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,806
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Itsme View Post
    What makes you think so?
    There is no good theory and experimental basis for that.
    Socionics is ideas of Jung and Augustunavichiute only. To add else needs objective proof.
    Also some ideas of these 2 authors are wrong, doubtful, contradicting. It's not obligately to use anything of them and to trust in equally degree. It's enough to stay in borders of their ideas to call it as Socionics.

    Reinin's traits, functions signes, subtypes, etc - it's all is baseless ideas or even non-Socionics.

    The more you'll use of basic and reasonable theory - the lesser wrong theory there will be and lesser mistakes you'll do.
    To understand what is Socionics, what are basic theory to trust it more or secondary derivations - read Jung and Augustinavichiute. Some authors as Filatova are close to basics, so was appropriately read them for novices too.

    If you want just to play in typology discussions, but not to use the theory on practice and risk to harm you and others by mistakes - then you may to forget about the reason and the need to understand what you are using, to use random fantasies and do anything. There are many such ones among novices, - technically all who takes seriously non-Socionics baseless theories about Jung types. The very majority never read normal books (did not read Jung, for example; English-talkers Socionics books also) and understands nothing in what they do, just irresponsibly flood on forums. The second reason for taking seriously baseless fantasies about types is that they reduce the importance of not fiting to normal theory and help to rationalize mistakes, including in own types. While mistakes in types are often, what's seen in low real typing matches.
    The example of second reason can be in you, as it's evident that ENTJ which you assign yourself is not yours and seems is not evel close as P-F is what fits you better.
    Last edited by Sol; 05-16-2020 at 04:26 PM.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  8. #8
    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    4
    Posts
    3,946
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    There is no good theory and experimental basis for that.
    Socionics is ideas of Jung and Augustunavichiute only. To add else needs objective proof.
    Also some ideas of these 2 authors are wrong, doubtful, contradicting. It's not obligately to use anything of them and to trust in equally degree. It's enough to stay in borders of their ideas to call it as Socionics.

    Reinin's traits, functions signes, subtypes, etc - it's all is baseless ideas or even non-Socionics.

    The more you'll use of basic and reasonable theory - the lesser wrong theory there will be and lesser mistakes you'll do.
    To understand what is Socionics, what are basic theory to trust it more or secondary derivations - read Jung and Augustinavichiute. Some authors as Filatova are close to basics, so was appropriately read them for novices too.

    If you want just to play in typology discussions, but not to use the theory on practice and risk to harm you and others by mistakes - then you may to forget about the reason and the need to understand what you are using, to use random fantasies and do anything. There are many such ones among novices, - technically all who takes seriously non-Socionics baseless theories for types. They never read normal books and understand nothing in what they do, just irresponsibly flood on forums.
    uhh as far as I know socionics is not well researched at all, so it doesn't really make sense how you can say that socionics has "experimental basis" but reinin's theories do not. none of this is well researched, so arguing about it is worthless or 'senseless' as you would say

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    There is no good theory and experimental basis for that.
    Socionics is ideas of Jung and Augustunavichiute only. To add else needs objective proof.
    Also some ideas of these 2 authors are wrong, doubtful, contradicting. It's not obligately to use anything of them and to trust in equally degree. It's enough to stay in borders of their ideas to call it as Socionics.

    Reinin's traits, functions signes, subtypes, etc - it's all is baseless ideas or even non-Socionics.

    The more you'll use of basic and reasonable theory - the lesser wrong theory there will be and lesser mistakes you'll do.
    To understand what is Socionics, what are basic theory to trust it more or secondary derivations - read Jung and Augustinavichiute. Some authors as Filatova are close to basics, so was appropriately read them for novices too.

    If you want just to play in typology discussions, but not to use the theory on practice and risk to harm you and others by mistakes - then you may to forget about the reason and the need to understand what you are using, to use random fantasies and do anything. There are many such ones among novices, - technically all who takes seriously non-Socionics baseless theories for types. They never read normal books and understand nothing in what they do, just irresponsibly flood on forums.
    I agree with you that there is a lot of non proven and wrong stuff written down by different authors.
    Still i think that it is needed for a theory that covers reality correct for a lot of pondering of different point of views to happen, i still think that partially correct or incorrect approaches being written down and discussed is a step in the right direction for people to be able to filter out what really matches with reality.
    What i do see with DCNH is it manifesting to a certain degree in real life interactions so i do think that Gulenko is onto something there, to me it is clear at this point that the DCNH subtypes do exist, even though the theoretical basis has not been worked out yet to a satisfying degree.
    Thats exactly why i try to make sense out of this, because by pulling out concepts out of real life interaction there should be a way to have satisfying patterns emerge, completely ignoring what is out there cleary to see and not trying to put it into an theoretical framework will make the theory more simple (which is not neccesarily bad, it can be a good thing as your post implies) but also less informational, useful and comprehensive.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,806
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    updated the post above to be more clear for local noobs
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  11. #11
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,502
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Itseme, I think I got it from here originally.:

    D
    In his 1st function the Dominant works "at full steam" and even more. In that sense, it's not just hidden somewhere processing information -- in Dominant it is evident at all times. If this is Te, he is not just busy all the time: he is working on three jobs, and in between speaks and teaches others what they should do. If, however, he does not work, he thinks and does various actions in his imagination, and then, once again, speaks about it, aloud and loudly, with confidence and an air of authority. (For this display, you need to multiply the usual manifestations of the base functions times three)

    C
    It is easiest to demonstrate Creative in the 2nd function, but in principle, variants are possible. Incidentally, if a product originates from a Dominant it is immediately exposed as show and "hype" -- Creative can easily work "for himself", "on the table" [Translator's Note: this seems to be an idiom meaning "alone" or "at home, in private"], or for a narrow circle of those to whom it may be necessary and/or interesting.

    N
    Normalizing calls for compliance to the rules of his own role (other types, of course, also adhere to norms in the region of the role function, but this is more noticeable in Normalizing, especially the requirement of the same from others). For example, Dumas [SEI] is adamant in his desire that guests do not be late, Balzac [ILI] - will make sure that everyone washes their hands before eating, and Jack [LIE] calls for control over emotions: “We're getting a little emotional - that's enough!”

    H
    Always ready to help, to meet you halfway, thereby inconveniencing himself. In general, he frequently lives with a sensation of discomfort and stress, and does so consciously. That by itself does not have sufficient value for him. But behold if we do something not very pleasant for someone else - that will be a ponderous Good Deed. Therefore Harmonizers are often doing something with a painful function. When people talk about PoLR as the “secondary creative”, this is about Harmonizing.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  12. #12
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LIE-H sp/sx
    Posts
    4,370
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting descriptions @Itsme

    Going by this I would be more Harmonizing than Creative - Normalizers stifle my initiatives through rules and order. Also it's accurate to describe how I relate to people who have a Dominant subtype, again, if I am Harmonizing.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •