.
DCNH question
.
Last edited by persimmonism; 07-22-2021 at 09:07 PM.
I've wondered the same thing.
hopefully soon we will see the light~Originally Posted by Emily
I think I understood it that it doesn't actually strengthen these functions but might make it appear as though they are strengthened. Or like, the user will be more comfortable in the field of those strengthened functions.
Like a dominant Ti person doesn't become good at Fe and Te but becomes good at using Ti to lead people in a way that is only usually reserved for Fe/Te leads.
A harmonising Fe person doesn't become good at Si but uses their Fe to create soothing and pleasant emotional environments.
As for strengthening functions - again, I'm not sure I took that literally as a strength. Someone more well-versed in DCNH can correct me if I'm wrong but I interpreted it as the subtypes means that you just emphasize certain parts of your type but doesn't actually affect their strength. Like an IEI-H might try to adapt to using Te for the sake of harmony but it doesn't mean they're actually good at it. And if they are, it's just from practice and not because the IE has a reinforced strength.
"I take back like half of the exclamation points.....they make me look....eager to please. Which I AM....but I don't want anyone to KNOW that"
- Carrie Fisher
"Si-Ni"
strengthened S leads to weakened N
both E/I kinds of functions develop simultaneously. that's why they both are always strong or weak
Gulenko's subtypes is heretical nonsense
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
The strengthened functional pairs seem to be emergent phenomena. Not directly connected to model A. For example: a H subtype is actually more sensitive to the environment, so something has happened that is beyond model A.
The other thing is the tendency base-dominant, creative-creative, role-normalizing etc. This seems to be directly connected to model A
You really need to observe people to get an answer. Most people are normalizing but there are plenty of the other 3 around in everyday life. So just observe more. Or ask Gulenko.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
This clarification helped.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote