In trying to identify my DCNH subtype, I keep coming across this issue. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about these polarities, because by the descriptions in Gulenko's book, I'm clearly Distant, Initial, and Ignoring which is for some reason not an option. I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this issue. I see that adding a fifth type would make things less symmetrical, but there's still something I'm missing I think.
I'm most obviously initial, but maybe that's typical of IEE and if I knew more IEEs IRL I'd see that I'm less initial than others of my presumed type? Hard to believe because I'm one of the most "initial" people I know of any type. I lose interest in most things quickly and starting things is always more interesting than finishing. In fact I can think of few projects I've ever completed in my life. I also have untreated ADHD however.
I'm also clearly Distant, but my anxiety and depression might be clouding that issue. Though if DCNH is not fixed, does it really matter what's causing me to be the way I am? If I was suddenly cured of anxiety and depression and started presenting as more Contact, would my subtype change? Or just be accurately revealed?
The most confusing one is Ignoring/connecting. I'm leaning towards thinking I'm misunderstanding something about this polarity. At this time in my life at least, I feel that Harmonizing fits me the best, yet it's hard to see myself as Connecting over Ignoring. One thing you'll notice about me if you spend much time with me is how much I completely ignore my environment and anything not of interest to me. I'm very wrapped up in myself most of the time and not concerned with the "environment". But what does he even mean by environment? If I was to take that definition at face value, I would think that Normalizers would be the Connectors and Harmonizers would be the Ignorers, at least if we're talking about what I would consider trivial environmental factors or changes. Normalizers are more nitpickers and Harmonizers are more "head in the clouds", or at least that's how I see it. I would definitely be the latter. I'm somewhat more concerned/connected with other people however and pay some attention to the mood of others and how I relate to them and vice versa. (But I do also have a habit of ignoring other people if they are boring or not adding much to my interest.) Is that more what is meant by connecting? Or is it type dependant?
If going by the descriptions in Gulenko's book, I fit H-IEE and C-IEE very well and almost equally, and C-SEI is a close third (I don't identify too much with any other type of SEI however). Honorable mentions kind of in order: N-IEE, C-SEE, C-EII, C-ESE, H-ILE, C-IEI, N-SEE. I don't have much dominance in me at all but I do have a hint of normalizing. The biggest surprise in the descriptions is probably that H-SLI doesn't sound too far off for me though it didn't quite make it into the honorable mentions. It's the only ST type that sounds anything like me. Also somewhat surprising is that no EIE made it into my top 10 despite my last type me thread having several people typing me EIE.