Friends, since you know much better the system of subtypes of DСNH, I propose to start the conversation with a comparison of the two systems in a more general sense. There are many points to consider and think about. If there is an interest to discuss and compare.
In the meantime .... I want to propose to evaluate your subtype without additional function (according to the new model from Gulenko and the dichotomy of ignorance - connectivity). That is, take as a basis the old DСNH system with only pairs of functions and exclude from it the group in which your type is located. Which of the three subtypes would you choose for yourself?
2. You can use the description of subtypes according to the DСNH system or my descriptions by the type of energy, you can use the description of socionic and classical temperaments, since all these descriptions refer to these four groups.
You can find my group descriptions at these links. Do not overload yourself with color preferences - this is not the most important criterion at the moment and if it does not coincide with your personal preference, then this is not a reason not to consider the description of the group as a whole.
The TPE system by which you simultaneously determine the type and subtype (s), psychodynamics - the distribution of 4 types of mental energy in your psyche. The strongest TPE represents your type, the less strong your subtype.You could write a profile of TPEs distribution and this is also referred to associative model, e.g. Superid/H - Superego/G - Id/C - Ego/D.
The type of psychic energy is represented by only one pair of value functions of the basic groups of typology, lying at the crossing of the dichotomies of extraversion- introversion, rationality-irrationality and statics -dynamics). These groups are also called temperamental and the descriptions of temperaments and the system of the DСNH are suitable to consider.
The new sample of the DСNH has a third function in addition, it is no coincidence, since it is tuned into model G, which takes extraversion-introversion as the main criterion, therefore the third additional function is of the same version as the main group. Due to this, there is an increase in extraversion in extroverts and introversion in introverts. This is a prerequisite for the fact that most extroverts can see their subtype as C or D and much less often find it in the introverted group H or N.
To prevent this from happening, G. adds to the description an emphasis on program and creative functions (terminal and initial). This makes it possible to state a type according to its main group of types. So, for example, a normalizing type will declare a normalizing subtype. But this, in fact, does not remove the one-sidedness of the theory - the focus on the functions of either extraversion or introversion. And if you remove common functions from the new concept, it will be clearly visible which functions determine the value of each group:
Subtypes in a new way (according to Gulenko):
Dominant - strengthening Te + Se, Fe optional
Creative - strengthening Ne + Fe, Se optional
Normalizing - gain Ti + Si, Fi optional
Harmonizing - gain Ni + Fi, Si optional
We remove similar functions:
Dominant - Te
Creative - Ne
Normalizing - Ti
Harmonizing - Ni
If Dreiser/ESI has a weak suggestive function of Ti, and Ne is vulnerable, then the choice falls either on his group type N or H. Accordingly, Dostoevsky has more chances to get into N, C or H and the other types will depend on the position of logic and intuition in their model of the psyche.
This is not the case in the TPE system, and all groups and pairs of functions are considered as a subtype ... except for their own group of types. If you are a normalizing type (Superego type), then you cannot have a Superego subtype. It can be either D - Ego, or C - Id or H - Superid. This is the structural error of the DСNH system according to Ti judgement.