DCNH subtypes by Vera Borisova: Dominant, Creative, Normalizing, Harmonizing

[Krig the Viking]

[Translator's Note: This is part of a longer article on the DCNH subtypes by Vera Borisova, which can be found here. The following is a description of the four DCNH subtypes. I am still not certain of the translation of the words and phrases which are highlighted in red.]

1. Dominant Subtype

I came, I saw, I conquered.

The brightest, most vivid subtype – within the limits of type, and in general.

This subtype has greatest similarity to its type's descriptions. A nuance: Dominant subtype introvert is more extraverted (particularly not in a socionics understanding, but in Eysenck’s understanding, i.e. lively, sociable, and outgoing), but still displays pronounced typical features of his type. If a typical introvert, upon getting tired of communicating, will just go "hide in a corner", the Dominant subtype will drive everyone away and still be grumbling loudly, saying, "Everyone keeps walking around here!"

This subtype is the one most likely to self-actuate, especially in the socio-cultural sphere; I think that most famous people, i.e. well-known actors, writers, politicians, etc. fall into the Dominant subtype.

In a group this subtype is also the most (bright, strong, intelligent – depending on the base type). The logical type - is "the most intelligent", the ethical type - is the most excitable, the sensing type - takes up the most space. That is, the sphere of his "achievements" and the specific way in which he attracts attention to himself and becomes the leader depends on main type. Dominant subtypes take the leadership explicitly, especially if they are ethical, sensing, or extraverted. Logical-intuitives do not always deliberately seek to lead, but feel that they must: "so that no idiot can order me around".

If the Dominant subtype leaves the room, an impression is created is that not one person but most of the people have left.

Among people of the Dominant subtypes, if they end up in the same group, there arises a strong competition, even if their intertype relations are quite comfortable, and there is no serious "reason to fight".

The easiest way to say it is that the Dominant subtype, firstly, pulls attention to himself, and secondly, "gives orders". Furthermore, he is blunt, if he uses some sort of manipulation, it is rather crude. Usually he just says what he needs from you. This infuriates everyone except Normalizing subtypes. In commanding and giving orders, the Dominant subtype does not simply provide a task, but with his confidence he provides the energy needed to perform it. It is possible to "go a long way" on his energy, by simply joining his initiatives and helping him implement them (but, of course, go only the way where the Dominant needs you to go).

Strangely enough, the Dominant subtype calmly responds to minor quibbles, to the requests (of Normalizing subtype) to adhere to a specific order. And even actually adhere to it! If there is no person of Normalizing subtype nearby, the whole disorder or mess gets sent to the furnace or into the trash, and that's all.

The 1st function the Dominant subtype works "at full steam" and even more. In that sense, it's not just hidden somewhere processing information – in Dominant subtype 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 during the breaks he talks and teaches others what they should be doing. If, however, he isn't working, then he thinks of various actions in his imagination, and then, once again, talks about it, aloud and loudly, with confidence and an air of authority. (To imagine this, multiply the usual manifestations of the base function by three.)

If, say, we're dealing with the Dominant subtype of Hamlet (EIE), this is not just emotions, but such emotions from which the whole group is seriously wound up, while the EIE is not even doing anything, sitting quietly.

The Dominant subtype of Yesenin (IEI) manages to command what you should do.
The Dominant subtype of Balzac (ILI) is energetic and rudely sarcastic.
The Dominant subtype of Dostoevsky (EII) is a kind of "an iron fist in a velvet glove": after a demonstration of softness and ethics from this person emerges an equally demonstrative condemnation and desire to "educate".


2. Creative Subtype

Everyone wants to be unique. I'm not like that...

The Creative subtype, conversely, is the least similar to its main type description. It is the most flexible subtype. There is a strong inclination toward "Mirror" type, as though the 1st and 2nd functions have switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the extravert to the introvert. And in general, all characteristic type features seem to be diluted and watered down for the Creative subtype.

It seems that for Creative subtype the intertype relations are also "watered down" – as he conducts himself "outside the box" by the standards of his type.

Creative subtype, one way or another, finds himself in the sphere of ideas and creativity, and this doesn't have to be something artistic – it may well be scientific or a hobby; generally, a creative element is introduced into any pursuit, otherwise the Creative subtype feels uninterested. If someone else's result or product comes into his hand, the Creative subtype will remake, "improve it", think it over.

For Creative subtype it is easiest to show and realize himself over the 2nd function, but in principle, other variants are possible.

On another note, if the result or product of the Dominant subtype is immediately demonstrates and "hyped up" – the Creative subtype can easily create "for himself", to write knowing his writing won't get published, or for a narrow circle of those for whom it may be needed or interesting.

The Creative subtype is not very discerning of various social-relational games, but he doesn't protest if he gets pulled into such a game.

He easily takes off, "a person with eccentricities", capable of an unusual and generally foreign to his sociotype actions (for example, an LII who doesn't only go hitchhiking himself, but also takes his wife and children along for the trip).

The Creative subtype is not interested in anything besides that which is truly interesting to him – in the sense that he ignores everything else (passively or actively). Including people (for Creative subtypes of logical types: "those people are like wooden poles"). May actively renounce something if it hinders him personally. By these means, Creative subtype "slips by", since a renounced topic is not important to understand because it's outside the scope of his interests.

Creative subtype attitude towards norms or standards is negative or indifferent, which is especially clearly displayed on the aspect of role function: that is, a person of Creative subtype does not strive to abide by "generally accepted" standards. (Julia (Balzac) was genuinely surprised at my attempt to wash the fruit bought at the market – what for? At my explanations "So that they are clean", and that "I may eat unwashed fruit, but they should be given to a small child" Julia just waved her hand dismissively.)

[Krig the Viking]

3. Normalizing Subtype

... He drank very little, he was not rude.
Such luck, girls, only happens once.
One thing was perplexing: he will brush his teeth
And he will never close the tube.
Well, I did not pay attention at first.
This man was sent to me from heaven.
And like a woman I forgave him.
Everything, even the tube, damn it.
And he, sketching, sank into nirvana:
Then suddenly he hugs me - I love you, he says, and that's enough!
Then suddenly, the mischevious imp, he drags me into the bath
And there... is the open toothpaste!
I, like a fool, washed socks.
Put boullion cubes in soup
And all I asked, all I pleaded, was:
"When you've brushed your teeth - close the freaking tube!"
And he, the pig, as if on purpose:
"All this, Glasha," he says, "is unimportant."
Tell me, girls, perhaps it is possible
To love and shit at the same time?
And I went out of annoyance to the neighbor.
Well next to the neighbor's dentures,
On the shelf a tube of "Blendamedu"
Lies closed. How delightful!
[Viktor Tretyakov. Tube.]

Normalizing subtype, truly, tries to order everything that is within his sphere of direct action or influence. "All the pot handles must point to one side" – this quote from the autobiography of Khmelevskoy (about her husband) ironically but accurately characterizes the Normalizing subtype. However, the sphere of ordering has a clear boundary: that which is inside is "mine", "that with which I can identify with". "My house," "my job," etc. This "mine" must stay in a specific order, that is introduced by the Normalizing subtype. This order may or may not be visible to third-party observers. Regardless of this, any violation of order is perceived as troubling, much like a pebble in the shoe.

Things that symbolize order - compartment trays, cases with partitions (for screws, for example), sets of identical items (jars of spices, dinnerware), drawers, cabinets, holders, organizers - delight the Normalizing subtype.

Any activity the Normalizing subtype begins with establishing order, structure, designation of boundaries, methods and deadlines. He is very efficient and diligent. He is not afraid of monotonous work, "nit-picking", polishing and finishing work begun by someone else. It is difficult for him to start on a task, but once he "gets into it" the rest proceeds much better. It is much more pleasant to work when "the end line" is visible, when the bigger part has already been accomplished.

If there is no opportunity to "bring order", the unsettling feeling can be dispelled by means of moving the "mess" beyond the borders of what is "mine". "Other people have a right to as much as much disorganization as they wish, and it's none of my business." This happens when someone else has the right to the territory or activity, or when the activity is shared but the partner who opposes organization. Then the Normalizing subtype goes into "whatever you say, I will do" mode, by force of his will erasing the image of mass chaos from his awareness.

In general, leaving the situation is a common way for Normalizing to solve the problem. Normalizing subtype's method of fighting and expressing protest and disagreement - passive observation and inaction - are designed for the Dominant subtype; however, this may also be a sign of lack of energy (interest, time, etc.). In this case the Dominant subtype will add more energy, and then it becomes clear either the Normalizing subtype does what the Dominant subtype wants from him, or he will leave his influence and move away.

In comparison with other subtypes, Normalizing subtype is dull, inexpressive, boring. But balanced and "thick-skinned", as the Normalizing-Dominant pair is in general. Doesn't easily take offense or show initiative. His motto is: "Let's see how you will show yourself."

He analyzes, weighs, estimates all the plusses and minuses. In relationships he by default leaves much to the discretion of his partner, though he makes notes to himself of the type "shouldn't try to resolve business questions with this person", "this information is not to be trusted", etc. Thus, ngative relations the Normalizing subtype formulates as: "Don't associate/become tied to this person!"

Does not strive to participate in competitive struggle, is not ambitious. This does not mean that he doesn't grow as a person and develop further – he fully develops and improves, for example, in professional work; he is diligent and strives to do his job as well as possible. However, the realm of ambitions he leaves to the Dominant subtype, not even trying to compete with him (or with anyone in general). He prefers to be second.

Cleaning for the Normalizing subtype is means for removing discomfort. When "something is wrong", he begins to clean up his living space (the main thing here is not "to wipe off dust and mud", but "to arrange things in their places").

With logical types of Normalizing subtype it is especially noticeable how each thing has its place in their houses, and by default gets put there. The "order" of ethical types is more difficult to track down; however, try moving anything from place to place in Normalizing subtype's apartment, and immediately - by the reaction of owner - it will become clear that these things weren't put there haphazardly. Moreover the person of Normalizing subtype will not curse or scold, but he will simply immediately move everything "as it should be". Although he might perhaps frown.

The Normalizing subtype calls for carrying out norms and rules that have to do with his own role function (other types, of course, also adhere to norms of their role function, but with Normalizing subtypes this is more noticeable, especially requiring the same from others). For example, Normalizing Dumas (SEI) is adamant in his wish that guests do not arrive late, Normalizing Balzac (ILI) will make sure that everyone washes their hands before eating, and Normalizing Jack (LIE) calls for control over emotions: "We were worried, but that's enough!"

4. Harmonizing Subtype

Most important is the weather in the house…

Quite lively and recognizable by his main type's description, however, in comparison with the classic type description he is "suspiciously" nice. It seems that the negative traits of a sociotype have no relation to the harmonizing subtype.

Soft and delicate; although these qualities are somewhat limited by the capabilities of the type. That is, an ethical type of Harmonizing subtype is usually a very ethical person. He always wants to do something so that everyone is well. Even a logical type, but with logical type for some reason it turns out to be "he wanted to do best, but it turned out as always".
In contrast to the Normalizing-Dominant dyad, Harmonizing and Creative is a complementary pair with a "delicate structure of the soul". Especially, of course, the Harmonizing subtype: sensitive, worrying, touchy, altruistic, self-sacrificing.

Like the Dominant subtype, the Harmonizing subtype functions as a connector, that is, he establishes the necessary links to the environment. But where Dominant does so crudely and directly, Harmonizing does so by careful manipulation (he is capable of manipulation that provides multiple moves, for the purpose of making another person become well).

The Harmonizing subtype monitors social desirability and conforms to it. ("A gentleman is that man who calls a cat a cat, even having stepped on it in darkness…") This especially applies to relational and gender stereotypes. Moreover, if the Harmonizing subtype has armed himself with a gender stereotype, he doesn't simply behave in accordance with it, but moves it closer to an ideal. This is the Ideal Man ("I'm going to earn money for my beloved!") or an Ideal Woman.

The Harmonizing subtype doesn't really want to do something "for himself". Now, if it was for a close person, then – anything they wish.

Always ready to help, to go for agreements and compromises, often thereby inconveniencing himself. Often he lives with a sensation of discomfort and stress, and consciously goes for this. If something is coming together on its own - this isn't sufficiently valuable to him. But if he does something for someone else, that's he didn't wish to do - this will be a significant Good Deed. Therefore Harmonizers are often doing something with their painful function. When people talk about PoLR as a "secondary creative function", this is about Harmonizing subtype.

The Harmonizing subtype cannot stand it when anyone argues or scolds, or disharmonizes their environment somehow. Here again he tries to help, to fix the situation, since it makes him feel badly.

He is well aware of how he must behave so that others won't feel badly. Evaluates those around him from the point of view of the ethicalness of their behavior, strives to educate them. Worries and feels himself bad if he has committed some unethical act.
The Harmonizing subtype finds it difficult to insult people "directly", to fault and accuse a person even if he/she has deserved it. He either tries to express his displeasure and resentment delicately, or he keeps silent and sulks. Even when it is already evident that he thinks poorly of someone, it is put across something like this: "I think poorly of you, but for the sake of our good relationship, I won't say anything about it". As a result, a "delicate hint" coming from harmonizing can be much more offensive than a direct "attack". For example: "Thank you for the lack of birthday congratulations. It was very nice, ladies and gentlemen." The Dominant subtype would have said: "It's my birthday! Quickly, everybody congratulate me!" And no problem…

Or another situation - a guest hasn't taken off his shoes at the entry as the home owner would have liked. The Dominant subtype puts a stop to this business at the root: you won't have time to enter, you will immediately be told where to remove your boots. ("Where are you going? Stop! - they will say.) The Normalizing subtype will mutter to the side: "Why is it that everyone walks in their boots past the green rug, which is is the size of the entire lobby?" (and he himself will put the shoes where they must go). The Creative subtype might not notice anything; or he will notice, but consider it too unimportant to say anything about it. But the Harmonizing subtype will keep silent out of delicacy, but will remember: "how could a guest enter in his shoes, is he a bad person?!"

[Krig the Viking]

Words and phrases still needing help:

realized = реализующийся
but also sending the wife and children off on/to track/run = но и отправляющий на трассу жену с детьми
as if on purpose = ну как нарочно
“Well, we'll see what you turn out to be” = «Ну, посмотрим, как ты проявишься»

[Trevor]

“Well, we'll see what you turn out to be” = «Ну, посмотрим, как ты проявишься»

Given the context might be "OK, let's see what you got (but be quick)". Not completely sure, though.

[Trevor]

realized = реализующийся

He is the most realized, especially in the socio-cultural sphere;

Something like: The place where he ends up most often, where he actualizes/self-actualizes/realizes/finds himself. Preferred Locus Operandi - socio-cultural sphere.

[tcaudilllg]

Yeah I definitely get into harmonizing women. No doubt about that....

What I don't understand is why a person would choose to use their harmonizing function more than their creative. It doesn't make sense. What could be the difficulty in using the harmonizing function instead of the creative? Gulenko has not explained this....

[xerx]

This is awesome.

I've hypothesized for a while that major factors in DCNH influence enneagram typings. Since the enneagram is supposed to describe core fixations (ie. the real non-DCNH type), DCNH may tend to muddle certain enneagram typings.

These are not perfect correlations, of course, because most enneagram descriptions I've studied are written broadly and generally, and have to account for everyone in that fixation who is a different DCNH type:
N <--> E6, E1
D <--> E8, E3
H <--> E9, E2
C <--> E5, E4, E7

So a D-ENTp would still be a 7, but identify in a major way with 3 and/or 8. A C-ESTp may have an 8 core fixation, but identify somewhat with 4, 5 and/or 7, depending on his area of creativity.


I'm a little cautious of totally interpreting the enneagram in terms of DCNH though, precisely because it's such a powerful explanatory tool. It may be possible, for instance, that the above hypothesis is all wrong and that some N-INTj E6 out there strongly identifies with 4 descriptions as well, and incidentally is secretly a very emo and emotionally possessed person. Such a person may exist, but may be rare.

[xerx]

Another question I have is whether someone can pick up traits from his dual DCNH type, much like in regular duality. Although it may not be as satisfying to do them yourself then to have a dual do them for you while maximizing your main program in each others' faces.

[Krig the Viking]

Tuturututu: thanks man, I'll take a look at those.

If anyone can figure out where exactly Robespierre was sending his wife and kids off to, I'll be both impressed and grateful.

Yeah I definitely get into harmonizing women. No doubt about that....

What I don't understand is why a person would choose to use their harmonizing function more than their creative. It doesn't make sense. What could be the difficulty in using the harmonizing function instead of the creative? Gulenko has not explained this....

It seems to depend on what elements are necessary to adapt to one's surroundings. I have a theory that parents play a pretty big role in this, at least initially: I know an H-ESE and an H-LII, both of whom have (from what I can tell) an SLI father and an LSE mother. That may mean something, or it may just be a co-incidence.

This is awesome.

I've hypothesized for a while that major factors in DCNH influence enneagram typings. Since the enneagram is supposed to describe core fixations (ie. the real non-DCNH type), DCNH may tend to muddle certain enneagram typings.

These are not perfect correlations, of course, because most enneagram descriptions I've studied are written broadly and generally, and have to account for everyone in that fixation who is a different DCNH type:
N <--> E6, E1
D <--> E8, E3
H <--> E9, E2
C <--> E5, E4, E7

So a D-ENTp would still be a 7, but identify in a major way with 3 and/or 8. A C-ESTp may have an 8 core fixation, but identify somewhat with 4, 5 and/or 7, depending on his area of creativity.


I'm a little cautious of totally interpreting the enneagram in terms of DCNH though, precisely because it's such a powerful explanatory tool. It may be possible, for instance, that the above hypothesis is all wrong and that some N-INTj E6 out there strongly identifies with 4 descriptions as well, and incidentally is secretly a very emo and emotionally possessed person. Such a person may exist, but may be rare.

I've been trying to find a correlation between DCNH and Enneagram for a while, myself. What we really need is a substantial set of data, including base type, subtype, and enneatype for a large number of people, to see if there are any correlations.

Me, I'm a C-LII, and I identify with Enneatype 1, but also 5, so I guess that matches up pretty well with your hypothesis.

[MatthewZ]

Well, now I'm inclined to think I'm H-LII.

[MatthewZ]

To guillotine??

He may have been a madman, but not that mad.

[UDP]

I don't think I fully understand this model, but...

It seems like a D-EII... is not possible? Or what would that look like?

[Krig the Viking]

I don't think I fully understand this model, but...

It seems like a D-EII... is not possible? Or what would that look like?

Actually, D-EII is one of the examples she (Vera is a woman's name in Russian, right?) gives:

Dominant Dostoevsky [EII] is sort of "an iron fist in a velvet glove": after a demonstration of softness and ethics emerges an equally demonstrative condemnation and desire to "educate".

Any combination of type and subtype is possible, at least in this model.

[tcaudilllg]

Now we're beginning to talk about realistic characterizations!

[Creepy-male]

That the Creative subtypes don't clearly express their type's traits may help explain my personal typing circus. I assume many people hold the opinion that I'm difficult to type.

[krieger]

This model ends up making strange, wrong predictions about me no matter what it classifies me as.

[The Exception]

[Translator's Note: This is part of a longer article on the DCNH subtypes by Vera Borisova, which can be found here. The following is a description of the four DCNH subtypes. I am still not certain of the translation of the words and phrases which are highlighted in red.]

2. Creative

Everyone wants to be unique. I'm not like that.

This subtype, conversely, is the least similar to the canonical type description. It is the most flexible subtype. It has a strong inclination toward "Mirror", as though the 1st and 2nd functions had switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the extravert to the introvert. And in general all type features in Creative are watered down.

I think this is partly why I've been mistyped as ILE on occasion.

Actually, D-EII is one of the examples she (Vera is a woman's name in Russian, right?) gives:



Any combination of type and subtype is possible, at least in this model.

But do you think some combinations are more common or less common than others? Or do you think they're evenly distributed?

I love your writings on DCNH subtypes. Keep up the good work.

[FDG]

Uhm. Nice descriptions. Hard to say if I'm creative or dominant tho; I guess there's no such a thing as an inbetween subtype, especially if these are the subtypes considered.

This model ends up making strange, wrong predictions about me no matter what it classifies me as.

Yeah, I feel the same. It's not a criticism to Krieg the Viking, btw; might just be the different "modulation" NT club gives to different subtypes, as it's described in one of the sections.

[1981slater]

My beliefs

2004: 12 horoscope signs
2005-2008: 16 types
2009: 16 x 2 = 32 subtypes
2010: 16 x 4 = 64 subtypes

From "everybody is unique" to 12, 16, 32 and 64 different types!!!

[JohnDo]

I thought about those descriptions again and got confused...

Most similar of all to his type's description. Nuance: the Dominant introvert is more extraverted

This subtype, conversely, is the least similar to the canonical type description. It is the most flexible subtype. It has a strong inclination toward "Mirror", as though the 1st and 2nd functions had switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the extravert to the introvert. And in general all type features in Creative are watered down.

That sounds strange. The author seems to be of the opinion that the dominant subtype has a strengthened base function and that the creative subtype has a strengthened creative function.

That is in no way the system Gulenko describes as DCNH!!!

In Gulenko's DCNH system a Creative ILE has a strenthened base function. So I really don't understand how a Ne-ILE should seem to be an introvert...

Are you sure this is about Gulenko's DCNH system, Krig?!

[FDG]

I thought about those descriptions again and got confused...



That sounds strange. The author seems to be of the opinion that the dominant subtype has a strengthened base function and that the creative subtype has a strengthened creative function.

That is in no way the system Gulenko describes as DCNH!!!

In Gulenko's DCNH system a Creative ILE has a strenthened base function. So I really don't understand how a Ne-ILE should seem to be an introvert...

Are you sure this is about Gulenko's DCNH system, Krig?!

Yeah, that's right - they should say that creative DCNH subtypes have a stronger perceiving function, I think...

[Krig the Viking]

But do you think some combinations are more common or less common than others? Or do you think they're evenly distributed?

I love your writings on DCNH subtypes. Keep up the good work.

Thanks.

As for whether certain combinations are more common than others, in a way it intuitively makes sense that the Ego-based subtypes would be more common than the others (i.e., Creative and Normalizing in Static types, Dominant and Harmonizing in Dynamic types). However, there is no hard reason for that to be the case. You would have to do a statistical analysis of a large number of people to be sure, and I don't have the resources to do that.

That sounds strange. The author seems to be of the opinion that the dominant subtype has a strengthened base function and that the creative subtype has a strengthened creative function.

That is in no way the system Gulenko describes as DCNH!!!

In Gulenko's DCNH system a Creative ILE has a strenthened base function. So I really don't understand how a Ne-ILE should seem to be an introvert...

Are you sure this is about Gulenko's DCNH system, Krig?!

I've been wondering when someone would catch that; I've been meaning to write a disclaimer about that myself. If you read the rest of the article, the author describes several types of subtype systems, before getting to Gulenko's system. She describes Gulenko's system accurately, and then just before she begins describing the four subtypes individually, she writes this (this is a really rough translation):

Subtype in this frame of reference is connected not only with the meaningful filling of one aspect or another, but also with the special features of the structure of the typological model. Specifically - the Dominant demonstrates additional strengthening of the base function (possibly due to the functions of the weaker), the Creative - creative, the Normalizing - role, the Harmonizing - PoLR. The discussion deals precisely with structural updating, i.e., with transferring of the strategy of the actualized function to the behavior of man as a whole.

To be honest, unless I'm misunderstanding something, that doesn't really jive at all with Gulenko's description. I'm not sure if the author is misunderstanding something, or trying to import ideas from a different subtype system, or what. Because of that, I'm hesitant to call these descriptions absolutely definitive, however they do otherwise appear to be substantially accurate, outside of the weird bits correlating DCNH subtypes to functions rather than information elements.

Like all descriptions, this should be viewed as a description of the DCNH subtypes, not the description.

[JohnDo]

I've been wondering when someone would catch that;

I think I already thought about it last weak but... don't know why I didn't mention it... had some different problems...

I'm not sure if the author is misunderstanding something, or trying to import ideas from a different subtype system, or what.

It is just a different system with the same names.

This system:
strengthened base function - dominant subtype
strengthened creative function - creative subtype
strengthened role function - normalizing subtype
strengthened vulnerable function - harmonizing subtype


Gulenko's system:
base and role - dominant for EJ, creative for EP, normalizing for IJ, harmonizing for IP
creative and vulnerable - dominant for IP, creative for IJ, normalizing for EP, harmonizing for EJ
suggestive and ignoring - dominant for IJ, creative for IP, normalizing for EJ, harmonizing for EP
mobilizing and demonstrative - dominant for EP, creative for EJ, normalizing for IP, harmonizing for IJ

[Krig the Viking]

I think I already thought about it last weak but... don't know why I didn't mention it... had some different problems...

It is just a different system with the same names.

This system:
strengthened base function - dominant subtype
strengthened creative function - creative subtype
strengthened role function - normalizing subtype
strengthened vulnerable function - harmonizing subtype


Gulenko's system:
base and role - dominant for EJ, creative for EP, normalizing for IJ, harmonizing for IP
creative and vulnerable - dominant for IP, creative for IJ, normalizing for EP, harmonizing for EJ
suggestive and ignoring - dominant for IJ, creative for IP, normalizing for EJ, harmonizing for EP
mobilizing and demonstrative - dominant for EP, creative for EJ, normalizing for IP, harmonizing for IJ

Yes, I'm aware of how DCNH works, you don't have to spell it out for my sake. Unless you were doing it for the benefit of the others reading this thread.

If you read the original article, Borisova is specifically talking about Gulenko's system. She mentions Gulenko by name, and summarizes his two articles on the subject (the same ones that were formerly on wikisocion). She does appear to be describing Gulenko's four subtypes, she seems to just add in this other stuff about strengthened functions which contradicts what Gulenko said about strengthened elements, in much the same way you add in stuff about face shapes and subtype being permanent which contradicts what Gulenko said about subtype being changeable.

What her basis is for adding that material, I do not know.

[JohnDo]

Yes, I'm aware of how DCNH works, you don't have to spell it out for my sake. Unless you were doing it for the benefit of the others reading this thread.

For others only

She does appear to be describing Gulenko's four subtypes, she seems to just add in this other stuff about strengthened functions which contradicts what Gulenko said about strengthened elements, in much the same way you add in stuff about face shapes and subtype being permanent which contradicts what Gulenko said about subtype being changeable.

No, that's not really the same. My method of face detection is just an interesting dicovery which leads to the conclusion that DCNH subtype is not changeable. Borisova does not add discoveries to DCNH - she defines a completely different system...

[UDP]

I don't think I fully understand this model, but...

It seems like a D-EII... is not possible? Or what would that look like?

Actually, D-EII is one of the examples she (Vera is a woman's name in Russian, right?) gives:



Any combination of type and subtype is possible, at least in this model.

Hmm ok, that makes me think of Minde a little bit, then.
But I don't particularly agree with her therefore being more socially extraverted.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[UDP]

Do you think that it would be 'problematic' for two Dominant subtype people to be in a relationship together? too much butting of heads?

[Krig the Viking]

Do you think that it would be 'problematic' for two Dominant subtype people to be in a relationship together? too much butting of heads?

That's what Gulenko says in his "Compatibility and Duality" article -- two Dominants clash all the time, two Creatives clash if they're both "on" at the same time, two Normalizers basically ignore each other, and two Harmonizers can have a stable if boring relationship.

[UDP]

Hm, is that article anywhere in english?

and also, what is suggested in terms of compatibility, then, for the subtypes?

[Krig the Viking]

It was on Wikisocion, before the big crash. I did find the original Russian article, which you can translate using whatever machine translator you prefer: Ãóëåíêî Â.Â., Ìåãåäü Â.Â. "Ñîâìåñòèìîñòü è äóàëüíîñòü"

In order from most compatible to least compatible:

D+N, C+H = "subtype duality"
D+D, N+N, C+C, H+H = "subtype identity"
D>C>N>H>D = "subtype supervision"

In other words, the Irrational subtypes get along best with other Irrational subtypes, and the Rational subtypes get along best with other Rational subtypes.

Of course, that's assuming all other factors are equal, which they usually aren't. Base type compatibility is still the main determiner of deep, inner compatibility. Subtype compatibility is more about surface-level, daily-life compatibility.

[JohnDo]

You should have stated clearly in the title that it is DCNH, not subtypes of Socionics

No, this is not DCNH, at least not the DCNH Gulenko describes! DCNH is a subtype system of socionics, the only useful one in my opinion...

That's what Gulenko says in his "Compatibility and Duality"

The system in this article is not the system Gulenko described in 2006, either! D and H are switched, that makes a big difference. The intertype relations are also described differently!

[Beautiful sky]

There is no subtype theory in Russian according to Dr. Volkova

There is or are issues like insecurities that are acquired outside of type, I guess you could call that nurture.

[chip]

I've read two articles on DCNH subtypes from wikionics* and here is what I can recall:

They wanted to explain why certain types of the same socionic type exhibit different behaviour along the extroversion and introversion scale. From closer observation the same socionic type found in two people (or more) would manifest differently in terms of their first and secondary function.

Example: two people of the same type ISFP would not entirely act the same. One person acts extroverted and another acts introverted (hmm...how interesting they thought). They deduced the concept of extroveted-introvert to account for these differences of the same type.

The concept applies as needed to all introverts who demonstrate extroveted behaviour. Inversely, they realised the same phenomena with extroverts and so deduced the concept of introverted-extroverts. Hence the need for subtypes in addition to socionic typology. I think most of us can mostly agree to this - adimittedly it is a fiction in terms of what type made them realize there is subtypes and to further pursue investigating to other types.

From memory,

the dominant types are: ESFJ , ESTJ , ENTJ , ENFJ , ISFP , ISTP , INFP , INTP .

the normalizing types are: INTJ , INFJ , ISFJ , ISTJ , ENTP , ENFP , ESTP , ESFP .

Dominant and normalizing are compatible with each other in terms of their way of life and intimate relationships. Honestly not sure what that means yet for socionics as understood on socionics.com. I mean intimate relationships seems to include marriage I would assume. To prioritize amongst these two groups obviously duality would be most favourable but I'm unsure if that remains true when introducing the all other groups.

the creative types are: INTJ , INFJ , ISFJ , ISTJ , ENTP , ENFP , ESTP , ESFP .

the harmonizing types are: ESFJ , ESTJ , ENTJ , ENFJ , ISFP , ISTP , INFP , INTP .

Creative and harmonizing are compatible with each other, so on, ecctera. Like I was mentioning before, I'm not sure if an ESFJ is more compatibile with a INTJ or a ENTP ? Socionics would say INTJ and ESFJ are compatible but DCNH would say ESFJ and ENTP are more compatible - that is my interpretation.

The article mentions supervision, beneficial and activiation relationships. Familiar terms used in an unfamiliar way.

Dominants activate creatives, creatives activate normalizing, normalizing activates harmonizers, and harmonizers activates dominants.

Dominants supervise creatives, creatives supervise normalizing, normalizing supervises harmonizers, and harmonizers supervise dominants.

Dominants benefit creatives, creatives benefit normalizing, normalizing benefits harmonizers, and harmonizers benefit dominants.

Try compare that to your understanding of socionic interrelationships. I'm too exhausted and confused as to what it really means for socionics. This is only what I remember, the article gives a brief description of each type and there is more diagrams and relationships mentioned.

Some people argue if there is such a thing as subtypes and if so, is that a more ideal duality? - according to DCNH yes. However that complicates the socionics.com description of duality alot more than expanding upon it. If DCNH is true then socionics may have some revisions to consider.

As far as relevancy of enneagram system, at first it appears very general and contrived but then you discover there is wings and instinctual types which accounts for some differences in behaviour of the same type but then there is tri-types, ie. 5-2-9. Unbelievably, some people on the internet have gone through the bother of describing all the different combinations for a 5 tri-type.

Carl Jung is like the Charles Dawin for psychological types but dame this got way more confusing than evolution (Enneagram is influenced by Carl Jung's typology as is socionics).

[FDG]

Nah I don't think this kind of version of the theory makes sense, why would only static types be creative or normalizing and only dynamic types be dominant or harmonizing? All that it says is "Ji functions are normalizing, Je functions are dominant, Pe functions are creative, Pi functions are harmonizing". That's rather simplicistic, in my opinion.

[chip]

Nah I don't think this kind of version of the theory makes sense, why would only static types be creative or normalizing and only dynamic types be dominant or harmonizing? All that it says is "Ji functions are normalizing, Je functions are dominant, Pe functions are creative, Pi functions are harmonizing". That's rather simplicistic, in my opinion.

I assume they derived extroverted-introvert and introverted-extrovert from different degrees of interaction. I indicated each subtype with their corresponding function and that can be slightly misleading because the original article utilizes diagrams to illustrate the manner inwhich dominant interacts with normalizing, etc. The emphasis is not on defining type by function, i.e. static, dynamic, etc., nor definining relationship by function but on how each individual type interacts and given their interactions with one another, certain patterns of behaviour emerges that can be organized into intertype relations disregardless of presumed behaviour that we see in socionics. Hence the rift.

I'll do my best to recall the traits of each type to breath more life into 'this version of the theory'. Take for example the dominant type. For both the logical and ethical types they are more aggressive in behaviour and more critical in their statements. They will assume a position of authority and leadership or try to gain such a position. They behave with disregard for the rules and can even act against the law. For dominants who are introverts, they will not presume leadership roles but certainly remain well aware of who is in control.

The normalizing type is regarded as acting in the interest of society/community/group/etc. The logical type has an aptitude for logical analysis better than all other types. The ethical type is characterized as being highly anxious as to what behaviour fits in with the group. The normalizing type reminds the dominant to obey the rules and the law.

The creative type is characterized as being the most independent minded. They frequently are ingenious with their creations and there is an internal harmony or symmetry within their creations. Their behaviour changes frequently. I can't remember the sensory type too well. The intuitive type is known for fantasies that have an intellectual bent. They also show signs of consideration for the well being of others which the harmonizing type greatly appreciates. They often do not follow through with their plans, i.e. career.

The harmonizing type is characterized as being 'clingy', they can get into a relationship that they can not get themselves out of. They often consider themselves condemed in some way. The feeling types of the harmonizers are the most ethical of all the types. The sensory types pay great attention to their asetheticism, the intutive types do as well but to a lesser degree. The intuitive types can have trouble with autistic behaviour - not sure what that means in a literal sense. From experience I'd guess they say and do things without really comprehending but don't quote me.

If that is too simple then I'd suggest taking a look at the original article because it is worth reading. The manner inwhich I'm interpreting socionics.com and DCHN subtypes is a certain types interaction defines their intertype relationships - functionality of type is not equitable to explain interaction and therefore define intertype relationships. Interaction is the source of knoweldge in psychological typing and bywhich we can determine the intertype relationship; functionality is meaningless without interaction. I'll stop here.

[Absurd]

Haha. This is good. Thanks, Krieg.

[The Exception]

The harmonizing type is characterized as being 'clingy', they can get into a relationship that they can not get themselves out of. They often consider themselves condemed in some way. The feeling types of the harmonizers are the most ethical of all the types. The sensory types pay great attention to their asetheticism, the intutive types do as well but to a lesser degree. The intuitive types can have trouble with autistic behaviour - not sure what that means in a literal sense. From experience I'd guess they say and do things without really comprehending but don't quote me.

Sigh. Can I have a new subtype please?

[chip]

warrior librarian - your a LII intuitive subtype that means your the intuitive creative subtype. The harmonizing intuitive subtypes are introverted intuition: INTP, ENTJ, INFP and ENFJ. Try to be a bit more objective, it can increase your mood and help you think clearer especially when trying to make sense of all of this.

[The Exception]

warrior librarian - your a LII intuitive subtype that means your the intuitive creative subtype. The harmonizing intuitive subtypes are introverted intuition: INTP, ENTJ, INFP and ENFJ. Try to be a bit more objective, it can increase your mood and help you think clearer especially when trying to make sense of all of this.

I think you're confusing the two subtype theory with DCNH. With the two subtype theory, there's increased emphasis on either the dominant or the creative function, nothing else. With DCNH it's possible that the increased emphasis is going elsewhere besides the dominant or the creative function. With H subtypes, the increased emphasis is on the demonstrative (8th) and mobilizing (6th) functions.