Originally Posted by
crAck
Like Bertrand said, if you think DCNH is inaccurate for the reasons you think, you do not understand DCNH. I don't think what Bertrand's saying is true (re: "mega introversion"), but here is what I think is the truer way to view DCNH:
I was taught each DCNH class accentuates two functions(1). I was told personally that primary accentuation of each function modifies the outward, overall class expression - for example, a "D2" does not come off as Dominant but "H" (laid back? reflective? introverted? whatever H's style is).
1. (accentuates which function)
D = Base (D1), Demonstrative (D2). D1 has the Dominant personality (expression; the way they come off), D2 comes off as N-like/Introverted(2)
C = Creative (C1), Seeking (C2) - C2 is H-like
N = Role (N1), Mobilizing (N2) - N2 is D-like
H = PoLR (H1), Ignoring (H2) - H2 is C-like
(note: I'm unsure which Class is "like"/seems(2) like which; the above full extrapolation is my own that I've not [yet] hounded down, based on the idea of division by functions told to me by someone I regard as smart and knowledgeable)
2. "Introverted": I don't mean quiet/soft-spoken i.e. very much so anti-Dominant, but INWARD directed, focused, oriented (libido - Jungian term). TLDR: My definitions - D is "achieving", C is "exploring", N is "clarifying", H is "understanding" [in a grand, universal sense; the larger picture, totality of life/existence/everything etc]. So with these definitions, you can see how it's possible for someone to be "introverted" (inward-oriented) but still be interested in making their mark on the world ("D").
Anyway my point is if you're defining DCNH strictly by what Gulenko said years ago, that does not fully comprehend the system. "DCNH" has been further developed and explored by others since it was first introduced by Gulenko, you seem to be unaware of this. You might be asking: Gulenko made DCNH, he defined it narrowly, he did not talk about function accentuation and such, why is this theory essentially hijacking what credibility Gulenko has by hijacking the DCNH name? That is because: As far as I know (which may be wrong), these deeper development theories of DCNH came/come from SHS, which is Gulenko's school of socionics.
------------------------------------------------
That said, if you're proposing an entirely new subtyping system, like how there are Accepting/Producing functions, Inert/Contact, etc, and/or proposing identifiers for why some functions are accentuated (which is what real DCNH does - see (1), I have no comment as I can't judge if legit or not with my big ol' whopping sample size of Just Myself (this is why I'm unsure [still] of which classes are "like" which - because I don't know anyone i.e. can't interview people to see which they identify with more etc).