Delta types and DCNH subtypes

[noaydi]

Hi

While I'm quasi sure of my type (INFj), I'm a bit at loss when it come to subtype. Ive had many problem in my life wich make me often consider if I'm harmonizing, but I'm not that sure. Is there kind of question or test wich help determining the DCNH ?

I would be okay to share some of my behavior but I would prefer to respond to your question, because seriously, my degree of neuroticism is too much at this time to give a clear picture.

In all, I'm quite pushy in some way but I try always to consider other point of view, often I try to stay"honest", but there is too a degree of passive agressivity that I don't like in myself. Sometime I indulge too much into it and become basically an asshole, putting everything into question, even becoming belligenrant for avoiding doing some stuff.
I don't know if I can say I'm ambitious, but I'm into music, that's one of my goal that Ive a gigantic amount of difficulties to make resilience onto. Sometime I put new goal for myself, like becoming a former in computescience, wich would be the most logical goal from my actual situation.
The problem is that when I work to something unrelated to my goal, I can become disinterested, it ended in the past in a STRONG depression. This let me thought I was dominant (wich would be really curious, I don't feel at all), but Ive strong reason to think I could be harmonizing too, as there is a degree of apathy, disengagement from life wich I can't hide from myself now (I often end to understand that Ive not the personnality required for my goals, wich end in me staying in my bedroom for long time).

I don't think I'm the creative subtype that much, Ive known some INFJ creative, there seem too be too much difference compared to myself. There is still a possibility I'm Normalizing, but for example my father is normalizing, and there is many attitude I don't recognize in myself (especially how he relate to his possession, my stuff, my stuff, my stuff...)


Ive hard time to see if I'm harmonizing (Ive read that they often push themself to some new challenge wich could correspond) or dominant. In some way I would like to be harmonizing or I would be a very disintegrated dominant at the time of now :/

I didn't say all, ask question, subjectivity is probably not the best thing when in come to knowing ourself

[Tallmo]

Its really about continue observing the whole phenomenon. Learning what the dichotomies connecting/ignoring etc are all about and figuring out whom you are compatible with. Without observing DCNH for some time and connecting it to real life it doesnt matter much to know the subtype anyway.

Not all normalizers are overly possesive. It depends on the main type and other things. Remember that N is really common we are talking close to 50% of the population.

Dont take the behavioural descriptions too literally. The subtypes have a certain functional constitution that can lead to typical behaviour, but it doesnt always show in the same way.

Its always good to consider N so you dont discard it because of the unflattering descriptions. I think there is a tendency that people like to type themselves H or C because it just sounds better to be one of those.

[Bertrand]

Second polarity: terminal / initial.

By the terminology, I understand the ability to carry out the end to the end and the propensity for ordering. By initiality - the opposite ability to initiate, it is easy to switch and the attendant disorder in things and affairs. As you can see, this is a concretization of the usual dichotomy of rationality / irrationality. It would be wrong to think that any rational of the house is in order, and everything is planned accurately, and any irrational is scattering things and is burdened by planning. In fact, between the extreme poles there are often two intermediate gradations.

To terminal people belong, first, pronounced rationales, and, secondly, orderly irrationals. Initial behavior will have pronounced irrationals, as well as disordered rationals.

using this criterion do you think you're initial/terminating? this is the biggest distinction and will establish DN or CH. keep in mind this is conceptualized as "within-type" meaning if 4 differently typed EIIs were interviewing for a job the DCNH dichotomies would describe the main differences between the candidates (as within type, not traits relative to all types), so try to separate out main-type differences with now sub type distinctions

[Chae]

Hm... maybe defining an ideal opposite would help?

[The Reality Denialist]

Normative. Sometimes they are people of living in a system with pre-established rules, norms and customs. They work well in those settings.

I remember being in highly normative place. It went fine with those guys in there although there was one dominant (LSI) in a mix. He was the only one having authority disputes with the leader.
Everything went like it was supposed to. I just couldn't think why on earth people need so much educational instructions for something new miniscule stuff. Well, normativity of the place...
I was ready to look for stuff and do some research. To solve issues in indirect ways and not using official channels. I don't mean something that would put things in jeopardy on a grand scale.

When there are enough small issues and they pile up you begin to see it.

Usually C types try to work around the system aka establishing their own changing norms (normalizing).
Where as harmonizing takes a specific leading position (dominant).
Normalizing tries to make others adopt the system/ways of conduct (harmonizing).
Dominating tries to take a handle of a situation by improving situation with new stuff (creative).

D->C->N->H->D->....

DCNH quadras by Gulenko:
alpha: harmonizing
beta: dominant
gamma creative
delta: normalizing

Just to get better picture what it means in bigger picture. Dominant alpha representative would be more beta whereas harmonizing delta would be more alpha. Dominant delta would come across bit beta-ish

This also lines up quite well with so called quadra progression. Alphas/harmonizing lazy tag along, beta/dominant territorial, gamma/creative progressive and delta/normalizing retiring.

[noaydi]

THe work of gulenko imo should have stopped since a long time, I don't trust him anymore. Political type, establishing DCNH within quadra... It's a perception affair, he's trying to solve the quadrature of the circle. Depending from where you are placing yourself (social, personnal, etc), you can mute a fuckton of preexisting knowledge and it become useless. Ive hard time to see where it can go, as I feel like socionic is complete.
Imo DCNH exist within type, not quadra.

Anyway. My ex was normalizing and when I see what you said about normalizing, I would like to find another one, this could very help myself due to my poor attitude (social). I apreciated the impact she had on myself.

Anyway the problem is my apathy wich can be strong and annoying sometime, retiring in thought, and stuff. It's as if I was becoming more and more harmonizing with time, boring. I ask myself all that because Ive read http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-DCNH-Subtypes and I feel like the two subtype could correspond. One things that I feel is that subtype could potentially change in life : for example, ppl with depression go from strong depression, okay, depression, almost okay (I should perhaps not interpret depression = harmonizing thought. Perhaps depression is going from one subtype to another)

Ive hard time to understand the terminating/initiating dichotomie, can you give more real life example on for example the job interview stuff you was speaking about ? Ive hard time beginning something IRL but I'm getting satisfaction from finishing a task. Terminating ?
Most of my problem is a problem of resilience imo (+ usual neurotic problems). Hard time to go the step forward in life because I want to do my stuff, my goal, etc, but I can still imagine good way of developping myself without forgetting goal.
Ive not much time so I speak only about the goal problem but there is more.

In a job interview typically Ive the fear of appearing better than I'm in reality (this come from experience sadly)

[Bertrand]

> work of gulenko should have stopped long ago, I don't trust him
> what's my DCNH

maybe get in a time machine and ask the gulenko you liked

its like implicit in drawing judgement on gulenko as a whole you're saying you know more than him, and then you turn around and ask for advice on something he devised which you admit you don't fully understand. I don't understand this whole idea, which pops up a lot so its not just you, which is something like "well I know enough to make sweeping judgements that imply knowledge sufficient to render such a judgement, yet tell me something about it" its usually used to rule out certain kinds of results, but its arbitrary, because its like if you're going to rule out results by claiming to pass judgement on the whole, why not just positively assert whatever you think you are, instead of beating around the bush. its like you can't talk down to gulenko in shaping the conclusion others draw for you and avail yourself of his system as if he does have something valuable in there, because its like he's either lost the plot or you don't know enough to actually make those judgements in the first place.

the only tenable hypothesis is for some window of time he had it right, and according to that window you want to know where you fall, but in positing the window itself youre representing yourself as competent enough to frame the issue that way, which presupposes more than enough knowledge for you to answer your own question. people do this all the time and its just fishing for a result and wanting it both ways

[noaydi]

Hi I ll be more explicit later, yes I get you but I don't doubt the existence of DCNH, just saying that "alpha is harmonizing, gamma is that" is immo useless. I could prbably understand the developpement of Gulenko work but Ive a sentiment that I somewhat know where he go (not to say this sentiment is valid, as socionic is not my main interest at this time there is stuff I haven't followed. But when Ive seen "political type"... I mean, this is where science end. being on the hypothesis of a modification of the type because of politics is not attainable with how he work in some way. It have to do with other stuff, like sociology, political/power dynamic, but not necessarely socionic only, anyway into good condition I don't think type (and subtype) should be modified by politics. Perhaps I didn't fully understand the stuff thought

In all it's as if he was trying to put new truth on socionic, but a new BIG one didn't appear (aside perhaps the last model Ive seen from it, perhaps model G, not sure to remember - but this is still imo an interpretation of previous knowledge put from a different point of view, kinda social point of view as Ive interpreted myself). Model A, DCNH, form of cognition are already sufficient for a good understanding. Perhaps just that at this moment I don't want to go further (I was just quickly going back to here, I don't read about socionic every day).

[Bertrand]

it sounds like you're trying to control the time piece for your dual but its gulenko not LSE

this is precisely the kind of reframing Sol could benefit from, but is wasted on gulenko

[The Reality Denialist]

Well my money is on Normalizing as of now. I could be wrong.
That is: flexing role to close options.

[Tallmo]

I can understand Noyadis criticism. DCNH captures a part of the real, actual psyche, its not a metaphor, not an association. It's basically descriptive natural science. But then Gulenko seems to go into associations inventing other things that seem less concrete, like quadra-dcnh etc.

[Bertrand]

yeah but those are just illustrating patterns that emerge from applying the same kind of quaternary analysis to a different phenomenon, or one at a different level. its all pointing to the same analytic though that if you understand across multiple levels, which he's trying to demonstrate, helps you across every level. not only that but its suggesting that gulenko doesn't know what he's doing while at the same time admitting he does, but only within the preferred scope, when it all hangs together, and its not really up to someone to declare which is appropriate until they understand the underlying core principle. its a kind of selectivity that presupposes something that elevates the learner above the master in a weird inversion. which doesn't mean there may not be a point but its more the point of "I don't get it, so Gulenko could improve his explanations" rather than "I do get it, and Gulenko is wrong." in other words, you can't critique what you don't understand, so its putting the cart before the horse in some ways

[noaydi]

Yes Normalizing could be possible in that way.

[noaydi]

@Bertrand I don't think I'm ESFJ. Imo the last function is sufficiently "adaptative" to work on many possible subject, as "reframing" on it's way work of other functions. (Gulenko is quite protopical INTj thought). Imo

(This could be still harmo way of behaving lol, "resist then adapt", I'm lost ^^. )

Anyway I'm not that healthy, I should have typed myself before 2010 for a clearer picture (Ive been fucked up by anxiety from 2011 to 2013 wich Ive hard time recovering). I will perhaps be easier in the future
Music was one of reason I thought I was creative subtype, but Ive seen C subtype IRL and I don't relate that much to them.

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, you could try to do it on role basis:

• Dominating, along the primary axis generates the intragroup role of the motivator (psychologists call this the informal leader), and along the secondary axis role - the engine (formal leader).
• Creative, along the primary axis acquires for itself the role of contactor, and on the secondary the role of group innovator.
• Normalizing along the primary axis is the conscience of the group, and along the secondary its coordinator.
• And finally, primary harmonization leads to the role of decorator, and secondary to the role of expert.

Well, "decorator" has to be some sort of metaphor lost in translation. (Well, for me secondary creative seems to be the most fitting)

[noaydi]

Atm best time of my life was when I was strongly into music, ppl from a town found a mix of myself, then invited me playing at a party. For 2 years Ive done stuff like organizing event with them, mixing, etc. I found that motivating for my personnal goal & goal of other. As of today the main pub where I played (and from wich I was able to make many acquaintance) closed, the group "exploded", work, familie. >>> this was kind of dominant attitude imo, this is why I doubted my DCNH from creative/harmo to dominant. At the end of the story I met an idiot who was trying to fuck with myself psychologicaly but this is another things
But this is only a part of my life, now I feel like more forced to integrate into prison ^^ (work) where I feel like more a harmonizing (computerscience, "expert" role), but I'm clearly not happy about it. Ive spent more time in harmonizing/creative kind of attitude than dominant if I can say. I don't know if happiness could be a good way to determine subtype, as obviously I imagine that everyone is happy when they succeed in doing something. At first I didn't had that much faith that I could succeed in some way into music as Ive not much faith in myself/my abilities, but at the end it have done the trick and Ive known many ppl from that.

This kind of problem (resilience/goal problem) make me reflect about many things, politics, sociology, etc. Ive changed a bit my way to think anyway, in a more "mature" way. In all, I could find the same satisfaction I got from music into other things at work (no other choice than working)


This could lead to dominant but the stuff is that it's a precise time of my life, only 2 year so in a way I'm doubting a bit that it's the case. I think dominant ppl should have more secure personnality than myself for example, and more integrated to the world, idk how to say.

Sorry I had hard time to express this as I'm french , I dunno if it's readable

It's as if the lower you are on society scale, the most you are forced into a harmonizing position, wich is annoying

[The Reality Denialist]

Your profession (in case of EII) forces you to go towards normalizing or maybe dominant. As your base temperament seems to be Ij it won't be so drastic change.

Gulenko says, that subtype may change but usually will go back to original when you don't have to do it any longer.