.
EII-Ne Subtype / INFj-Ne
.
Last edited by Kaia; 09-12-2018 at 06:30 AM.
I think his descriptions are underrated on this forum and might help when distinguishing "subtypes". I am not fully convinced of subtypes only because lead function, whatever it may be, is still lead. Some people think that an EII-Ne is just an IEE but I don't think that is necessarily the case anymore than an EIE-Ni is just an IEI. I recently came across this idea on another forum. It is something I considered before but I think it just dismisses the variances between people of the same type. Once you got your lead function figured out then I think it is fine to play with subtypes. I mean technically enneagram and instincts could explain the differences without adding subtypes since it would deal more with behavior and motivations and not just information processing. As we see demonstrated just on this forum, over and over, no one system is adequate to explain our complexity anyway.
Fi as leading function of ESI (ISFj; Dreiser) and EII (INFj; Dostoevsky) - this person is very tenacious in his attachments and conservative in his feelings and attitudes towards another, keeps true to the feelings he develops. If someone does not agree with his valuation, it irritates him immensely. Someone who has deceived him once he will consider a liar forever, even if the person changes. Due to this, from aside he is often seen as a moralist, as these feelings and evaluations are the main part of his life. The product of leading function is often not shown to the outside world but instead is kept inside. Thus this happens most often when something annoys him in terms of its values. The negative is often seen more clearly than the positive. Thus he may hold onto such false impressions. Attempting to challenge their assessment is useless, for them something is just "good" and something is just "bad" and they will not be able to communicate clearly why this is so, except for making some general statements. Tries to keep himself near those with whom positive relationship was once established. Their division of people into "good" and "bad" is very clear-cut. The "good" people are liked and the "bad" people are despised; often this is hidden but if the person evoke a strongly negative response they may express it openly. If there are not enough people around him whom he values, this may inspire in him aggression, because this means that he doesn't exist. He is very sensitive to such concepts as duty, honor, dignity, morality, that is - to his own perception of these concepts. For him his own feelings, emotions, attitudes are important, not external, public ones, which may not be given any importance. He rarely changes his attitude towards anyone, especially from low evaluation to a higher one. He has a large supply of different emotions and their various nuances. He is very sensitive to other people deviating from his own moral code - it is as if he is constantly controlling them in this respect and taking care of them. His positive feelings are something that should be confirmed by behavior that coincides with his expectations of what is "good" and "bad". In society, they are sometimes misunderstood since their ethics are personal, subjective, and therefore may deviate significantly from what is accepted as a norm. But he is deeply entrenched into this subjective perception, thus his only resort is to find those who agree with him and accept him for it.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-GolihovNe as creative function of LII (INTj; Robespierre) and EII (INFj; Dostoyevsky) - the purpose of life of such a man is to improve and harmonize the external world, to contribute to and build the "wholeness" of the external situation. So sometimes they are quite unforgiving to those who destroy it. Skillful maneuvering in a stream of opportunities is their ace card - they approach this activity very creatively. They see the possibilities of how anything can be improved, changed or rearranged, anywhere. They are able to take the situation apart and then re-assemble it into a more harmonious, upgraded version. They are often the generators of bold ideas on how to make humanity happier. They look for places where chaos reigns, so that they can mend it. They know how to help people understand complex external issues in an original way, how to "take apart" external conflicts between people, how to finish something for others, they have the talent of the innovator. But sometimes, however, they may unconsciously not finish things because then they become useless. Therefore, for them a perfect world - is a very conflicted world that would be in constant need of improvements. Often they can look towards art as a way of creating this external harmony and wholeness - they are capable of creating a harmonious atmosphere anywhere. They are the "storytellers" whose goal is to create an ideal world filled with ideal people. Only the real people don't always fit into this. The solution to this problem they often see in taking "drastic measures" with respect to others. They love to teach and better people, say, if someone tossed a bottle but not into the trash bin, this can provoke them to reprimand such a person even if it is not safe to do so in such a situation, since this is their "creative product".
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
https://typevolution.wordpress.com/2...hs-weaknesses/
here's an article from Medusa's blog. I found it helpful for the forces of inert and contact subtypes. Basically, the more subtyped you are the more you resemble your quasi identical, in your case IEI.
So according to this, would you say that EII-Fi and IEI-Fe would act exactly the same, because of their shared functions and corresponding strengths?Originally Posted by hybris theory
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
According that there are pseudotypes.
https://typevolution.wordpress.com/2...-pseudo-types/
\
I find the idea a bit too convoluted.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Ugh, doesn't this debunk all the previous article? Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand the logic...According that there are pseudotypes.
https://typevolution.wordpress.com/2...-pseudo-types/
I find the idea a bit too convoluted.
Seriously... how can using the same functions in the same amount result in... 3/4 different types? Then isn't it back to a quadra belonging feel?, then the article says that's just wrong. I'm missing smth...
Edit: I edited this 5 times because I can english
Last edited by ooo; 08-09-2017 at 08:40 PM.
Im always so confused about this 2-subtype system.
DCNH just makes so much more sense.
When you say Ne-EII, I dont really know what it refers to. But i am very uneducated about 2-subtypes.
I have dated three EII women in my life. One Harmonizer (), one Dominant (
) and one normalizer (
).
Its too difficult to list all their differences.
The harmonizer was very deep and hard to understand. Very private but had also a shallow side that she showed outwards. Her Fi was not emphasized but she showed the general ethical qualities that harmonizers are known for. She was a PhD student at the time.
The Dominant was independent and had a tough side. She had strong base Fi and was always talking about politics, feminism etc. When we met I accidentally threw a frisbee in her face. (I was playing frisbee with another guy) and she immidiately said "he thinks he is so good but he isnt really". When we got to know each other better she stopped talking politics. Ive later heard her on the radio where she was being interviwed about some political issues. She is a teacher.
The Normalizer was a photographer. Her personality was less spectacular than the other two. She was pretty plain and normal. She didnt share much of her thoughts. But i had the feeling that she always had something on her mind. Maybe she was evaluating me? She was always smiling a little like there was some secret. When i came to her place for the first time we didnt seem to have that much to talk about. She said: "dont you have any joke or something you want to tell me? Shouldnt guys prepare so they have some fun stuff to tell a girl on a date?" There was challenging in the air.
One could feel the subtype Fi of a Normalizer but her base Fi was not as strong as in the Dominant EII.
Havent had any experience with Creative EII.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
It definitely complicates things when trying to narrow down type so I think it is better to focus on model A and perhaps the dichotomies as defined on the wiki but you really do have to read each as defined since there can be tendency to go by dictionary definitions of the words when you are unfamiliar with how they are defined.
http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...ight_Functions
http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Dichotomies
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
wow Tallmo I thought you were a girl
More simply, on a more superficial level, I guess that the boosting of your either extroverted or introverted function, will make you consequently more or less introverted. EII Ne could easily be mistyped for IEE, EII Fi just seems more like the stereotyped description of the EII, with some more underlined traits.
I actually think there are many possible paterns in regard to "type accent" and its type accents that manifest as behavioral differences, whereas the underlying information metabolism is "set" by base type. however, since people are very much interested in understanding not just TIM but why people behave the way they do type accents become a major part of typology for those people and for anyone who wants to promote typology because there are a lot of those people. I view subtypes as just some of the most prevalent "paterns of type accents" that show up across all TIM and in sufficient numbers that people recognize the behavioral manifestations of them from within type. I think there could almost be a unlimited amount of subtypes but it would start to dwindle in terms of usefulness in order to catalogue and package every combination; but what we have with base/creative (or inert/contact, if you like) subtype and DCNH are two of the most prevalent ways people distinguish themselves. I don't think of either as being contradictory but each is present in a degree in every human and that people can differentiate themselves along the lines closely or not. Thus you can have people showing signs of both say a contact subtype and a dominant one (or any of the DCNH); the better you understand each system the more you can recognize its features in actions. The truth is a complex blend of the things these systems set out to represent. There will probably eventually be a 3rd (and 4th and 5th..) subtype system that adds more granularity, either by synthesizing the prior subtype systems and dialectically integrating them into a more comprehensive system, or one that picks out additional patterns that can then be "mentally integrated" with the other systems. Its not that often people are so straightforward they're just "all contact subtype and nothing else" or substitute contact for X, it matters not. The point is people are complex and these systems represent observable patterns and infer certain accents on TIM.
I think the problem is people put too much emphasis on subtypes as "true" and not just "useful articulations of nuance"-- TIM is "true", and base type is set--you do not need recourse to subtype to understand base type if your understanding is rooted in TIM and not behavioral stereotypes. Subtypes come later to help flesh out why one TIM may superficially look like another. If you don't go through the proces in that way "looking superficially like another" becomes being the other type and that's wrong and confusing (for oneself and others)
one other problem that leads people away from a better understanding of the kind outlined above is overlap with semantics. the idea that a "creative" subtype might also be a "normalizing" one seems contradictory; its like wouldn't creative in one mean creative in the other? the answer is no!--because creative in one is defined as something entirely different than creative in the other. Its how you can have ESE Si "creative" and also be "normalizing" according to DCNH. Which is not at all rare, given in both systems the accent is on Si.
DCNH is more observable on the social level: "normalizing people" are certain types of people, who tend towards taking on certain "roles" in groups. TIM influences what this looks like but its the common type accents that act like a kind of gravity that pulls them towards certain considerations. Thus normalizing LSE and normalizing IEI are both going to want to see certain things out of care for Si Fi "rules" that are at least similar inasmuch as they both pay attention to norms in regards to those functions... you can think of DCNH as more "meta subtypes" that you see across the socion with TIM being a kind of articulation on the "role"
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-09-2017 at 09:08 PM.
Lol I was hoping you'd step here Bertrand, I tend to understand socion things better with you .You made an interesting point. Basically you say, it's the complexity of humans that prove the system correct, we can have that many subs because fundamentally the system works, it is just so much layered and complex itself... that the possibilities are apt to fit any human shade.
That's a nice idea of socion, I tend to agree with the efficiency through its complexity because I believe the disposition holds some truth too. The core one I mean, of model A. You have 8 elements and as you know you'll have strong functions, you'll necessarily need the opposite weak ones. And the weakest ones can't be random, they must be the weakest of the opposing strongest functions, or the model doesn't work. In the end this means to be able to see ourselves from an objective point of view that it's not easy at all, we're all in our skins. But if we recognize not just our main functions, but the ones we lack the most as well, then we make it to get near to the "real" type. Maybe that defies all models and blocks then, but who cares, better.
here's the thing, any given TIM manifests itself not just in the psychological realm but also in the social and the brain captures patterns across every realm thus creating, like you said, a layered understanding of a "personality." What this means is you can have 1d Si, but if you have a type accent on Si, it doesn't mean you parse information with any more granularity (and if you do, you're no longer a type with 1d Si), rather the type accent means you concern yourself with Si information more, not necessarily better. meaning you take Si information to be worth manifesting a response to, to a greater degree than someone without the accent--that is what the accent is. Because of this, you may have "filled the vessel" with more experience, but the dimensions of the vessel are still the same (1D). This is how a Normalizing Jack can exist (in fact normalizing subtype is considered to make up a plurality of society--because normalizing is what keeps things on the rails--its good for orderly society), it just means he doesn't want anything to get too destructive in a Si sense and will act in ways consistent with that and his TIM in a social environment. TIM will influence how he views that information, but that he tends to care is a deeply ingrained social pattern of behavior (and as to Fi, tend to emphasize respect for Fi information inasmuch as he understands it when he sees it). A good example is someone who makes a big deal about an issue but does so in a low res way--this happens all the time--the proclivity towards this is a function of type accent. A Jack may be really concered for Fi stuff and use Te/Ni to "show" it, in a way that ESI may not care, because ESI sees it it a more nuanced way and sees that a response is not necessarily called for. In other words, 4d Fi doesn't mean going all in every time some kind of Fi issue comes up, that is more a Fi accent. 4d Fi is handling the information in a sophisticated way, how you act on it has to do with a more complex weave of factors such as Se valuing and other types accents. Fi valuing may see huge issues and never act, whereas a Fi accent might act every chance it gets but on low res, on often contradictory or obtuse Fi information. In fact Fi suggestive with a Fi Si accent is more likely to manifest, at the least, puerile, concern for Fi in a way for example creative (DCNH "ignoring" type) EII would not. etc etc
the 1.5D stuff is probably meant to convey a (1D) "vessel" that has been "filled" to a greater commensurate degree than other (1D) vessels of the same type. From within the scope of model A, it is not strictly speaking "higher (even partially) dimensionality" but what "1.5D" means is something that looks more sophisticated and stands out in comparison to what you would expect --thus "pseudo types" the "pseudo" is the illusory quality of the .5, etc etc
As to pseudo types I do believe there is something to it, not in necessarily a rigorous systemic way, but in a way that jives with my experience. For example, I'd label my mom a ESE 3 Fe, because she does come off as EIE in a lot of ways (highly religious, makes "intuitive" claims a lot), it is only clear something else is going on under the hood in terms of TIM once you really get a deep understanding of her. I've had many ILE 2 Ne philosophy professors, that manifested an "attraction" to EIE topics and were sympathetic to EIE's way of doing things, but they were not EIE, and other types of ILE are like the furthest thing from EIE. its the difference between an existentialist ILE who is sympathetic to EIE vs a scientific materialist ILE which actively combats EIEs way of viewing the world. the bottom line is ILE is not EIE and they each bring their "ILE'isms" to the topic, but one is attracted and the other repelled to information EIE generates, and in being that way they often manifest certain behaviors that are in keeping with what you might associate with EIE, but they did not generate them, they simply recognized and emphasized them
in the same way EIE will "copy" other types; and the reason I can speak to this phenomenon is because I perceive it all quite clearly, in fact it is Hamlet's role to perceive things in this way and to even "make use" of these techniques in a flexible manner--when other types fixate on a subtype, Hamlet can almost "pick" his, although not entirely, to a greater degree than most because he innately recognizes the origins and meaning of "type accent" to begin with. in other words, people are "playing social roles" whether they know it or not, Hamlet knows and chooses for himself what role he will play... you might even call this the very germ of existentialist thinking
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-09-2017 at 09:47 PM.
O__o crystal clear, thankyou
I also think people shift "roles" whether they are consciously aware or not. For example, my father who is LSE acts suspiciously like a SEI at home, at least until he gets mad. I think you can think as type accents as fluid to some degree although under varying degrees of conscious control. For Ni polr they tend to shift roles without realizing it, acting very different under certain circumstances because their type accents have shifted based on context. The opposite is Ni creative. In a lot of ways you can think of "social manifestations" of type accent as "social masks"; for example male members of "feminine" TIM I guarantee are going to be positively correlated to more "masculine" subtypes, since bundles of type accents manifesting socially in a pseduo type is just another word for "social mask"
the real difficulty is sorting mask from base type, which I think is very very difficult except with very straightforward people (people who never had to deal with being not accepted, or needing to channel themselves into a social role). take Aylen, for example, to me I highly suspect her base type is ESE, but it is possible she's IEI with a ESE pseudo type. But I feel like thats backwards; but the truth is, unless I spent like a year living with her where we could both totally relax and just be our true selves, and I got to observe her in a whole bunch of different situations, relaxed and not relaxed, it would be very hard to "objectively" sort out. that's why I feel like its a powerful notion, subtypes, but its often misused when people get the cart before the horse--they identify with pseudo type on the basis of their own and others behavior because they don't understand the essence of TIM
the thing is, until we solve the measurement problem, people will have to sort themselves out. there's no way to really do it for someone else or to even truly get inside and diagnose someone in a purely objective manner. right now we're using more Fe than Te in that sense to "get a feel for what's going on" with others, and its useful--highly useful--but you can't force it on anyone the way you could if we could get "objective" in the "stripped of affective content" sense of the word measurements. pure Te Se information is hard to come by when it comes to all this phenomenology of the self, and trying to apply it to others-- if we could achieve physical objectivity in this realm it would be a breakthrough of unimaginable proportion and consequence. it could even result in weird dystopian futures ala gattaca, in fact it seems like such a thing is likely without countervailing progress in the humanities. thus I know alpha frequently gets frustrated with the progress of socionics, but in a certain sense we need to slow down. I don't think socionics will become the product people would like it to be until we take a trip around the clock of the socion, for reasons if they could comprehend, they'd be grateful for. this stuff is an atomic bomb
Jung is a figure a lot like Nietzsche in that he's so far ahead he's lapping people and people think he's running behind, and when his insights do catch on people need to be extremely careful because it is a kind of technology way beyond what people can use responsibly without a commensurate balancing force in the culture. i think when singu rants about the need to give up socionics hes in some sense channeling that instinctual awareness. what hes essentially saying is the risks outweigh the rewards, but will not contribute to balancing the two, rather his approach is to maintain equilibrium via giving it up and letting others sort it out, if it gets sorted at all, which is classic introverted v extroverted behavior, IEI v EIE so/sp v so/sx behavior
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-09-2017 at 10:24 PM.
Hm, I got to understand how the division showed in the Medusa's article works. It's interesting, they still follow a vertical order. I came to read of the DCHN and I didn't understand anything instead. But now I wonder on smth, that is, why are there no subtypes corresponding to the horizontal blocks? Why can't a LIE get to subtype as an ESE, an ESI and an EII or alternatively, as a SEI, ESE and ILE? Wouldn't that make sense?
anyone could subtype as anyone in terms of "pseudo type" because its just a collection of type accents. what they did here was just show how type accents linked to "contact/intert" subtypes spin out
in other words, yes its theoretically possible, they just didn't bother to articulate every single possibility
Interesting take on subtypes with the 0.5 dimensionality. The inert subtype of Ne-IEE definitely fits me in regards to this. I always felt like I had stronger,
and weaker
,
,
compared to other IEEs.
I would definitely be a IEE-3Ne going by this or a pseudo ILE. I agree that it is kind of stretching it though, two subtypes is enough at least in regards to traditional subtypes.According that there are pseudotypes.
https://typevolution.wordpress.com/2...-pseudo-types/
I find the idea a bit too convoluted.
Last edited by Raver; 08-10-2017 at 02:20 AM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Subtype is an attempt to quantify illusion. A large amount of N-information cannot be distinguished from S-information or vice versa because of a dual nature; a string between a balloon and the hand has a relative aspect and an absolute one. A type uses one specific aspect but independent observers may assume the other aspect is being considered because of their own biases. Similarly, many F-processes are also indistinguishable from T-processes because process is really information. Therefore, it is possible for EIIs to appear LII-, ESI-, and LSI-like depending on what process and information is being accessed at the time of the specific observation. Now one can get habituated to certain processes and types of information but this does not really create a subtype; subtype is only in the eye of the beholder. The same holds true for all other types.
a.k.a. I/O
yes! the trick is to at least "know thyself!" otherwise its all a game of shadows on a cave wall, where one's own identity gets lost in all the illusions.. which isn't just to say pick one, but to understand the basis for making an informed choice and not being mixed up in all the "quantifications of mere illusion"
Could you describe the Harmonizer EII a little more?/I'm starting to think I'm H-subtypeIm always so confused about this 2-subtype system.
DCNH just makes so much more sense.
When you say Ne-EII, I dont really know what it refers to. But i am very uneducated about 2-subtypes.
I have dated three EII women in my life. One Harmonizer (
Its too difficult to list all their differences.
The harmonizer was very deep and hard to understand. Very private but had also a shallow side that she showed outwards. Her Fi was not emphasized but she showed the general ethical qualities that harmonizers are known for. She was a PhD student at the time.
The Dominant was independent and had a tough side. She had strong base Fi and was always talking about politics, feminism etc. When we met I accidentally threw a frisbee in her face. (I was playing frisbee with another guy) and she immidiately said "he thinks he is so good but he isnt really". When we got to know each other better she stopped talking politics. Ive later heard her on the radio where she was being interviwed about some political issues. She is a teacher.
The Normalizer was a photographer. Her personality was less spectacular than the other two. She was pretty plain and normal. She didnt share much of her thoughts. But i had the feeling that she always had something on her mind. Maybe she was evaluating me? She was always smiling a little like there was some secret. When i came to her place for the first time we didnt seem to have that much to talk about. She said: "dont you have any joke or something you want to tell me? Shouldnt guys prepare so they have some fun stuff to tell a girl on a date?" There was challenging in the air.
One could feel the subtype Fi of a Normalizer but her base Fi was not as strong as in the Dominant EII.
Havent had any experience with Creative EII.
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
Norweigan life coach Runar Sögaard. I consider him H-EII. Interview in Swedish.
I knew some examples also from MBTI people, but can't find it now.
EDIT: but beware. I wasn't really trying to describe the subtypes completely in my post.
EDIT: there is a small chance that Runar actually is Dominant. But he seems Harmonizing also.
EDIT: Ok, maybe he is Dominant EII then. Sorry I don't have any good videos of H-EII. Will get back to you if I find any @Shaebette
Last edited by Tallmo; 08-11-2017 at 11:00 AM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
2 subtype system is easy. Balance of different IEs.
Continuing way beyond that like numbering it further to discrete pseudotypes makes it bit convoluted. Sure one could say it is progression in terms of extraverted and introverted elements that generates some sort of pseudotypes.
Reaction to different kinds of information. Tolerance may vary depending on individual experiences. Easiest way to type but intensity varies. Like Fi base Fi subtypes are really into improving handling of things. Creative Fi basetypes are bit more sceptical but still accepting etc.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I didnt mean a video, just a short description of your personal experience with the H-EII. Her appearance, her behaviour, what ticked you off.. If it's not too much
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
So much is the same as in other Harmonizers. It's better to learn DCNH from scratch. And I am not that good at character descriptions.I didnt mean a video, just a short description of your personal experience with the H-EII. Her appearance, her behaviour, what ticked you off.. If it's not too much
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Basically, yes, but they'll still be 2 different types
I never understood how to do it. But for me DCNH is easy, so I use it. I am a little interested though, maybe the 2-subtype system is actually referring to the same thing as DCNH. But my personal bias is that I think that often when people use the 2-subtype system they mix up things and they are not able to distinguish between functional (position) emphasis vs content emphasis, and it might lead to inconsistensies. I am not sure though. It is a feeling I have because DCNH is clearly a consistent phenomenon, although one can debate what it actually is theoretically. Some people consider it a separate type, semi-related to socionics. I think it is some kind of emergent phenomenon.
In any case, I think we should all thank Gulenko for discovering this, because it has a huge impact on compatibility.
To continue on the same theme as in the other thread
I introduced DCNH to a LII. He liked it right away and learnt it very fast.
Then I introduced DCNH to a ILE. His response was that this is not really a subtype system but a separate typology.
I dont' know, maybe he is right, but all I know is that is that the phenomenon is closely linked to socionics and that it can be used as a subtype, although some might object that it is not really a subtype.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think DCHN is a bit limiting because some types just can't be dominant or creative or harmonizing or normalizing by default. I agree with your friend that it's a sort of "side typing", it expresses temperament and any type can be either 2 of those 4 options, or types wouldn't make much sense. In the end the subtype theory is expressed well through the inert/contact: belonging to the same type we can favor one function more than the standard one, this will mean to favor all the similar functions as well, that by dimensionality and model distribution fall either in the inert or in the contact column division. But the inert column functions favors a sort of "normality" mode implicit in the type, while the contact subtype is mirroring it.
They can.
The 4 subtypes show themselves in all types. A SEI can be dominant and a SLE can be harmonizing. Nothing strange about that. Dcnh is not about functional position in model A.
And the subtype names dont refer to behavior in a narrow behaviouristic sense. The underlying reason is functional.
What I've been trying to say is that sometimes you need to put your own theoretical considerations aside to learn something new. Really log out from the forum and take a few years to OBSERVE things and be in different relationships.
You have to learn what dcnh is all about before judging it.
If you collect enough identicals of any type you'll discover DCNH. It can be surprising but thats also why dcnh pushes you to see how different people of the same type can be. It is also a learning tool.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
@Tallmo
if you go by this theory http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t..._DCNH_Subtypes I don't understand how each type could be all of those.
I was kind of anti-DCNH until a couple other forum IEI explained it to me in a way that makes more sense. I am closer to the Harmonizing and Dominant subtypes in the theory. I am not like the normalizing from what I can tell. It was explained how this makes sense and I have nothing against it since it doesn't seem to be changing functional position (or strength really) as you said . I don't use it to create subtypes in my head though. Mostly to understand some differences when I interact with identicals. It's not like the idea that says, for example, there are IEI-SLE which I was a bit skeptical of since it seemed to be implying that they were using Se mostly. I can't find it now so I am relying on memory. I wish I hadn't cleaned my PMs. I did save them somewhere so I am curious if I misunderstood when I first read it. i don't think I did. DCNH seems ok if used intuitively and not in a rigid way.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Maybe this might be more helpful? http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...translation%29
This can be me, not loudly, but people know to leave me alone.If the normal introvert, upon getting tired of communicating, will just go "hide in a corner", the Dominant will drive everyone away and still be grumbling loudly, saying, "Everyone keeps walking around here!"
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
you might just say that 2 subtype system is more basic form of 4 subtypes. Just think 2 subtype system in terms of rational vs irrational.
That said looks like I'm either creative or harmonizing (I think this could be the case for me) type. Translates to Ne subtype. Irrational subtype overall (pickup your first irrational element).
Dominant or normalizing subtype. Translates to Ti subtype. Rational subtype overall (pickup your first rational element).
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 08-11-2017 at 09:42 PM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Hm, by the dichotomies used to find those corresponding of the DCHN subtypes it's hard to imagine a Dominant EII or a Harmonizing SLE, because each dichotomy just belongs to some types where the dichotomy is expressed as the main functions..
I agree with purple puff, better 2 subtypes instead of 4, in the end we're always back to inert/contact columns anyway..
Some of the female SLE on this forum seem more harmonizing than dominant, to me, especially if not core 8s. Doesn't mean they will not do it within the parameters (I guess) of their type. The female SLE I know from irl are the more dominant but sometimes they could/can be harmonizing. That is why I don't put a subtype to it. I just notice things like that.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Very probably I didn't understand this theory at all, but the thing is that the harmonizing functions are Ni and Si, a SLE simply lacks them, so he couldn't, in theory, have them enhanced. It's like saying a EIE-Se, now, that's hard to imagine, isn't it? But I agree that there can be people more or less "dominant" "harmonizing" and wtv, it will just be among the many things they can be, actually to me a SLE can very well act like a IEI too, but that won't be any subtype, just his normal self
Yeah so many interpretations of it too that I just play with it. Lead is still what you have to determine and go from there.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...00-DCNH-census
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
oh I think this is relevant to my own journey; I always thought it was IEI and seemed to fit the description yet when in Beta I stuck out so much like a sore thumb and other actual IEIS said I seemed far more EII-ey. Which hey, turns out I am. Just more Ni boosted xD
Can you be EII-Fi of the C-subtype in DCNH? I am definitely the creative subtype in DCNH but get confused when it comes to the inert/contact subtypes and feel like EII-Fi describes me better?
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
socionics has no subtypes. forget this heresy, kids
there are MANY traits in people, while there is no meaningful theory to add subtypes
they still stuck on understanding of types. subtypes are possible to be added only then, when typing will give high matches of types
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
