DCNH visual identification

[WVBRY]

Retarded theory is retarded.

[ashlesha]

dominant - brown hair

normalizing - red hair

harmonizing - blonde hair

creative - black hair

[1981slater]

dominant - brown hair

normalizing - red hair

harmonizing - blonde hair

creative - black hair

I was blonde until 1996 or so, brown since then

[717495]

dominant (D) subtype - above average height and weight

creative (C) subtype - above average height, below average weight

normalizing (N) subtype - below average height, above average weight

harmonizing (H) subtype - below average height and weight

[717495]

dominant (D) subtype - Muslim

creative (C) subtype - Christian

normalizing (N) subtype - Hindu

harmonizing (H) subtype - Buddhist

[ashlesha]

dominant - rugby

normalizing - baseball

harmonizing - sychronized swimming

creative - figure skating

[717495]

dominant (D) subtype - meats, breads, nuts

creative (C) subtype - sweets, fruits, pies, cakes

normalizing (N) subtype - cheeses, pastas, eggs

harmonizing (H) subtype - soups, seafood, grains, vegetables

[ashlesha]

dominant - round, firm, black, high density

normalizing - long and snaky, brown, medium density

harmonizing - liquid, amorphous, brown

creative - chunky, green, low density

[EyeSeeCold]

lol

[aixelsyd]

Dominant: BDSM Top

Harmonizing: BDSM Bottom

Normalizing: Missionary Position

Creative: Toys

[Galen]

Dominant: A
Creative: B
Normalizing: AB
Harmonizing: O

[Galen]

Dominant: Family Guy
Creative: American Dad
Normalizing: The Cleveland Show
Harmonizing: shut up meg

[gooey]

wow. I don't think i've ever seen anyone get owned by so many people on here.

[717495]

dominant (D) subtype - brass

creative (C) subtype - percussion

normalizing (N) subtype - woodwinds

harmonizing (H) subtype - strings

[GuavaDrunk]

wow. I don't think i've ever seen anyone get owned by so many people on here.

Seconded

[1981slater]

[Creepy-bg]

dominant - round, firm, black, high density

normalizing - long and snaky, brown, medium density

harmonizing - liquid, amorphous, brown

creative - chunky, green, low density

AHahahahhahahahahhahahaaaa!

[Nowisthetime]

Connectors (H&D) have different eyes than ignorers (C&N). Connectors eyes are more "alive" and warm and - yes - connecting, dynamic. It's like they follow you very intensely and your changing inner states. Ignorers eyes are more static, the eyes don't follow you in the same way. Creatives can have very intense eyes (or some at least), but they don't grab you the same way like HD. This is probably very hard to explain but something I've been thinking about lately.

[Absurd]

Connectors (H&D) have different eyes than ignorers (C&N). Connectors eyes are more "alive" and warm and - yes - connecting, dynamic. It's like they follow you very intensely and your changing inner states. Ignorers eyes are more static, the eyes don't follow you in the same way. Creatives can have very intense eyes (or some at least), but they don't grab you the same way like HD. This is probably very hard to explain but something I've been thinking about lately.

What do "H&D" & "C&N" stand for? Did you learn this from an article you could link for us?

(trying not to supervise too much)

L U L.

[Nowisthetime]

What do "H&D" & "C&N" stand for? Did you learn this from an article you could link for us?

(trying not to supervise too much)

There are three main articles on DCNH. You can read them here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tegory/47-DCNH

don't worry, Te-supervision is more intricate than just asking for facts

[FDG]

Interesting, I'll have to pay more attention to this phenomenon.

[Nowisthetime]

I think it's hard to show this on video because it's something that happens in the eye contact between two persons. It's a kind of communication and you don't notice it unless you are actually a part of it. But maybe some videos will help:

Taking ILI as an example:

Dominant, connecting eyes: Tarja Halonen, former president of Finland
Creative, ignoring eyes: Woody Allen
Normalizing, ignoring eyes: Pentti Arajärvi, Finnish professor
Harmonizing, connecting eyes: Queen Silvia of Sweden

[Hope]

I bet these two are/were couple. Both look like psychos.

[Olimpia]

@Olimpia

I guess that makes me Harmonizing?
Everything but Dominant could apply to varying degrees.

[The Reality Denialist]

This thing ignores that D and N dualizes. They are by definition top and bottom stuff.

C and H dualizes. So toys and meaningful pleasures.

If I have to guess....


By definition N is pieced together from rough materials doormat.

[Olimpia]

This thing ignores that D and N dualizes. They are by definition top and bottom stuff.

C and H dualizes. So toys and meaningful pleasures.

If I have to guess....


By definition N is pieced together from rough materials doormat.

That just shows once again that DCNH makes no sense.

Based on the descriptions, I always thought D+H and N+C were the most natural matches. Dominant needs someone who is a harmonizer in the relationship, and the Creative person needs someone who gives them a bit more structure and the N person benefits from the creative stimulation.

[The Reality Denialist]

That just shows once again that DCNH makes no sense.

Based on the descriptions, I always thought D+H and N+C were the most natural matches. Dominant needs someone who is a harmonizer in the relationship, and the Creative person needs someone who gives them a bit more structure and the N person benefits from the creative stimulation.

This is not to complete relationships. Overt dicks should marry covert dicks (D and N). They are locked in that position and will appreciate their complementary dickness.

And overt weirdos should date covert weirdos.

[Adam Strange]

This is not to complete relationships. Overt dicks should marry covert dicks (D and N). They are locked in that position and will appreciate their complementary dickness.

And overt weirdos should date covert weirdos.

Quoting for Posterity. This is so great.

[Hope]

This is not to complete relationships. Overt dicks should marry covert dicks (D and N). They are locked in that position and will appreciate their complementary dickness.

And overt weirdos should date covert weirdos.

this all is oh so true for all subtypes. Except I'm not sure we appreciate each other dickness, N think I shouldn't be such even they are the same in private. N types are obnoxious, they are demanding and get stressed by stuff not going as it supposedly should, tbats why they need D.

[Olimpia]

You could argue for either combination or configuration. It's like trying to figure out which Enneagram types are best with each other. There is no clear cut answer.

Again, renders this system as useless imo.

[Xaiviay]

You could argue for either combination or configuration. It's like trying to figure out which Enneagram types are best with each other. There is no clear cut answer.

Again, renders this system as useless imo.

I see what you're getting at here, but I think the assumption in the theory is that N types don't want the C stimulation, but they do want the certainty from the D type. While H types don't want to be dominated, but they do want the C stimulation. And so on. Sort of like how duality works but conflictor relations don't, only because of what the people prioritize. So if this true, I can see why they would be compatable with D+N and C+H.

[Tallmo]

The dcnh compatibilites are Facts that are all around us. Almost all couples have dcnh compatibility, often D+N. Understanding and observing this is the key to dcnh.

[nefnaf]

The dcnh compatibilites are Facts that are all around us. Almost all couples have dcnh compatibility, often D+N. Understanding and observing this is the key to dcnh.

While there certainly are D+N couples, if you actually assess everyone you find all permutations. D+H, N+C, D+C etc etc.

D+N couples (even conflict) do seem to be pretty stable however.

[The Reality Denialist]

Talking with normalizing can be very exhausting experience. They try to uplift by validation. Ultimately dominant sub wants validation. I'm screaming inside of my own head: Stop that, right now... Yucky and I find contradictions!

Is this the adhesive thing in D+N pairs?

[The Reality Denialist]

I definitely aimed for clarity just to prevent further misunderstandings and therefore... because you said this so you are this and so on. It started to take its toll. It was not like giving out definite rules.

[Allegra]

I don't think N tries to uplift. Moreso, it stabilizes and/or seeks clarity. Because D's are clear, N's are attracted - they will seek to further clarify what is put out.

C is erratic. N's can't make heads or tails. So N is repulsed (gives up).

H doesn't give anything, no hints, it doesn't reveal itself [at first] - its primary concern is "observing". N's have no idea how the H feels (H+N are both the "Introverted" DCNH classes - it's a common complaint for two introverts never/not knowing how the other feels - you know?). For this reason, the N gives up on H.

N = IJ, H = IP. You can read how an LII (IJ) interprets an IEI (IP) below:

So how do you differentiate LIE-H and ILI-D? Which one would show more EJ temperament?

[Bertrand]

you have to understand that gulenko has a multi layered system, and the DCNH is the more obvious layer. thus the D type would "show" a more EJ temperament. base Te or Fe can easily recede from view depending on subtype, whether or not you take the contact/inert system or DCNH they essentially say the same thing: that base is often concealed as a consequence of psychic dynamics that operate across multiple layers. inert EJ subtypes are often analytic in the most misleading way. they are simply taking it all in, not putting it out, but in accordance with extroverted judgements. this looks like introversion because people think of introversion as social reticence and delayed reactions, but in fact the EJ types are absorbing all this information according to objective principles, in fact its their complete preoccupation with understanding the object and letting the object determine the reality that they come off as socially passive. EJ has this reputation for being bossy, when that is not it at all. bossiness is a consequence of taking action on the basis of the formula, but one can simply avoid situations where one has passed judgement in an extroverted manner. the judgements and the actions are not linked in a rigid requirement mandating intervention. there's this multi level conflation of temperament as manifest in the social sphere with the psychological dynamics that may or may not formulaicly give rise to those social manifestations. people take for granted theres some kind of 1:1 relationship between them when they're not. there's a 1:1 relationship only when the EJ type has an EJ subtype. in short, DCNH captures the role people take on in small groups. if someone is consistently bossy in such a situation it evidences an D subtype. in small groups someone may be conciliatory and adaptive and that person is H. any of the 16 types can manifest those outward behaviors. I am quite sure many of our EJ base types are really just D subtypes with a different base type than they really imagine themselves to be, because once again, people are simply going off their social manifestation and not their underlying cognitive dynamics. this raises the question then: if this is the case, how can a social collective such as an internet forum ever type anyone except as a (DCNH.. i.e.: temperamental) subtype, and the answer is, they reliably can't, which has obviously been the case all along, though people happen to be in quite a bit of denial about it. to really penetrate to base type requires quite a bit of interaction over time where people disclose themselves on a deeper level. some people are more perceptive as to what is going on under the surface so they can expedite that process, but on the whole, a group in the aggregate is simply going to assess a social manifestation because a social manifestation is precisely an aggregate impression. in some sense we are nothing but our aggregate impressions which is to say, there's a reason there's been 4 recognized temperaments for a very long time, and that once you move beyond that things get debatable very fast. its because you're asking to zoom in on a phenomena on which there is no consensus. this is why its so important to think of type as something not delivered up to you from the environment on the basis of the prevailing opinion but something you ultimately have to figure out for yourself, because you either put your trust in the environment, another individual, or yourself and the issue is the environment is shallow, the other is contentious, and yourself is fallible. the solution is to pick your poison, but if you rely on yourself you may actually be on the path to genuine self improvement

to put it another way: if someone is wearing a mask (like a bank robber) do you know who they are..? maybe if you know the person very well and can observe mannerisms that betray who they really are based on a storehouse of pre existing knowledge. if they act a certain way it may be enough to decide "that can only be so and so under the mask" because of how many data points the conjecture captures. but in general a mask conceals an identity, thus how could anyone know having just met someone who they are. they can't: it takes a long time to see under the mask (otherwise its not a mask). one can always get lucky, but at a certain point consistent luck amounts to literal psychic powers no one actually has, so don't believe their lies. the better approach is to develop a technique of looking for signs that triangulate with a high degree of relative efficiency what information certain signs convey. this is all it means to be good at typing. people like gulenko have a highly refined set of techniques that enable them to discern the relevant information quicker. but things like questionnaires only convey information across some, not all, dimensions, thus you also have people like Sol who lean more heavily on other dimensions such as VI. in the end its all very sherlock holmes, but requires openess to many many possibilities and a keen sense of judgement in sorting through those possibilities and even testing them in order to eliminate or verify them. if Sol has Ne HA its not because he relies on intuitive impressions per se, its because built into the intuitive impression technique is actually a considerable narrowing of what possible intuitive impressions are allowed in. in other words, it is intuitive impressions across a relatively narrow channel, not intuition in its fullest sense. people naturally clamp all sorts of information in order to draw conclusions, so you have to think of all conclusions as structured by this narrowing process. this is why being assigned a type from any given person is related back to their own type in the final analysis: the given type may function across any number of fronts--it may advance a relationship, convey an intuition, consolidate power, be useful, improve feelings. by this I mean what any person types another person naturally conforms to the dimensions they view the world in, thus there is no absolute type, only a relationship between two people.... you might say your absolute type is your relationship to God himself, which is where the fundamentally religious character of typology comes from--it is your one-sidedness ("sin") in the eyes of God, that defines the specific dimensions of one's individual finitude. the symbol of overcoming this is Jesus who is God's son, who labors to re unite himself and others with God in heaven. "be perfect as I am perfect"... perfection does not lie in a standard set by other men, but in the transcendent moral effort embodied in the symbol of Christ. this may sound nutty, but Jung himself always relied on mythical imagery to convey his point because there is in fact, as it stands now, no other way. any attempt to de mythologize always terminates in losing the numinosity behind personality, profaning it and dehumanizing others into a kind of pokemon scheme (i.e.: stereotyping)

[The Reality Denialist]

I think it shows in drive. D has the drive and H is wishy washy, C shakes things up, N seeks to set stability.

LIE-H is still very much focused in the objective, I suppose.

[Allegra]

Based on what @Bertrand wrote, DCNH comes out in small group interactions and adds an outer layer to the base type to form "aggregate" impressions.

Maybe in time it will become clearer but for now I can only type based on aggregates.

Which gives me another question, does everyone have a subtype? Is it possible to be just a balanced base type with no DCNH or inert contact accepting producing, etc?

... that base is often concealed as a consequence of psychic dynamics that operate across multiple layers. inert EJ subtypes are often analytic in the most misleading way. they are simply taking it all in, not putting it out, but in accordance with extroverted judgements. this looks like introversion because people think of introversion as social reticence and delayed reactions, but in fact the EJ types are absorbing all this information according to objective principles, in fact its their complete preoccupation with understanding the object and letting the object determine the reality that they come off as socially passive. ...

Wouldn't inert EJ just be EJ? I would have imagined an IJ subtype (aka N) to be more socially passive. No?

[Bertrand]

contact/distance is a good way to think about it. EJs can be judging their environment without actually physically or tangibly interacting with it. in some sense of the word they are cognitively interacting with it, but they're not demonstrating that interaction in a way thats obvious to others. that is their "inertness." EJ got transformed from object oriented judgements which was the original Jungian meaning, to what is captured by the "D" subtype, in the popular imagination. people think EJ means contacting, and the problem is there's a kind of EJ-inception, because gulenko says the D subtype has strengthened EJ functions. so its this merry-go-round of circular meanings, but to unwind it essentially you have to know, EJ (as a matter of 16 types) is not being bossy, although that's what some people take it to be. when people think someone is being bossy we call it "D" subtype. someone can be EJ as a matter of cognition and simply keep it all inside, this would be more normalizing or harmonizing. its a lot easier if you just think of it as two-layered with DCNH being the outer layer and under it god only knows what type someone really is. which is to say nothing more than the leap from locking down 4 temperaments into 16 types is a leap entailing a lot of unknowns, imperceptibles, confusion and debate, because that outer layer continually confounds and misleads others as to what is going on under the surface

another way to think about it is DCNH is more or less just a gloss on temperaments, and while some base types correlate at a higher degree than others with certain temperaments, you can have types of any kind with any temperament; and you can see how that might obscure the base type if they had a temperament that is somewhat unusual or runs counter to popular conception of how base type "ought" to behave. the problem is in part due to people bringing too many assumptions as to what base types look like without understanding the underlying history and theory of types. instead they began with behavioral stereotypes and thus perpetuate the wrong idea by continuing to view and discourse in terms of those stereotypes. when all you do is work from the outside-in of course DCNH or temperament is what you mainly see and judge by