Creative subtype DCNH

[Shytan]

Any links, articles and observations would be very much appreciated

[The Reality Denialist]

They think like other subtypes but from bit different angle like all the other subtypes. They get satisfaction through creation.

In case of EII I'd say something like J.K. Rowling and more "introverted" than dominant type. Some sort of seclusion, maybe. It is nothing earth shattering when it comes to subtypes while they may look different. Inclinations differ.

They still have same weaknesses.

How come you think that you are EII-C?

[Tallmo]

Gordon Ramsay C-LSI
Charles Manson C-EIE
Carl Jung C-LII or N
Björk C-SEI
Roman Polanski C-IEI
Tove Jansson C-EII video
Russell Brand C-ILE EIE
Woody Allen C-ILI
Quentin Tarantino C-LIE
Tim Treadwell C-SEE

[Tallmo]

If you want to know about C-EII you should search among writers.

Swedish writer carina rydberg
https://youtu.be/VoOx2URWQSA

[Shytan]

They think like other subtypes but from bit different angle like all the other subtypes. They get satisfaction through creation.

In case of EII I'd say something like J.K. Rowling and more "introverted" than dominant type. Some sort of seclusion, maybe. It is nothing earth shattering when it comes to subtypes while they may look different. Inclinations differ.

They still have same weaknesses.

How come you think that you are EII-C?

I KNOW I'm C-EII, I just want more information because I've exhausted the links I can access on the creative subtype. Thanks, I'll look into J.K Rowling.

[Tallmo]

Theres not that much information. Just reality. I enjoy subtyping people and observing the dichotomies. DCNH is the first thing i notice. Observing couples is also fun.

C is probably the rarest subtype. Maybe 5%-10% something like that.

[The Exception]

Theres not that much information. Just reality. I enjoy subtyping people and observing the dichotomies. DCNH is the first thing i notice. Observing couples is also fun.

C is probably the rarest subtype. Maybe 5%-10% something like that.

What would you say the rough percentages are for the other subtypes?

Also interesting observations you've found for the different subtypes of LII? I'm still trying to determine mine for sure.

[The Reality Denialist]

What would you say the rough percentages are for the other subtypes?

Also interesting observations you've found for the different subtypes of LII? I'm still trying to determine mine for sure.

Hint: Give link to one of your videos.

[The Exception]

Hint: Give link to one of your videos.

Are you one of Sol's minions?

[Tallmo]

What would you say the rough percentages are for the other subtypes?

Also interesting observations you've found for the different subtypes of LII? I'm still trying to determine mine for sure.

I can just throw out some numbers based on feeling:

Dominant 40% rare
Normalizing 50% 60% or more
Creative 5%
Harmonizing 5%

Or maybe:

??

Just based on impressions of random groups of people.

I should have some examples of LII subtypes. I'll get back to you later. It's better to link video, I am not that good at writing about them.

[dot]

I can just throw out some numbers based on feeling:

Dominant 40%
Normalizing 50%
Creative 5%
Harmonizing 5%

Or maybe:

D 40
N 40
C 5
H 15

??

Just based on impressions of random groups of people.

I should have some examples of LII subtypes. I'll get back to you later. It's better to link video, I am not that good at writing about them.

Hi, I recently figured out DCNH IRL and it definitely works, and yes I observed this in many couples too. I also figured out I am definitely ignoring and pretty oblivious to my surrounding and actually a C-sub IEI. BUT according to Gulenko himself or at least a transcript of a recent video chat with him, he claimed D to be the rarest subtype. Yes I believe there are many, many N's out there.. but I also met quite a few H subs (I figured out most people I keep close are actually H subs, since they are the most capeable of tolerating me). This might be to me studying something in the creative fields, thus I am surrounded with C and H subs. I also mostly met male C-subs, and was kinda happy to see other a bit socially retarded people like me, haha. It's like we disturb the group harmony easily and cannot surpress our own needs. And kind of do things that shock other people.
I've always been a difficult person, get into lots of fights, even kinda reckless for an IEI and I am ultra oblivious towards other people's feelings. I am defnitely a perceiver.. but I look like an ambivert since I've got a secondary Ep temperament.
I noticed many people think I am an extravert at first (and I am definitely not as shy as most double introverted IEIs on the forum), but social interaction is extreely draining to me which shows in me needing lots of alone time to recharge. I only now noticed how I've been drawn to creating since I've been a small child.. also everything I do has my personal twist to it.
Do H-subs often imitate?

I found these two transcripts very helpful for anyone beign interested:

https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo...12_transcript/

https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo...14_transcript/



Other potential C-sub IEIs: Amandla Stenberg, Ellie Goulding, Devon Aoki (they, just like me, first seem more like extraverts/ not the stereotypical ultra-shy IEI).

Apparently Gulenko claims, that Ds are the rarest, because as leader you can easily be assasinated.. maybe it is the same for C-subs -> the more you stand out the easier you are as a target. (I always joked that I would have been the first to be burned as a witch in the Middle Ages, since I have such a hard time adapting to social norms.. and most of my friends agree, ahah)

Another was to figure out your subtype: what kind of dual subytpe have you been attracted to most of your life/ which dual DCNH subtype has been attracted to you? Clear answer for me: male H-subs (though I mostly meet female H-subs, who become my friends lel)

DCNH also showed me why I am more 'creative' in the use of Ne than some Ne egos I meet. C-subs apparently are the most right-brained / creative.. N sub the most left-brained according to Gulenko (I hope I got it the right way round with the brain sites, it's in one of the links above). Even duals who are C and N have difficulties getting along accoridng to Gulenko.

I've got an N-IEI friend and we clash with the outer temperaments, I also noticed that as an N she always needs social guidance/ can't do anything alone, very unindependent compared to me as a C for example (all in the boundaries of being IEI after all, haha). Since she is ignoring like me, she is also socially retarded / oblivious as me, but to a lesser extent than I am, since she is much shier and evades fights etc. (probably the distancing thing).
I am definitely contacting, since I sometimes even obliviously move towards bad/ dangerous situations.

Then I met a few H-sub IEIs and omg we are the same type and get along well, but they are so much more aware than I am, very helpful and compromising and kind/ socially graceful. I didn't know an identical could be so different (yet in a way I really, really like). They notice much more and like all H-subs they can easily communicate what I actually mean and which offends most people easily.

[Bertrand]

what I got from this

Gulenko types Hillary Clinton as ESTP.

m e a n g r a n d m a

[Tallmo]

Hi, I recently figured out DCNH IRL and it definitely works,

I'm glad to hear that. It was really a big thing for me figuring this out IRL and seeing how beautifully it works.

according to Gulenko himself or at least a transcript of a recent video chat with him, he claimed D to be the rarest subtype.

That's interesting. It would be nice to get it confirmed somehow. My numbers might be biased because of the environment I usually am in.

Yes I believe there are many, many N's out there.. but I also met quite a few H subs

All subtypes are of course common. Even if C was as low as 5% it is still 1/20, so you meet them alot.
But yes, I believe N is the most common.

And kind of do things that shock other people.

My uncle is C-LSE. He was interested in different vehicles so he bought and old army terrain vehicle and went to the beach and drove it in the sand. Maybe he thought it would be cool. Then the police came and got him.

Do H-subs often imitate?

I am not sure. Maybe? They are sensitive to the environment.

This is Gulenko's IEI-C subtype description translated by Persephone (all credits to her), which is totally me:

Cool. It sounds familiar.

Apparently Gulenko claims, that Ds are the rarest, because as leader you can easily be assasinated.. maybe it is the same for C-subs -> the more you stand out the easier you are as a target.

I think society is dependent on there being lots of N and D to keep things rolling. If there were lots of Cs it could be a threat to civilization.

But many Ds are not obvious leaders either. They simply have the dichotomies for D, but can be quite unassuming despite of that. But if they strengthen the D functions more, they can be leaders.

Another was to figure out your subtype: what kind of dual subytpe have you been attracted to most of your life/ which dual DCNH subtype has been attracted to you? Clear answer for me: male H-subs (though I mostly meet female H-subs, who become my friends lel)

Yes, that's a big part of it. The attraction can be very strong, especially if you get a match on 8 subtype level. So for example Ne-C + Si-H.

I also noticed that as an N she always needs social guidance/ can't do anything alone, very unindependent compared to me as a C

I think Ns can actually run the risk of falling out of society if they are not a part of an organization or have a stable network around them. Its kindof a paradox, but they are either very much in the normal realm, or they drop out of it.

I didn't know an identical could be so different (yet in a way I really, really like).

Yes, VERY different. It's almost like "another type". But to me DCNH kindof proves what sociotype really is. It is a more inner and more rigid structure than DCNH.

[The Reality Denialist]

Hmm.. as a super strange character according to many I think I could be C. Well, I find normal people kind of boring.
I see normal people:
***runs away**

Although with normal people I kind of see my responsibility to bring some life if I do not automatically see how it fails. Then comes adaptation and/or withdrawal.

C poster

D poster

H poster

N poster

[dot]

I'm glad to hear that. It was really a big thing for me figuring this out IRL and seeing how beautifully it works.



That's interesting. It would be nice to get it confirmed somehow. My numbers might be biased because of the environment I usually am in.



All subtypes are of course common. Even if C was as low as 5% it is still 1/20, so you meet them alot.
But yes, I believe N is the most common.



My uncle is C-LSE. He was interested in different vehicles so he bought and old army terrain vehicle and went to the beach and drove it in the sand. Maybe he thought it would be cool. Then the police came and got him.



I am not sure. Maybe? They are sensitive to the environment.



Cool. It sounds familiar.



I think society is dependent on there being lots of N and D to keep things rolling. If there were lots of Cs it could be a threat to civilization.

But many Ds are not obvious leaders either. They simply have the dichotomies for D, but can be quite unassuming despite of that. But if they strengthen the D functions more, they can be leaders.



Yes, that's a big part of it. The attraction can be very strong, especially if you get a match on 8 subtype level. So for example Ne-C + Si-H.



I think Ns can actually run the risk of falling out of society if they are not a part of an organization or have a stable network around them. Its kindof a paradox, but they are either very much in the normal realm, or they drop out of it.



Yes, VERY different. It's almost like "another type". But to me DCNH kindof proves what sociotype really is. It is a more inner and more rigid structure than DCNH.

Yeah but Gulenko changed his perception of the functions in a recent video to this:

• Creative Subype : Ne and Fe. Additional : Se.
• Normalising Subtype : Ti and Si. Additional : Fi.
• Harmonising Subtype : Ni and Fi. Additional : Si.
• Dominant Subtype : Te and Se. Additional : Fe (not simply a leader but a charismatic leader). Practical Leadership—most important focus (since different types of leadership : Emotional Leadership. Here, the Dominant subtype has real authority and can direct people in a complicated situation).

..so oddly the functions of the matching pairs are not completely complementary.

I feel C-subs are actually there for cultural change, to break free from the old system? At least helping with societal shifts.. I've always loved to do that (shocking people, behaving in a way they didn't expect or spreading thoughts and ideas that completely change their perception and helping humanity to survive.. since unusual ideas are needes for society to evolve, I believe C and H are often found in entrepreneurship). One reason why I am so/sx in the Enneagram, but somehow don't relate to the normalty of synflow that is usually described (I've also met tons of ultra boring and bland 'contraflows') so yeah I think enneagram sometimes overlaps with DCNH but isn't taken to be so seriously with the syn- and contraflow. It's just a set of priorities (which can differ in strength from individual to individual), though I believe in the 9 types to a degree. The description of a so/sx 4 sounds somewhat familiar to the C-sub IEI.

Another thought I had: I never related to being a complete side-kick IEI like in the Model A description. The description sounds more like a C-sub SLE paired with an H-sub IEI, whispering him things in a way he wants to hear (H-subs are naturally smart with people, like I find them extremely cunning in a way). While I as a C-sub IEI can almost obliviously say thing like a Fi-POLR and offend people (even though I do have demonstrative Fi). My SLE H-sub friend was by far smarter with people and how to say things and actually never really offended people (her Fi-POLR showed more on a very close distance). Her SLE-C sub boyfriend though was just like me a complete retard, waltzing over people's feelings and being more of a diva. I also personally like being admired like most C-subs and not just give admiration to someone else.. which further indicates I am not one of the introverted subtypes and why there are people out there who aren't obvious IEIs, SLEs etc. And why Model A fails with the description, since being so smart with people is not necessarily an IEI thing/ Ni-Fe related thing. I use mine differently. My H-sub IEI friend is more like that, being capeable of making someone feel so good about themselves. I'm not that much of a comforting person. I'm a real maverick, and that finally explained to me why I don't relate to the extremely soothing personality an IEI is made out to be in Model A.

I also don't relate to Michael Jackson (who is IEI so/sx 4w3 like me) that much, because he is an H sub and so much softer than I am. I relate much more to the people I mentioned before.

Gulenko also claimed N subs are almost never drawn to his teachings but mostly C-subs are, but then again you are an N sub and like his discoveries.. and since he is still changing his perception about certain things, he might even change his mind again.

[dot]

@Tallmo a fictional C-sub and H-sub couple: Katniss Everdeen as a female C-sub and Peeta Mellark as a male H-sub from the Hunger Games.. she spread the thought of rebellion and was very oblivious towards people/ just doing her own thing. She also never listened and was quite a maverick. Peeta was more of a charmer, knowing what people want, more conforming and soothing (she described him as sunlight which she needs... since she just like her other childhood friend is rather destructive fire). This sounds dramatic, but I recognised a potential C-H dynamic here.

[Tallmo]

Yeah but Gulenko changed his perception of the functions in a recent video to this:

• Creative Subype : Ne and Fe. Additional : Se.
• Normalising Subtype : Ti and Si. Additional : Fi.
• Harmonising Subtype : Ni and Fi. Additional : Si.
• Dominant Subtype : Te and Se. Additional : Fe (not simply a leader but a charismatic leader). Practical Leadership—most important focus (since different types of leadership : Emotional Leadership. Here, the Dominant subtype has real authority and can direct people in a complicated situation).

..so oddly the functions of the matching pairs are not completely complementary.

Interesting. I think I liked it better the old way. I'm wondering what might be the reason for this? I've met Creatives who seem more Se than Fe to be honest. Or Normalizers who seem "very Fi". I have to think about this.

But wouldn't this also change the dichotomies. terminating/initiating for example? Or they become impossible?

But it's easy to agree for example that harmonizers have some kind of Fi. But sometimes I'm wondering, is it really Fi or is it simply a product of them being attached to the environment. Si has in itself a "numinous" component, that attracts.

One thing I've noticed about myself is that when I was younger I was much more Fi-N and less Ti. And Nowadays my subtype is "conscious" so I am not identified with it as much. I know that I'm "normalizing" and that I have other options. My awareness of Si has also increased.

I feel C-subs are actually there for cultural change, to break free from the old system? At least helping with societal shifts..

Yes, definitely. They are the bringer of the new, and destroyers of the old. But for stability of culture we need other subtypes. Like we need people who also just do things the "normal" way, and by that uphold the current state and can transmit it to following generations.

Another thought I had: I never related to being a complete side-kick IEI like in the Model A description. The description sounds more like a C-sub SLE paired with an H-sub IEI, whispering him things in a way he wants to hear (H-subs are naturally smart with people, like I find them extremely cunning in a way). While I as a C-sub IEI can almost obliviously say thing like a Fi-POLR and offend people (even though I do have demonstrative Fi). My SLE H-sub friend was by far smarter with people and how to say things and actually never really offended people (her Fi-POLR showed more on a very close distance). Her SLE-C sub boyfriend though was just like me a completely retard, waltzing over people's feelings and being more of a diva. I also personally like being admired like most C-subs and not just give admiration to someone else.. which further indicates I am not one of the introverted subtypes and why there are people out there who aren't obvious IEIs, SLEs etc. And why Model A fails with the description, since being so smart with people is not necessarily an IEI thing/ Ni-Fe related thing. I use mine differently. My H-sub IEI friend is more like that, being capeable of making someone feel so good about themselves. I'm not that much of a comforting person. I'm a real maverick, and that finally explained to me why I don't relate to the extremely soothing personality an IEI is made out to be in Model A.

I don't really care much about the descriptions of main types anymore. I haven't read them for years. I think they work as pointers to some stereotypical behaviour, and then one has to figure out what the type REALLY is on your own with lots of examples of real people.

I also don't relate to Michael Jackson (who is IEI so/sx 4w3 like me) that much, because he is an H sub and so much softer than I am. I relate much more to the people I mentioned before.

Last time I checked I had him as H-ESI. I might change my mind if I watch him again. But yes, an obvious harmonizer.

Update: MJ is EIE-H

Gulenko also claimed N subs are almost never drawn to his teachings but mostly C-subs are, but then again you are an N sub and like his discoveries.. and since he is still changing his perception about certain things, he might even change his mind again.

He could very well be right about that. It's not easy to find other SEIs either who are into socionics. I learn things by watching people over a long time, and making lots of mistakes. I can't learn from listening to just theory. I have a combination of many interests that has drawn me into this.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Socionics is a very basic - generalized theory attempting to describe 7 billion people by way of only 16 types. Adding on a further typology to try to explain the 'differences' within those people - that's adding on DNCH is an exercise in futility.

There are still 7 billion people with their individual characteristics. No matter what typology you add on to that - in this case another 4 options, you are still no where near explaining the individuality of the person within one of those 16 types of 7 billion people.

So there's no point in even bothering with it - it's a bad deal.

[The Reality Denialist]

I don't really think IE's should be included in DCNH.
Manifestation of DCNH types in terms of IE's is just descriptive layer.

OTOH it brings more realistic imbalance compared to two subtype system.

[Tallmo]

Socionics is a very basic - generalized theory attempting to describe 7 billion people by way of only 16 types. Adding on a further typology to try to explain the 'differences' within those people - that's adding on DNCH is an exercise in futility.

There are still 7 billion people with their individual characteristics. No matter what typology you add on to that - in this case another 4 options, you are still no where near explaining the individuality of the person within one of those 16 types of 7 billion people.

So there's no point in even bothering with it - it's a bad deal.

You're missing the point. This is not about capturing the whole individuality. Both socionics and DCNH describe things that are both very pronounced/important in the individual and systematic. It's not just any typology. They are very relevant for understanding compatibility/communication. And because they are systematic phenomena they are easy to describe in a theory and use and also observe. That's the reason why DCNH and Socionics was discovered.

Just because you can't capture the individuality of all humans, doesn't mean that you shouldn't pick out some important patterns and describe them.

[at sirac son of sirac]

You're missing the point. This is not about capturing the whole individuality. Both socionics and DCNH describe things that are both very pronounced/important in the individual and systematic. It's not just any typology. They are very relevant for understanding compatibility/communication. And because they are systematic phenomena they are easy to describe in a theory and use and also observe. That's the reason why DCNH and Socionics was discovered.

Just because you can't capture the individuality of all humans, doesn't mean that you shouldn't pick out some important patterns and describe them.

My opinions different from you. A psychological type captures some vague information about someone, but inter-type relations don't exist the way socionics expects.

[Audacious]

Socionics is a very basic - generalized theory attempting to describe 7 billion people by way of only 16 types. Adding on a further typology to try to explain the 'differences' within those people - that's adding on DNCH is an exercise in futility.

There are still 7 billion people with their individual characteristics. No matter what typology you add on to that - in this case another 4 options, you are still no where near explaining the individuality of the person within one of those 16 types of 7 billion people.

So there's no point in even bothering with it - it's a bad deal.

My opinions different from you. A psychological type captures some vague information about someone, but inter-type relations don't exist the way socionics expects.

If you believe that, then why are you here? I'm genuinely curious. I'm not trying to shoo you away. What is your attraction to such a forum and theory? There must be something you're getting out of hanging out here and commenting or something that you hope to find but are struggling with.

[at sirac son of sirac]

If you believe that, then why are you here? I'm genuinely curious. I'm not trying to shoo you away. What is your attraction to such a forum and theory? There must be something you're getting out of hanging out here and commenting or something that you hope to find but are struggling with.

I have been asking myself the same question.

My opinion on intertype-relationships relations is that it's deeply flawed. I don't believe God made it that people could not get on (opposing quadra, conflictor relations).

I think a type itself, without the baggage, has some element to it, as in functions as a particular set of preferences, so I talk about that, otherwise... IDK.

Maybe I'll fully leave when I've decided on that.

[FDG]

I agree completely with Scarper. DCNH is a useless theory which makes a new member:

- more confused
- more likely to mistype
- waste time
- water down their understanding of intertype relationships

furthermore:

- people show completely different DCNH behaviors in different settings
- there is no additional "development" for someone when he-she knows his-her DCNH subtype

Gulenko really hit the wrong spot with this one.

[Audacious]

OP, sorry for the derail.

I have been asking myself the same question.

My opinion on intertype-relationships relations is that it's deeply flawed. I don't believe God made it that people could not get on (opposing quadra, conflictor relations).

It makes sense that it bothers you. For me, being told that "there's only one way, the rest will never work" can feel so strange and limiting. It makes me want to move away from the source of such information. I think that's a very dysfunctional perspective. I once dropped a college class midway because a professor said that we'd all amount to nothing more than what our parents did. She was adamant about this belief. I knew better, but I was depressed at the time, and I didn't want to accidentally acquire her limiting perspective by hanging around.

A person discovering Socionics in this era is sort of like a person learning 100+ years ago that the Classification of Living Things categorizes different species of organisms. At first, it's interesting. Then, you wonder, but what about the differences within those categories? This theory is incomplete! There's so much it doesn't explain. We're not all the same. It claims this, but what about the times where it doesn't work that way? It also doesn't explain why one family has the same illness over generations while another has an extreme ability for sports, all in the same category and geographic area. Why is someone more prone to cancer than another? Then, annoyance sets in. So, at that point, you have a few choices including:

1) I will quit because this is shit.

2) I will be happy with it as is, because it helps me enough to make my life better.

3) I will complain or wait patiently until someone develops a more thorough concept... which they better, because it's necessary.

4) I'm too annoyed or too curious to wait. I'll think about this problem instead. Maybe I'll arrive at a solution.

Ultimately, someone comes around and discovers something like DNA. Then eventually, people start mapping out that system. At some point, that's done. Then, interpretation is necessary. What does that data mean? What can be done with it? What is the best way to use it? That's a long process.

We don't have that done for personalities yet. Maybe we will one day. It will help explain why billions of people end up so different. What are contributing factors? How cool would it be to be able to predict that. But, until then, maybe it will help to think of Socionics as something that's not yet there. It's trying, but won't arrive at the level of depth you're looking for yet. It will be clumsy along the way. Some things it will get correct, others will not make complete sense. Or it will appear to make sense of the surface, but won't withstand all angles of testing. That's not the point where the theory (or its followers) should quit. That's where the potential for growth and exploration lies.

That's my first point.

Second point: I get along with my conflictors, supervisors/revisees, and members of various quadras. I have been close to them, had fun with them and learned so much from them. I won't however be spotted marrying them! Even without socionics, my instincts said that those types were not meant to be my forever partner. Does that make their contribution to my life any less wonderful? No. They have changed me for the better, and hopefully, I have helped them that way too. Maybe your experiences have been the same.

What socionics says about intertype relations, which you are more than welcome to continue ignoring, is that there are patterns. You can use these patterns to help you find a suitable partner or to figure out what someone else's needs are. The more specific a pattern you find suitable for you, the more you can use it to your advantage. That's why subtype compatibility helps me. I find many ESEs emotionally exhausting, but compatible subtype ESEs and I get along well because their personality hits the right spots in me and my personality hits the right spots in them. For example, N-Si-ESEs sort of do this meek emotional display thing that really appeals to me. It makes me (D type) want to take over and control the situation. ESE-Fe-C are more emotionally hyper than I can possibly handle. I become lost in controlling their emotion rather than the situation. I see them as chaotic. Knowing this and experiencing this has freed me to focus only on compatible ESEs for romances (and maybe some LSEs or SEIs, if they come into my life).

If you (SLI) are working with a LII benefactor coworker, you know that they'll probably appeal to you in the beginning, but that problems may inevitably arise. Being conscious of this will help you not give too much, to ask for more of what you want, to not let it turn into a one way street. You can still have a good time working together as long as you're aware of what issues may arise. If you're able to work around the pattern and have mastered some unique technique of perfect harmony and compatibility, then good for you! Don't feel limited by the theory. Use any theory only where it helps you and disregard the rest. That's what I do.

[The Reality Denialist]

Due to changes in computing and therefore lesser requirements in man powered bureaucracy N types will become more and more outcast over time.

But C types... so if no niche is avail and no mediating types present then it would not look too bright for them either and eccentricity takes complete control while multitude of private project emerges. I for instance have very little patience following same standards as others or looking for control.

[at sirac son of sirac]

OP, sorry for the derail.



It makes sense that it bothers you. For me, being told that "there's only one way, the rest will never work" can feel so strange and limiting. It makes me want to move away from the source of such information. I think that's a very dysfunctional perspective. I once dropped a college class midway because a professor said that we'd all amount to nothing more than what our parents did. She was adamant about this belief. I knew better, but I was depressed at the time, and I didn't want to accidentally acquire her limiting perspective by hanging around.

A person discovering Socionics in this era is sort of like a person learning 100+ years ago that the Classification of Living Things categorizes different species of organisms. At first, it's interesting. Then, you wonder, but what about the differences within those categories? This theory is incomplete! There's so much it doesn't explain. We're not all the same. It claims this, but what about the times where it doesn't work that way? It also doesn't explain why one family has the same illness over generations while another has an extreme ability for sports, all in the same category and geographic area. Why is someone more prone to cancer than another? Then, annoyance sets in. So, at that point, you have a few choices including:

1) I will quit because this is shit.

2) I will be happy with it as is, because it helps me enough to make my life better.

3) I will complain or wait patiently until someone develops a more thorough concept... which they better, because it's necessary.

4) I'm too annoyed or too curious to wait. I'll think about this problem instead. Maybe I'll arrive at a solution.

Ultimately, someone comes around and discovers something like DNA. Then eventually, people start mapping out that system. At some point, that's done. Then, interpretation is necessary. What does that data mean? What can be done with it? What is the best way to use it? That's a long process.

We don't have that done for personalities yet. Maybe we will one day. It will help explain why billions of people end up so different. What are contributing factors? How cool would it be to be able to predict that. But, until then, maybe it will help to think of Socionics as something that's not yet there. It's trying, but won't arrive at the level of depth you're looking for yet. It will be clumsy along the way. Some things it will get correct, others will not make complete sense. Or it will appear to make sense of the surface, but won't withstand all angles of testing. That's not the point where the theory (or its followers) should quit. That's where the potential for growth and exploration lies.

That's my first point.

Second point: I get along with my conflictors, supervisors/revisees, and members of various quadras. I have been close to them, had fun with them and learned so much from them. I won't however be spotted marrying them! Even without socionics, my instincts said that those types were not meant to be my forever partner. Does that make their contribution to my life any less wonderful? No. They have changed me for the better, and hopefully, I have helped them that way too. Maybe your experiences have been the same.

What socionics says about intertype relations, which you are more than welcome to continue ignoring, is that there are patterns. You can use these patterns to help you find a suitable partner or to figure out what someone else's needs are. The more specific a pattern you find suitable for you, the more you can use it to your advantage. That's why subtype compatibility helps me. I find many ESEs emotionally exhausting, but compatible subtype ESEs and I get along well because their personality hits the right spots in me and my personality hits the right spots in them. For example, N-Si-ESEs sort of do this meek emotional display thing that really appeals to me. It makes me (D type) want to take over and control the situation. ESE-Fe-C are more emotionally hyper than I can possibly handle. I become lost in controlling their emotion rather than the situation. I see them as chaotic. Knowing this and experiencing this has freed me to focus only on compatible ESEs for romances (and maybe some LSEs or SEIs, if they come into my life).

If you (SLI) are working with a LII benefactor coworker, you know that they'll probably appeal to you in the beginning, but that problems may inevitably arise. Being conscious of this will help you not give too much, to ask for more of what you want, to not let it turn into a one way street. You can still have a good time working together as long as you're aware of what issues may arise. If you're able to work around the pattern and have mastered some unique technique of perfect harmony and compatibility, then good for you! Don't feel limited by the theory. Use any theory only where it helps you and disregard the rest. That's what I do.

@Shaebette, sorry for the de-rail also. From what I know of you (the limited I've seen you), I don't think you'll mind that much - it's not a de-rail for any form of senseless arguing.

More or less yes to what you are saying. If it means anything - the ITR, it (to me) goes something like this.

Consider you had a dating matching profile (something like eHarmony, POF) etc, which involves asking you a whole heap of questions, and, based on those questions, it tries to pair you with likely matches, and sends those likely matches to you.

It's something like socionics - so someone, say SLI, given the typical nature of SLI, doesn't like to express too much energetic emotions, it's tiring, so would prefer the emotions to be that of interactions. Sure, that sort of idea. So yes, if it's like a vague match of two people, it can mean that. But there are as you say, a million+ variations of a person which involves attraction. So the part that socionics plays - can be very little, just like any other system, eHarmony etc can get it wrong.

It's not a 'new psychology' to me, or explains peoples preferred and expected interactions to any level of required reliability, so sometimes, it might work, but to expect more - would be like expecting a machine that can predict the lottery numbers or the future, too many variables.

So from that perspective, it's fine enough. BTW - if commonalities are an attraction, it may well be that identical types are better for relations that duals. Well, the theory says as far as i'm aware, that identicals will over time assume different roles, one assumes the E part, the other the I part, S, and F etc; the theory given it's construct would say identicals can dualize each other like this.

[lavos]

It also doesn't explain why one family has the same illness over generations while another has an extreme ability for sports, all in the same category and geographic area. Why is someone more prone to cancer than another? Then, annoyance sets in.

Socionics can explain that, and many more things.

[The Reality Denialist]

In case of Harmonizing type if we can make parallels – the agreeable character (for example) according to Jordan Peterson is the most vulnerable to alienation.
I wonder how it starts to behave in environment if competition is required.

Dominant type. I think their need of control might alienate them from stabilized institutions if they can not get to top – entrepreneurship may save them.

As I wrote before

Creative and their eccentric ways can be alienating as well.
Normalizing may suffer from instability.

[The Reality Denialist]

Beta DCNH
EIE
SLE
IEI
LSI

[Tallmo]

Due to changes in computing and therefore lesser requirements in man powered bureaucracy N types will become more and more outcast over time.

But still... there are so many professions where Normalizing is needed. Any office work, analysis, engineering, science, doctors, taxi drivers, pilots, industry workers, construction etc. Basically any work except art or work were you have to have very good people skills like sales and TV host etc.

But C types... so if no niche is avail and no mediating types present then it would not look too bright for them either and eccentricity takes complete control while multitude of private project emerges. I for instance have very little patience following same standards as others or looking for control.

Yeah Cs are difficult. They can be really successful or they are living in the streets. I think many of the alcoholics I see in the streets are Creatives.

But I was working in the post office last year sorting mail. Most people there were Normalizers. But one woman was C-LSE. Very enthusiastic. She was super fast sorting the mail, talking and shouting all the time to her co-workers and really creating a spontaneous atmosphere. But she had the right main type for the work also.

In case of Harmonizing type if we can make parallels – the agreeable character (for example) according to Jordan Peterson is the most vulnerable to alienation.

Yeah many harmonizers seem too introverted and mysterious. Like they are living in their own inner world. But some are social and lively, those are the once who are well-adapted and really showing their harmonizing skills to the world.

I wonder how it starts to behave in environment if competition is required.

They can be good at adapting and charming the right people. One H-SEI whom I know said that once in a job interview she made the interviewer cry when she talked about some sensations in a beautiful way. And of course she got the job.

So you are C subtype? I agree you seem more C than H. I once dated an H-ILE and she was so nice and pleasant and cute that she seemed totally like a stereotypical Feeler on the surface.

[The Reality Denialist]

I have sat on table with ILE-N and ILE-H some time ago. It was pretty clear that I could talk very weird stuff with that H type while the N type got soon bit unsettled over indirect references etc.


I do it all the time.

[Tallmo]

I have sat on table with ILE-N and ILE-H some time ago. It was pretty clear that I could talk very weird stuff with that H type while the N type got soon bit unsettled over indirect references etc.


I do it all the time.

Yeah H likes it when people are random and have unusual ideas. I've seen it many times. They can even like weird and dangerous people. They get energy from them. But they have the ability to deal with them also, and influence the C in a smooth way.

I remember on the train I saw some cute young H girls, and some half-criminal crazy C guys who sat down next to them. The guys of course started talking and challenging the girls, but they didn't seem to have any problem with it.

I'm working with an N-ILE now. He is good at problem solving and can present possibilities to me. But he is also a little boring and business-like. Doesn't like unusual ideas. Quite strong on Se-Role also.

[The Reality Denialist]

Creative supposedly have great sensitivity towards external atmosphere.

I can say that I totally collide with certain kind of ESI's but it is more or less OK with others.
I witnessed it when ESI [extremely unhealthy version] had control over everything and I just had to follow it. Others started ask why I started to look extremely nauseous...

[Shytan]

Creative subtypes are said to have strengthened Ne, Fe and Se. Here's what I don't understand: I'm EII-C subtype, right? However, I tend to live in the moment and do things the moment I think of them, or the way I feel like doing them. I'm a bit hedonistic, more than an EII would be. Is this because of strengthened Se, but within the dimensions of my Se polr? I read something like that somewhere, but I don't know what it means.

[Number 9 large]

Creative subtypes are said to have strengthened Ne, Fe and Se. Here's what I don't understand: I'm EII-C subtype, right? However, I tend to live in the moment and do things the moment I think of them, or the way I feel like doing them. I'm a bit hedonistic, more than an EII would be. Is this because of strengthened Se, but within the dimensions of my Se polr? I read something like that somewhere, but I don't know what it means.

Tbh if thats u in the picture u kinda look SEE

[The Reality Denialist]

I think: When it comes to DCNH never use functions to figure yourself out. Bad practice. Just think what those terms mean and what is your role within in your own type not the other way around.

Roughly:
Dominant: You are some sort of leader and driven (being a leader can mean lots of things in case of EII it would be ethical leader)
Creative: You conduct yourself bit out of the norm. You look for new things (lots of variety in there).
Normalizing: you appreciate the system and you function reliably in that context. You don't deviate that much. Respect other's achieved authority in that area...
Harmonizing: You have cooling effect to people and tend to function well among them. Or something. You also appreciate novel things from others.

[Shytan]

Tbh if thats u in the picture u kinda look SEE

I'm def EII but I think being Sx/sp and 4w3 play a lot into it.

[Number 9 large]

Well i think hedonism, not liking estjs and living in the moment are rather contrary to EII

[The Reality Denialist]

https://socioniks.net/article/?id=37

Creative subtype

The main characteristic of a creative person is paradoxical thinking and non-standard behavior, which allows solving problems of special complexity that are unaffordable to the usual, previously triggered techniques.
The main secret of creative energy is inner concentration to such an extent that the external situation is completely ignored.

I want to recall in this connection an episode from ancient history about Archimedes, who drew geometric figures on the sand, ignoring the Roman soldiers who broke into his home town of Syracuse at that moment.

This state of internal compression and painful fights accompanying the psychological "birth" of a new idea is rather painful. In this state, you do not want to eat or drink, the world loses its colors and temptations, you just want to push it out more quickly, which turns inside.

However, in the formula of creativity, it is also necessary to include the function E, with the help of which the generated idea is presented to the public in a catchy, memorable form. Archimedes, as you remember, shouted "eureka!". It is difficult to deny the special magnetism and manic nature inherent in creative.

So we get the formula IFE. However, one should not confuse creative inspiration with the emotional pressure of the dominant personality, which uses this tool much more efficiently and far surpasses the creative influence of people on the psyche of people.

The inevitable continuation of the merits of the creative are its shortcomings, which are very annoying to those who are close. First of all, we are talking about uneven working capacity and extreme individualism. Periods of inspiration alternate with stagnation, and even depressions. Individualism stems from an unwillingness to reckon with the norms accepted in the collective. The chief of the creative is forced to indulge him, otherwise he risks losing his talented unique (remember the series about Dr. House).

The creative subtype of a particular person, of course, can be combined with additional accentuations (and any). For example, Leo Tolstoy, although he was creative (I function was supported by F), but at the same time he was obsessed with non-resistance to evil by violence, which indicates the accentuation of the + R function. A similar combination of functions, in which one function reduces the other, takes a lot of energy from a person.