Hi all. I've always been a fan of subtypes, because they make things much easier when it comes to typing. But now I'm starting to doubt their usefulness, since they draw attention away from identifying the actual type. What do you think?
Subtypes: YES or NO?
Hi all. I've always been a fan of subtypes, because they make things much easier when it comes to typing. But now I'm starting to doubt their usefulness, since they draw attention away from identifying the actual type. What do you think?
KEEP IT LIGHT AND KEEP IT MOVING
They contrast the actual type so you see it better. And dcnh exists as a phenomenon anyway so one better accept it
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'm good with it. Though it's making finding my own type more troublesome because it's multiplying the amount of options.
I think base and creative subtyping systems confuse people a lot. It consists of wide variety of non compatible ways of interpretations that are widely conflicting in several ways. DCNH is better but lacks good systematic interpretation.
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
baseless heresies make easier only the misleadingOriginally Posted by User Name
the only "subtypes" which have a sense in Jung's types is the degree of the balance between functions like T, F, S, N, mb also between their E/I variants
I'm voting "none of them".
Model A subtypes theoretically make sense but I'm in some ways skeptical of their validity in real life. Also, there are a lot of incongruences amongst different subtyping systems (Base/Creative subtype is often confused with Inert/Contact subtype). And yes, they can be misleading, as Sol pointed out.
I didn't really get into DCNH, maybe I should focus on it for a while.
By the way, right now I prefer to take a more "classical" approach on Socionics and to stick to the traditional 16 TIMs.
KEEP IT LIGHT AND KEEP IT MOVING
Sub-types are useful in the sense of expanding the number of classifications from which traditional Socionics 'typists' can draw, but this does nothing to further the development of a proper model. A sub-type has exactly the same information control system configuration as the other sub-type; having the input or output process online more than 'average' doesn't alter the control sequence. These sub-classifications seem to be attempts to explain observed behaviour variances; it's as if Socionics is attempting to incorporate MBTI theory but two wrongs don't make a right........
a.k.a. I/O
I like subtypes.
Two subtypes theory is the easiest to mentally represent, since it refers to a visual model (model A), while DCNH is based on behavioral classifications so it's easier to prove and observe.
I think both DHCN and the two subtype systems are OK, however as I have observed they can change over life. Also, I view two subtype system as rational and irrational subtypes which has something to do with how brain is working i.e. it's physical construction and this can change during lifetime and it's usually about decreasing of executive function, so it's about becoming irrational. The two subtype system makes sense because it can be somehow measured because it manifests in the ego very well. This system is very well described and seems to match real-life cases.
However for DHCN there are many unknowns and it isnt very well described. For example, do certain types are more likely to develop certain subtypes? If yes, then it would make it not really better than two type subtype system, it would be the same.
Also the problem with DHCN is that it is much bigger. If there can be 4 subtypes for each type, there would need to be 64 description of types, and this hasnt been done yet. Therefore there is no reference for DHCN and the typings are mostly "amateur" and based mostly on guessing.
I've seen many variations of ILE but I've never seen one who is rational and extroverted at the same time. I've seen that in extroverted type it is always Ne and Se visibly strengthened and in introverted subtype it's Ti and Fi. I think it is because these are ego and super-ego functions and they manifest more clearly. So because of that I think rational / irrational type is more useful because it's simpler and easier to measure so there are no mistakes and there is more clarity.
Last edited by falsehope; 07-05-2018 at 01:07 PM.
I use Accepting/Producing subtype, lead vs create, whatever it's called. As you type more and more people, the subtype system becomes necessarily to explain the behavioral difference between say an SLI-S and SLI-L. That's about the only use in my opinion. Most of the important differences between types happens at the 8 block level rather than the 32 subtype level.
Also DHCN is shit. I can't believe actually take it seriously. I 2nd that it's a worse version of Enneagram. Must worse.
The road to Hell is paved with DCNH and Reinin.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
I found that type is best established by first determining whether a person is output (j) or input (p) oriented followed by internally referenced (I) versus externally (E). Once one has determined a 'temperament' configuration (Ij, Ej, Ip or Ep), there's less confusion when there are deviations in online processing time. When one starts with say a large Te component, many may assume Ej and go off on a tangent.......
a.k.a. I/O
I do the exact opposite. I start by trying to figure out perception and judgement: Are they observing or imagining? Are they trying to make logical or ethical decisions? Figuring out a person's clubs provides quite of info, including aristo/demo. Then I do what you say and determine J/P & I/E. The problem is that for people with mixed subtypes, where the subtype refers to the 2nd letter, e.g. SLI-L or ESE-S, determining the type can be very difficult as they come off really mixed.
The thread title gives me two options and when I come here the poll gives me four. wth
Same with subtypes. What's next? Spectrums?
Just acknowledge that people differ for a lot of reasons and no concept will be able to refelct that properly.
Well I've analyzed many types thoroughly (especially ESE, SEE, ESI, IEI, among others) to see if they fit me, but it seems like my use of information elements really does fit the SEI functions. But I fit the SEI-Fe description more than the basic description. So I've found that subtyping system helps me.
If it's getting in the way of your typing, then just go back to the basic model. Maybe consider subtypes as an afterthought, if desired. That's what I did, anyway, and it seemed to work for me. Usually people fit one of the types pretty clearly, in contrast to the other 15 types.
Sometimes, though, it's a lot harder to type a person until you take into account some variations on the type (people's personalities are messy and don't fit a perfect cut-and-dry model), so there I think subtyping systems can be useful to consider right at the beginning.
At least for the extraverted/introverted subtyping system, I think it's helpful to determine which of the information elements in their ego block is the core of their interests/actions in life. This way you can tell which is truly the base function, even if they're using the creative function lots. It's also easy to tell which is their POLR or their role function, if they examine which information element causes more insecurity. Nobody likes dealing with their POLR xD It's just painful. The role function is relatively less stressful to deal with, when they have to.
My favorite subtype system is enneagram.
My use of types is quite malleable in terms of people in the real world nowadays because I've lost confidence in being able to type anybody including myself with any level of certainty, and because it does not disadvantage me to see the behaviour of others in terms of what is readily apparent at any one time rather than simply rely on long-formed opinions.
I dislike it when subtypes are used as a central point in an argument when defining perceived similarities and differences (and invariably, it is the perceived differences that cause most of the trouble). Generally this happens and then within a couple of years or so, one or both of the people up for discussion have changed their self-typings.
In my profile, I record what I perceive my subtype to be. This is a reflection of when I last bothered to read up on the subject and form an opinion - essentially, it is a reminder of my most recent position. But I don't generally find the subtypes to offer any value that would not be better explained in terms of IM usage.
I don't understand the point of the DCNH subtypes. They seem to be an attempt to allow an individual to have two primary temperaments at the same time.
They make it easier to justify bad typings and dilute the basic theory. In theory subtypes should make the theory more restrictive but in practice people end up reassigning traits that really have more to do with the base type. Maybe it's because the base types do explain more than people think, or because we're not capable of mentally applying 32 or 64 categories, but that's the result that I most often see. The only way to do it is to identify the type first, then compare many examples of the same type (who are all typed correctly).
They don't draw attention away from the main type - you are just not using the theory right if that is the case, instead, they are meant to illuminate further how the subjective 16 delineations have flaws and even contradictions with both the types and intertype relations.
Nevertheless, they don't erase all chaos since the contradictions with standard socionics exceed 64 labels, gradually it becomes apparent that more than 64 labels are needed with further subsequent theories to explain contradictions with the main theory. Even the main theory of socionics is up for questioning.
You can buy Gulenko's brochure that explains the complete DCNH system along with 64 descriptions, he might even have an English translation of it by now either officially or unofficially.
DCNH does seem to have a big effect on ITR. Then instincts, enneagram, and lastly two type subtypes. I have not yet seen how two C type duals would work in an intimate relationship.
subtypes basically lets you relate more to one side of your type versus the other, or equal. Which is great.
They don't Gulenko has explained this in the long videos Ben organises.
Cs both want admiration and they can't give it to their spouse. However what is truly crazy is that Cs are most attracted to other Cs because they reflect their values. This same pattern is true for other subtypes.
Ds want to win and achieve and they are most attracted to those with that same instinct. however, their vice is being controlling and neither wants to be controlled.
Ns want order and perfection they are most attracted to fellow principled people. Nevertheless they want only theirs version of order, so they end up ignoring each other.
Hs want harmony and appreciate others who value harmony the most above everything. However, with time they realise that the other person tends to be "fake" constantly readapting to them.
Not exactly. Think of sampling people like this dendrogram. At the top you would have the 4 clubs, in the middle, the 4 quadras, at the bottom the 16 types. As you add more dichotomies, you lose the ability to cluster people and the types themselves become LESS differentiated. The type becomes more rigid because it's no longer a type but rather a human being.
The problem with the lead/creative subtype system is just like you said, the 16 types are the sweet sweet. The difference between the the 16 types (SLE, LSI) isn't as big as the difference between blocks (SiTe). So when you go down an extra level to the 32 subtypes, it's even more difficult to explain the differences so the lead subtypes effectively become the same as the 16 types and you only create 16 new hybrid subtypes, where creative function is more noticeable.
As for DCHN, it's not even 2^x based so it's hard to call it a real Jungian subtype system.
Last edited by domr; 07-06-2018 at 03:55 AM.
Where?
7w6 9w1 2w3 sx/? RLUAI(rl|U|ai)
Ichago made up some fantastic story about some secret three thousand year old tradition (so it's "mature") and proffered his own invention as deep wisdom. You see, in Ichago's psychology, something of value cannot be valuable unless it's "mature" and spent thousands of years doing nothing. It is worse than worthless.
This is a good and constructive remark but I need to add one comment. I think the greatest feature of the DCHN subtyping system is precisely that it is not based on a power of two.Not exactly. Think of sampling people like this dendrogram. At the top you would have the 4 clubs, in the middle, the 4 quadras, at the bottom the 16 types. As you add more dichotomies, you lose the ability to cluster people and the types themselves become LESS differentiated. The type becomes more rigid because it's no longer a type but rather a human being.
The problem with the lead/creative subtype system is just like you said, the 16 types are the sweet sweet. The difference between the the 16 types (SLE, LSI) isn't as big as the difference between blocks (SiTe). So when you go down an extra level to the 32 subtypes, it's even more difficult to explain the differences so the lead subtypes effectively become the same as the 16 types and you only create 16 new hybrid subtypes, where creative function is more noticeable.
As for DCHN, it's not even 2^x based so it's hard to call it a real Jungian subtype system.
The combinatorics of finite structures that occur in real life are almost never based on powers of two. Take Young Tableaux or the number of possible language families. Complex finite structures, which personality types are, are not going to be something as simple as a power of two. There are going to be congruences that merge some of the subsets together and symmetries that show several combinations to be the same... or possibly even logical arguments showing that certain combinations which should be allowed mathematically are actually impossible. Therefore we have to assume that the number of subtypes is most likely not going to be a power of two.
Last edited by HolyKnowing; 07-08-2018 at 10:56 PM. Reason: logical fault s/never/not
That means that DCHN is not a subtype system but rather a completely separate system. So you need to evaluate the merits of the system on it's own. I would argue that DCHN is an inferior version of Ennegram, much inferior.
Counterexample: I could take LSI, and say that there's a "quirky" subtype, a "sour" subtype and a "twisty" subtype. This is just an example for demonstrative purposes. It would be a subtype system for LSI but based on a power of three instead of two. So the fact that I constructed a subtype system based on something other than a power of two proves that not being a power of two is not a sufficient condition to entail not being a subtype system.
Enneagram is new-age retro hippie. Not sure why it's tolerated. If anybody here suggested a subforum for MBTI and Kersey's (sp?) Please Understand Me they would be laughed right out the gateway port. Yet somehow enneagram gets much more respect.
Last edited by HolyKnowing; 07-09-2018 at 12:21 AM. Reason: final word
Sure but you would have to prove that your system provides useful info.
Enneagram is quite nice from a motivations or drive angle. It helps explain differences between same Jungian types. 27 tritypes * 16 types = 432 types, really unique and comprehensive. It's a better version of DCHN.
As for Kersey, his work is better than what most of the people on here post and his descriptions are very similar to certain Socionists like Meged. I think they read his work and used his ideas for the generic type descriptions, rather than historical figures. So I think indirectly we still use his work. And most people on here still use MBTI notation too. I would say both systems are still respected by users on here, de facto.
Ask him directly on Facebook
For those who think DNCH and enneagram conflate or replace each other how so? I have always considered them entirely separately. If I had to choose which had more impact I would go with DNCH because in the long term with self-development the motivations of the enneagram fade a little, with all the integration arrows and wings and a balanced life you become a mix of types, but even with maturity, health and development it seems to me the motivations behind DNCH do not lessen in any way, they seem to be very deeply set in to a person's psyche, I would argue as much as sociotype, or even surpassing that. For ITR I think DNCH is more important than sociotype in the sense that I'd rather semidual with DNCH "duality" than dual with DNCH clash.
I don't use subtypes because I don't see the point in subdividing people into ever more static categories. If we have subtypes why not have "sub-subtypes," and "sub-sub-subtypes," and so on?
That said, I like to use DCNH to strip out potentially non-type-related traits as a way to generate more rigorous typings. Regardless of whether or not (say) ethical types have more compassionate personalities, it's still a somewhat controversial claim depending on who you ask. Moreover, even for someone who acknowledges that any one specific trait is Socionics-related, without a way to quantify Socionics, figuring out the degree to which it exists can be difficult.
Adding more constraints in order to stretch your typing muscles also makes using the theory more fun (IMO).
Last edited by xerx; 08-09-2018 at 02:28 AM.
Model subtypes seem like common sense to me (although common sense can be wrong). I don't think the dimensionality of IEs is fixed.
I have gone over my argument for why in previous posts but to summarize, as your brain develops your cognitive circuitry becomes more complex, which means that you can process information faster. In Socionics tests, this phenomenon is reflected by changes in how you score on the measures for each IE, so I think the concept of subtypes also helps prevent people jumping around from type to type.
In an ideal world, we could develop some mechanism to predict how and when dimensionality would change, or at least the rate at which it changes, but humans can be so awfully unpredictable at times. Socionics like all typologies must assume static personality traits exist otherwise it would become impossible to categorize people at all.
I think that challenge is part of what makes us interesting though.
Function dimensionality and "weight" are interchangeable concepts in Socionics, so that doesn't really address my argument.
I don't mean this personally, but you have made a common mistake in typology, which is to assume a personality trait you've observed is constant and can be measured quantitatively. As a result, Socionicists have developed a bad habit of trying to solve problems simply by adding more and more categories to measure, without creating a structure for those categories, and ignoring/explaining away any phenomena that don't fit them.
This is a bit like trying to magnify a moving image, noting more and more features about the image while being blind to the big picture (which is that you see new details because the image is moving away from you). Furthermore, if you magnify an image too strongly, your focus becomes blurred which leads to unprovable inferences. I think the theory has become irreducibly complex and contradictory because people have become reluctant to challenge its core premises such as whether personality traits are static, whether there is a fixed dimension to each information element, and so on.
Remember Occam's Razor. The best explanation is the one which explains the most while requiring the least. Simply allowing the dimensions in Model A to change over time would make DCNH unnecessary and explain a number of nuisances that presently fester in Socionics.
Oh, I see you added to your post.
*dimensilonality: the learning sources(?) of the fxns. e.g 1d or 2d or something isI read, and re-read, and re-read, and re-read this paragraph. It doesn't make any sense. You are not explaining why dimensionality is different from weight, only that dimensionality is different to potential.just personal exp. the more sources one learns from the stronger potential, but that is only potential because: imagine someone held in captive in a pitch dark room from birth, even if they have "4d se" their 'se' is going to be clueless.
Someone held captive in a dark room from birth will still have inherent personality traits (that's the function order, like we could say their Se is in position 1). As I read it you seem to be associating function position with a function's dimensionality very strictly, and separating the latter from any possible change to validate DCNH (which is another whole subject, because it's an addition to the theory and you haven't explained why it is necessary. One step at a time). I don't...I see it as separate from order and synonymous with weight, although it is likely that if function dimensionality was to change it would not be in isolation (meaning as one rose another might also, or there could be inverse relationships, according to the positions within the model, for example increased dimensionality in the Ego block could lead to a corresponding decrease in the Super-Ego block).
they are useful because they add complication and make the entire picture clearer. the expression 'don't paint with too big of a brush stroke' is cliched but useful advice, because if you ever try actually doing it- like literally paint a picture by using a big paintbrush- your picture just looks totally ridiculous/overly cartoonish and without any soulful or unique value.
The flipside to that, is if you add too many details whilst ignoring the essence of the thing you come across as like some smug pretentious prick that can't get over themselves and enjoy a basic bitch top 40 song once in awhile. if you act like subtypes are some grandiose thing that will save humanity you are galloping off the wrong track into narc diamond unreal world. so there is kind of a balance, but adding more rich-ness to something tho is usually not a bad idea.
thats cuz mbti and socionics fullfill almost the same role. also both enneagram and jungs philosophy are made up out of thin air so i could call them both new age hippie shit.
People put the subtypes out of contrast. they use subtypes as an excuse to stick with out of the norm of their type behaviour, instead of retyping themselves.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
