Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
System of DCNH Subtypes
¶
System of DCNH Subtypes
Viktor Gulenko
, 2006.
Original text:
Теория подтипов: система DCNH
The Problem of Intra-Type Differences
¶
Why are people of same socionics type so different? This question has
long perplexed every sober-minded practitioner of socionics. How can two
people of the same psychological system, that has an identical
structure, demonstrate such different examples of behavior when
encountered with same life situations?
Conduct a simple experiment. Gather 3-4 people of a single socionics
type, it is unimportant which type and which socionics specialist has
determined their types. Give them any accessible task (e.g. a jointly
solved intellectual puzzle or a situation that they need to play out)
and then observe their behavior. You will see that in spite of them
having identical types, some of them will be more active, others more
passive, some will be more resourceful, others more conservative, and so
on. The most interesting thing is that the greater the number of
representatives of the same type you gather - the greater the number of
differences you’ll observe between them. This shows that it is possible
to increase the depth and specialization of typology even further.
This state of affairs must not seem surprising. Other areas of human
perception have been build analogously. When looking at a painted
surface, for example, within its primary colors of paint you will, as a
rule, see different other hues. And in the sound of any musical
instrument, you can grasp a characteristic overtone  the timbre. The
situation is comparable to holding a printed text in your hands, which
does not change over the course of time, yet a different imprint is
created with every use. Similarly, within the psyche of a person - the
carrier of a given socionics type - there always exists an admixture of
other types. This admixture of other types is what I call a subtype, or
a variation of the type.
In other sciences we find a similar phenomenon. Recall isomerism  the
ability of molecules that have no differences in their chemical
composition to form substances with different properties. Subtypes are
nothing more than unique psychological isomers. Another similar and
completely normal phenomenon is the existence of different species
within the same biological genus.
My own solution to intra-type differences has been proposed long time
ago, in the late 1980s. In this report I would like to present a
contemporary assessment of the problem.
Purely theoretically, the subtype problem can be solved in two ways.
The first way lies through the introduction of special dichotomies. With
respect to the customary type dichotomies, these dichotomies would be of
a more concrete nature, thus coming out as lower level factors. I call
this procedure combinatorial-dichotomous.
An alternate path presupposes the strengthening of various functions
within the framework of the classical sociomodel (Model A). Thing is
that the expression (and noticeability) of a function is not [always]
equal to its position in model A, its hierarchical place within the
structure of the psyche. In spite of being equally located, i.e.
occupying one and same position in the sociomodel, functions can have
completely different degrees of manifestation. This setup, according to
the tenets of this second, alternative approach, forms each subtypes
special behavioral features. This concept, in contrast to the
combinatorial-dichotomous approach mentioned above, can be named
functional-positional.
These two combinatorial-dichotomous and functional-positional approaches
do not contradict but rather supplement each other. For this reason, the
specialists of the School of Humanitarian Socionics [Gulenko’s socionics
school] apply both approaches. It all depends on the goals and the
purposes of the researcher.
There is an additional important preliminary question, which it is not
possible to totally bypass: how many subtypes is it necessary to
distinguish? The answer is that the quantity of subtypes must not be
smaller than the average size of the group with which you’re dealing. In
small groups  at the lower end of the collective hierarchy  it
suffices to distinguish between four to eight subtypes. However, if we
happen to deal with the whole society, with the entire system of tightly
interacting small groups, representing the highest level of
communicative organization, then distinguishing the shades and nuances
of all 16 sociotypes becomes unavoidable.
Isolation of Four Subtypes
¶
This degree of detalization is needed when, for example, you have the
problem of selecting one person from 3-4 rather similar candidates for a
vacant position, job, or post, or if there are several representatives
of the same type who have been working together and it has become
necessary to decide whom to appoint as the manager or the leader of the
project.
Even in personal life, it is necessary now and again to choose one dual
from several familiar duals. Each of them has different strong and
likable point, and so one may wish to keep them all! Even if you wish to
keep in contact with each one of your duals, it becomes necessary to
determine in which order you should meet them, how often and how
intensive to keep up your contact, which tasks or problems you should
solve with this given dual and which with another dual, and so on. There
is no doubt that failing to arrange priorities in your communication,
you can introduce chaos into the communicative system, and as a result
of this over the course of time it will be destroyed.
Three Pairs of Dichotomies
¶
First dichotomy:
Contacting / Distancing
The first “contact” pole indicates the predominance of the need for
contact, and the second “distancing” pole represents the need to
maintain distance. Into the “contact” category fall clearly expressed
extroverts as well as extroverted introverts. “Distancing” will be
clearly expressed introverts, but also introverted extroverts  those
extroverts who avoid intensive contact. The scale of I/E-vertness is
thus split into four internal gradations [introverted introverts,
extroverted introverts, introverted extoverts, and extroverted
extroverts].
Second dichotomy:
Terminating / Initiating
I understand the term “terminating” as the ability to finish what was
started and a tendency towards orderliness and regulation. The term
“initiating” represents the opposite tendency - to initiate and to
easily move on to something else, with ensuing disorder in one’s matters
and affairs. As you can see, this is a concretization of the usual
dichotomy rationality/irrationality. It would be incorrect to think that
pristine order reigns in the house of every rational type, that the
rational has clearly planning everything out, and that all irrationals
throw everything aside in a mess and become burdened by planning. In
reality, between these two poles there exist two intermediate
gradations.
Terminating gradation encompasses people who are clearly expressed
rationals as well as orderly irrationals, while initiating type of
behavior belongs to those who are clearly expressed irrationals as well
as disorderly rationals.
Third dichotomy:
Connecting / Ignoring
This dichotomy represents the level of sensitivity to changes in one’s
environment. Connectors are very sensitive to changes changes, whereas
ignorers, as the name suggests, are capable of paying no attention to
this. This polarity is another interpretation of the the classical
dichotomy dynamic/static [dynamic types are sensitive to what’s
happening around them and therefore correcting to “connecting”, while
statics remain largely unchanged by outside dynamics].
Combining these scales, we obtain the following 4 subtypes:
Contacting, Terminating, Connecting - Dominant subtype (D)
;
Contacting, Initiating, Ignoring - Creative subtype (C)
;
Distancing, Terminating, Ignoring - Normalizing subtype (N)
;
Distancing, Initiating, Connecting - Harmonizing subtype (H)
.
Strengthening of a Pair of Functions in DCNH Subtypes
¶
Strengthening of linear-energetic functions Te and Fe , whatever
position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel,
forms the dominant subtype (D).
Strengthening of mobile-flexible functions Se and Ne leads to
creative subtype (C).
Strengthening of balanced-stable functions Ti and Fi gives us
normalizing subtype (N).
Strengthening of receptive-adaptive functions Si and Ni produces the
harmonizing subtype (H).
These functions are strengthened precisely in pairs, since they possess
close energization (another way of saying they complement each other).
Note
Translator’s note: This idea that DCNH subtypes come from strengthening of pairs of functions within a person’s sociotype has been subject to further scrutiny and criticism. This layout fails to explain how, for example, one can encounter LSE-Si of Dominant or Normalizing subtypes - not every LSE-Si is of Harmonizing subtype, which would be predicted by the above function pair strengthening scheme. It is much more likely that DCNH represents a separate typology from socionics model A that is, however, based on analogous concepts as socionics - the concepts of 4 temperaments and several dichotomies such as rational/irrational and static/dynamic discussed above. However, even being based on on similar concepts, DCNH seems to form an independent typology that addresses another part of human psyche, rather than being a subset or subcategory of socionics types. Therefore, DCNH subtypes have no effect on subtypes that exist within the Model A, and no function strengthening or weakening results from having a certain DCNH subtype. From this it also follows that a person of any socionics type and any Model A subtype can have any DCNH subtype, and one can encounter LSE-Si of Dominant or Normalizing subtypes just like one can encounter LSE-Te of Creative or Harmonizing subtype, with two typologies being independent of one another.
Models of Behavior in Autonomous Groups
¶
One can observe experimentally the 4 subtypes described above. This is
accomplished by observation of the behavioral modes of 4 participants of
an autonomous group who have identical types. The Dominant subtype will
manage the role of the leader better than others, Creative subtype  the
role of generator of projects, proposals, and ideas, Normalizing subtype
the finisher, Harmonizing subtype  the corrector.
The SHS (School of Humanitarian Socionics) working group verified the
presence of these informal roles in a whole series of experiments
carried out in 2006. If a group consists of not 4 but 3 people, then one
person takes on two roles. Most frequently, these are two roles of the
leader along with generator of ideas (D and C), or the two roles of the
finisher and the harmonizer (N and H), since these DCNH subtypes are
closer to each other in terms of their energetics [that is, it would be
more difficult for an H subtype than for a C subtype to assume the role
of the D subtype, given that D and C are closer to representing an
extraverted temperament Ej and Ep and perform at higher energy output
levels than H or N]. Although in life any combinations, even improbable
ones, can be encountered.
If the small group consists of different socionics types, then the
factor of those types and not only subtypes begins to influence the
distribution of the roles within the group. However, according to our
observations, the factor of the main sociotypes in conditions of close
communication and contact takes on only a background role for
interaction rather than being a defining one.
Testing for DCNH subtypes - Test Situations
¶
DCNH subtype can be revealed through observing a person’s behavioral
reaction to specifically created test situations. After entering into
such a situation, the subject is forced to manifest such qualities as
persistence or resourcefulness, keenness or flexibility. This applied
approach to DCNH types is currently in creation stage. The first step in
its application is selection of tasks that can be equally and
effectively solved using any of the four subtype approaches, or,
conversely, selection of tasks that are clearly specialized for one
approach.
How do DCNH Subtypes Affect Intertype Relations?
¶
It goes without saying that their influence is considerable, especially
under the conditions of intensive and close contact within confined
spaces. However, let us first build a system of relationships that
appears to exist between the subtypes when they are part of an
autonomous four-subtype group. This is most easily described by the
following polarities:
On the presence of a leader in relations: symmetrical relations
(equal relations without a clear leader) versus asymmetric relations
(unequal relation that definitely require leadership from one of
those involved);
On the direction of connection: attractive relations vs. repellent
ones;
On the location and timing of effect (additional polarity): relations
that are sequential vs. relations of parallel effect.
I want to emphasize that the above mentioned characteristics of
relations are not extensible abstractions, but experimentally checked
concrete parameters.
Combining these polarities, we obtain the following picture:
Subtype relations that are symmetrical and attractive.
Provisionally, this is called
subtype duality
. These relations
appear between people of opposite subtypes and have a smoothing,
harmonizing nature. They are difficult to start at first, but later
partners begin to more deeply appreciate the advantages of the
division of labor provided within these relations. The harder the
conditions for existence - the more durable are these relations.
Subtype relations that are symmetrical and repellent.
They are
called
subtype identity
. These relations appear between people of
identical subtypes. These relations are characterized by creativity.
Initially, these relations bring about a mutual uplifting, but over
time differences accumulate within this dyad and mutual
disappointment sets in. These relations typically don’t pass
verification for strength (of the relationship). They are useful for
duplicating, reserve roles, preparation for rotation or change in
leadership/staff.
Subtypes relations that are asymmetric and attractive.
Their
applicable name is
subtype benefit
. Their nature includes
pushing, urging, and one-sided activation. D-subtype prevails over
C-subtype. C prevails over N-subtype. Normalizing, in turn, prevails
over H-subtype. The harmonizer, by paradoxical means, influences the
dominant participant. Thus the circle is complete [similarly to a
benefit ring of sociotypes]. These relations are the main
accelerating factor of group dynamics.
Subtype relations that are asymmetric and repellent.
To designate
these relations we will use the term
subtype supervision
. They
bear the nature of rate setting, retention within a framework,
one-sided slowing down. They have the opposite direction compared to
subtype benefit. They are useful in terms of correction and fixing of
errors. Dominant inspects harmonizing. Harmonizing inspects
normalizing. Normalizing impedes and corrects creative. And creative
- dominant. Here we have the closing of the contour of the ring, only
in reverse direction of the main vector.
Now for some brief conclusions on specialization of intertype relations:
Identical subtypes contribute to each other’s intellectual
development (understanding, instruction, the generation of ideas in a
region of interest);
Benefit subtypes are most suitable for social activity, intensive
work, outward expansion;
Supervision subtypes are specialized for psychological stabilization,
the balancing of dreams and reality; they are most suitable for
friendship and training;
Dual subtypes offer physical compatibility (lifestyle, intimate
relations).
Next Step - Isolation of Eight Subtypes
¶
This task is needed when the group increases to 7-8 people.
To distinguish eight subtypes, we add an additional scale - Primary /
Secondary, which reflects the hierarchy of personal needs.
It should be noted that theoretically there must be seven such
distinctions (including the three already known polarities). However,
the description of the entire spectrum of subtype dichotomies is not the
main purpose of this report.
Any type of behavior that satisfies shared group needs can be either
primary or secondary. Primary needs are needs of a concrete, current
nature (food, health, shelter, family, intimacy, and so forth).
Secondary needs are deep, lofty (career, social status, spiritual world,
obtaining knowledge, and so on). Questionnaires with the use of this
scale have yet to be created.
Experimentally these subtypes are derived through their internal role
within an octal group of identicals.
Dominating in the sphere of primary needs generates a group role of
the
motivator
(psychologists call this the informal leader)
[Dominant subtype-primary], while dominating along the axis of
secondary needs creates the role of the
mover
, or the engine (a
formal leader) [Dominant subtype - secondary].
Creativeness along the primary axis creates for itself the role of
the
contactor
, while creativess along the sphere of secondary
needs creates the group role of the
innovator
.
Normalizing along the primary axis produces role of the
conscience
of the group
, while normalizing along the secondary creates the
role of the
coordinator
.
And finally, harmonizing along the axis of primary needs leads to the
role of the
designer
, or layout artist who creates a form through
managing different aspects, while harmonizing along secondary needs
leads to the role of the
expert
.
Most frequently our school determines octal subtypes not through
dichotomies, but through the examination of the strengthening of one of
the eight functions of the socionics model. Here I have derived the
following patterns:
Strengthening of function Fe forms demonstrative-artistic behavior.
This corresponds to primary domination through emotional pressure,
the skill to inspire or frighten. Primary domination in animals has a
link to to having bright colors, loud cries, expressive mimicry, and
gestures.
Strengthening of function Te forms persistent behavior. This method
of domination is secondary. These are the business leaders, who
persistently and emphatically get their own way.
Both these models of behavior are frequently encountered together, being
combined on principle of a role mask. This is evidence that domination,
although it gets manifested by two different methods, is nevertheless
the same, one or whole, process.
Strengthening of function Se forms excitable behavior. This is
interpreted as a primary, instinctive type of creativity. This leads
to creation of nonstandard, quick solutions during extreme, critical
(for survival) situations.
Strengthening of function Ne forms affective-labile behavior. This is
secondary creativity, connected to intellectual fantasy, nonstandard
ideas, directed not at seeking exists from dead-end situations but at
coming up with solutions to future problems.
Both of these functions are frequently working together as two sides of
the same innovative-introductory process.
Strengthening of function Fi forums anxious-suspicious behavior. This
is a primary type of normalizing, which does not require fixation of
formal rules, but is rather based on tradition.
Strengthening of function Ti leads to the formation of
formal-pedantic behavior. It is secondary in nature when it comes to
satisfaction of common group needs. It is based on regulation,
instruction, and official laws.
Both these models of behavior can act together, reinforcing one another.
Conscientiousness and pedantic relation to one’s responsibilities can be
viewed as two sides of normalizing behavior.
Strengthening of function Si is responsible for the formation of
astheno-neurotic behavior. This is the primary, vital harmonization
that is connected to valued body comfort.
Strengthening of function Ni forms fenced-off, self-submerged, up to
autistic behavior. This is secondary types of harmonization of the
spiritual-mental plan.
Both these models of behavior are equivalent, i.e. they are frequently
developed together and reinforce one another. It is well known that to
achieve meditation of the mind relaxation of the body is first needed.
If we move further in accordance to this algorithm, then the next step
of subtype detalization will be 16 subtypes. These subtypes I have
encountered only when resolving problems relating to professional
orientation, when a person has to decide on a profession out of several
fields of activity available. This most complex level will be considered
in our future works.
See also
¶
Subtyping Schemes
DCNH Subtypes: Empirical Portraits by Vera Borisova
Accentuation of Functions
DCNH subtypes Empirical Portraits discussion
thread
Identifying DCNH
subtypes
Observations and comments on DCNH subtyping
system
How each DCNH types dominates the other - DCNH benefit
relations
How do u even go about finding someone’s DCNH
type?
DCNH Creatives and discussion of other
subtypes
Subtype
Inconsistencies
Best Subtype
System
[
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/38714-Inert-Contact-Vertical-Club-Subtypes
?
Inert-Contact / Vertical / Club Subtypes]
[
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/36463-Hidden-Agenda-and-Subtypes
?
Hidden Agenda and Subtypes]
[
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/29112-Subtypes-and-PoLR
?
Subtypes and PoLR]
[
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/23094-Subtypes-and-the-POLR
?
Subtypes and the PoLR 2]
[
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/36922-Do-subtypes-effect-functions
?
Do subtypes affect functions?]
[
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/37119-Do-people-change-types-or-subtypes
?
Do people change types or subtypes?]
[
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/36875-Subtypes…Do-they-exist
?
Subtypes…Do they exist?]
[
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/36890-If-subtypes-exist-then-shouldn-t-they-alter-quot-relations-quot
?
If subtypes exist, then shouldn’t they alter “relations”?]