Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
DCNH Subtypes: Empirical Portraits by Vera Borisova
¶
Published by Borisova Vera in Journal NSO, 1/2006.
Original article
Introduction
¶
Anyone studying socionics sooner or later realizes the convenience and
efficacy of the socionics model: the typical TIM features become
strikingly evident, both in oneself and in others; through this model
one can as least notionally imagine how other people think, feel, how
they see the world, and how they are likely act or behave. However, only
16 TIMs exist, whereas you won’t find two exactly identical individuals
in the human population. Armed with socionics, it is easy to see general
similarities of representatives of the same type. But the more developed
a person is, the more complex is his/her inner world and the richer the
life experience, the lesser correspondence to type traits - and the more
there is of the idiosyncratic.
However, rejecting such a convenient thing as the socionic model is not
wanted. Perhaps it is possible to somehow complicate, to refine, to
detalize it? If we describe various “deviations” from the main TIM in
the same socionic terms, we will arrive at a notion of “TIM within TIM”.
There is nothing complicated about this - looking at the model and
comparing it with the actual person, socionists very often use
expressions such as “ethical ILE” or “sensory ILI”. If we now reduce all
the observed “deviations” to a common line (strengthening of one
function in the model, strengthening of the block; one can also
introduce additional foundations not accounted for by the model - see
subtypes by Gulenko’s system), then we arrive at the classification of
subtypes that allows to create a more detailed model of types.
Thus, a subtype is a specifying, additional characteristic of the
carrier of the TIM, that is based (mostly) on the variability of the
operation of socionic functions within a single TIM.
Up to date, several
Introduction to Subtyping Systems | subtype classifications
have been developed in socionics. Let us
first consider the general principles of these classifications, and then
several theories in greater detail.
If we consider this process from some absolute-idealistic point of view,
perhaps, all these specifying classifications look like an attempt to
build a bridge of small wooden pieces - between the “technical” approach
to type as a scheme or a model and humanitarian vision of the human
personality. However, in practice the idealism is not particularly
needed, but what is needed is a greater or lesser degree of
approximation. Therefore, the subtyping system, as well as other
classifications - work, sometimes better, sometimes worse, depending on
the specific specific subjects. This article will talk about Victor
Gulenko’s system of subtypes. As has been mentioned in the primary
source [2], these four subtypes are formed at the intersection of three
pairs of qualities:
Contacting
Distancing
Terminating
Dominating subtype
(connecting)
Normalizing subtype
(ignoring)
Initiating
Creative subtype
(ignoring)
Harmonizing subtype
(connecting)
We can learn from the same source, that:
1) Qualities focused in subtype do not match the aspect filling of the
functions. Although it may appear that harmonizing - is something
ethical, dominating - is sensing, creative - is intuition, and
normalizing is something logical. However, in order for subtype
classification to serve as complementary to main socionic one, it is
better to not make such direct parallels [4].
2) Subtype-forming qualities have no relation to socionic dichotomies
(both the principal dichotomies and Reinin ones). The essence of the
scale connecting / ignoring is in the principle of contact / feedback
from the environment: connector independently establishes connections,
strives to hold onto them, attaches, reacts not as much to the
positive than the negative impulses, in an effort to convert them
(“why is he not paying attention to me? he must be engaged!”); ignorer
operates on the principle of mirror response: “as you react to me, so
do I react to you”. V. Gulenko used the scale terminating / initiating
for distinguishing two subtypes, correlating it with the strengthening
of the 1st function (terminal subtype) or 2nd function (initial
subtype) [5]. The main difference, however, is that the initial
subtype starts (initiates, triggers), and his performance is higher at
the beginning but to complete the work difficult for him. For the
terminal subtype it’s more difficult to start on something, but
towards the end of his performance increases.
3) There are complementary pairs of subtypes. This is dominating -
normalizing and creative - harmonizing. Other combinations are less
comfortable, less effective, etc.
Again, given the similarity of the alleged scales of subtypes with
socionics ones, the compatibility laws are quite similar. 4) In
contrast to the main type, subtype can change during one’s lifetime,
and not once.
But still rarely, since such a change requires serious causes - a
strong external impact or internal work on yourself (and most likely,
both of these factors together).
Actualization
¶
When there is discussion about strengthening of one or another function,
aspect, block (in the framework of one type), this phenomenon is often
referred to by the term “accentuation” or “emphasis”, meaning that there
is an accent on a particular function.
I would like, firstly, to replace the concept of “accentuation” with the
word “actualization”, and secondly, to introduce (and differentiate) the
concepts of content and structure actualization.
The fact is that the concept of “accentuation” is used in psychology to
describe pathological anomalies of character in rather extreme
variations, which resemble psychopathy and are typologically similar to
them [6]. Thus, it is better we do not use this term, in order to
prevent the growth of entropy. Actualization (in general) on a
particular information aspect (or block) - is a strengthening for a
given subject of the value of the semantic content of this aspect, the
concentration of attention on this reservoir of information about the
world, a conscious (or spontaneous) return to a point of view through
the prism of this particular aspect and the information which according
to this aspect the subject already possesses.
The main idea of “actualization” is in a temporary reinforcement of
something (some function, block, etc.) in connection with the current
needs (external or internal).
Accordingly, “content actualization” is the distinction or amplification
of a particular aspect, regardless of its place in the structure of type
model. “Structural actualization” is the actualization of an aspect that
occupies a certain place in the model, i.e. the actualization not of
aspect but of function. The primary thing here is not the information
content of the aspect, but the “strategy”that is implemented by the
actualized function. For example, the role function adapts to the
behavior of others; vulnerable function “believes” that the constant
presence of some discomfort is the norm, etc. It should be noted that
one person, at any given point in time, may have several actualizations.
My hypothesis is the following: subtype is associated not with the
content filling of this or that aspect but with the structural
particularities of the typological model. Specifically - the dominating
subtype shows additional accentuation of base function (possibly, at the
expense of weaker functions), creative - creative function, normalizing
- role function, harmonizing - vulnerable function. Here, we are talking
about structural actualization, i.e. about the transfer of strategy of
actualized function on person’s behavior in general.
Dominant Subtype
¶
I came, I saw, I conquered.
The brightest, most vivid subtype – within the limits of type, and in
general.
This subtype has greatest similarity to its type’s descriptions. A
nuance: Dominant subtype introvert is more extraverted (particularly not
in a socionics understanding, but in Eysencks understanding, i.e.
lively, sociable, and outgoing), but still displays pronounced typical
features of his type. If a typical introvert, upon getting tired of
communicating, will just go “hide in a corner”, the Dominant subtype
will drive everyone away and still be grumbling loudly, saying,
“Everyone keeps walking around here!”
This subtype is the one most likely to self-actuate, especially in the
socio-cultural sphere; I think that most famous people, i.e. well-known
actors, writers, politicians, etc. fall into the Dominant subtype.
In a group this subtype is also the most (bright, strong, intelligent
depending on the base type). The logical type - is “the most
intelligent”, the ethical type - is the most excitable, the sensing type
- takes up the most space. That is, the sphere of his “achievements” and
the specific way in which he attracts attention to himself and becomes
the leader depends on main type. Dominant subtypes take the leadership
explicitly, especially if they are ethical, sensing, or extraverted.
Logical-intuitives do not always deliberately seek to lead, but feel
that they must: “so that no idiot can order me around”.
If the Dominant subtype leaves the room, an impression is created is
that not one person but most of the people have left.
Among people of the Dominant subtypes, if they end up in the same group,
there arises a strong competition, even if their intertype relations are
quite comfortable, and there is no serious “reason to fight”.
The easiest way to say it is that the Dominant subtype, firstly, pulls
attention to himself, and secondly, “gives orders”. Furthermore, he is
blunt, if he uses some sort of manipulation, it is rather crude. Usually
he just says what he needs from you. This infuriates everyone except
Normalizing subtypes. In commanding and giving orders, the Dominant
subtype does not simply provide a task, but with his confidence he
provides the energy needed to perform it. It is possible to “go a long
way” on his energy, by simply joining his initiatives and helping him
implement them (but, of course, go only the way where the Dominant needs
you to go).
Strangely enough, the Dominant subtype calmly responds to minor
quibbles, to the requests (of Normalizing subtype) to adhere to a
specific order. And even actually adhere to it! If there is no person of
Normalizing subtype nearby, the whole disorder or mess gets sent to the
furnace or into the trash, and that’s all.
The 1st function the Dominant subtype works “at full steam” and even
more. In that sense, it’s not just hidden somewhere processing
information  in Dominant subtype it is evident at all times. If this is
Te, he is not just busy all the time: he is working on three jobs, and
during the breaks he talks and teaches others what they should be doing.
If, however, he isn’t working, then he thinks of various actions in his
imagination, and then, once again, talks about it, aloud and loudly,
with confidence and an air of authority. (To imagine this, multiply the
usual manifestations of the base function by three.)
If, say, we’re dealing with the Dominant subtype of Hamlet (EIE), this
is not just emotions, but such emotions from which the whole group is
seriously wound up, while the EIE is not even doing anything, sitting
quietly.
The Dominant subtype of Yesenin (IEI) manages to command what you
should do.
The Dominant subtype of Balzac (ILI) is energetic and rudely
sarcastic.
The Dominant subtype of Dostoevsky (EII) is a kind of “an iron fist in
a velvet glove”: after a demonstration of softness and ethics from
this person emerges an equally demonstrative condemnation and desire
to “educate”.
Creative Subtype
¶
Everyone wants to be unique. I’m not like that.
The Creative subtype, conversely, is the least similar to its main type
description. It is the most flexible subtype. There is a strong
inclination toward “Mirror” type, as though the 1st and 2nd functions
have switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the
extravert to the introvert. And in general, all characteristic type
features seem to be diluted and watered down for the Creative subtype.
It seems that for Creative subtype the intertype relations are also
“watered down”  as he conducts himself “outside the box” by the
standards of his type.
Creative subtype, one way or another, finds himself in the sphere of
ideas and creativity, and this doesn’t have to be something artistic
it may well be scientific or a hobby; generally, a creative element is
introduced into any pursuit, otherwise the Creative subtype feels
uninterested. If someone else’s result or product comes into his hand,
the Creative subtype will remake, “improve it”, think it over.
For Creative subtype it is easiest to show and realize himself over the
2nd function, but in principle, other variants are possible.
On another note, if the result or product of the Dominant subtype is
immediately demonstrates and “hyped up”  the Creative subtype can
easily create “for himself”, to write knowing his writing won’t get
published, or for a narrow circle of those for whom it may be needed or
interesting.
The Creative subtype is not very discerning of various social-relational
games, but he doesn’t protest if he gets pulled into such a game.
He easily takes off, “a person with eccentricities”, capable of an
unusual and generally foreign to his sociotype actions (for example, an
LII who doesn’t only go hitchhiking himself, but also takes his wife and
children along for the trip).
The Creative subtype is not interested in anything besides that which is
truly interesting to him  in the sense that he ignores everything else
(passively or actively). Including people (for Creative subtypes of
logical types: “those people are like wooden poles”). May actively
renounce something if it hinders him personally. By these means,
Creative subtype “slips by”, since a renounced topic is not important to
understand because it’s outside the scope of his interests.
Creative subtype attitude towards norms or standards is negative or
indifferent, which is especially clearly displayed on the aspect of role
function: that is, a person of Creative subtype does not strive to abide
by “generally accepted” standards. (Julia (Balzac) was genuinely
surprised at my attempt to wash the fruit bought at the market  what
for? At my explanations “So that they are clean”, and that “I may eat
unwashed fruit, but they should be given to a small child” Julia just
waved her hand dismissively.)
Normalizing Subtype
¶
He rarely drank, he was not rude.
Such luck, girls, only happens once.
One thing was perplexing: he would brush his teeth
And then he never closed the tube.
Well, I didn’t pay attention to this at first.
This man was sent to me from heaven.
And like a woman I forgave him.
Everything, even the tube, damn it.
And he, while drawing, went into nirvana:
Then suddenly he hugs me - I love you, he says, and that’s the end!
Then suddenly, the mischevious man, he drags me into the bath,
And there… lies the open tube of toothpaste!
And I, like a fool, washed his socks.
And put boullion cube into the soup
And all I have asked for, all I pleaded for, was:
“When you’ve brushed your teeth - close the freaking tube!”
And he, the bastard, retorts as if on purpose:
“”All this, Glasha,” he says, “is unimportant.”
Tell me, girls, is it possible
To love and shit at the same time?
From resentment I went to the neighbor.
Since the neighbor has dentures,
And on the shelf a tube of “Blendamedu”
Lies closed. How wonderful!
[Viktor Tretyakov. “Tube.”]
Normalizing subtype, truly, tries to order everything that is within his
sphere of direct action or influence. “All the pot handles must point to
one side”  this quote from the autobiography of Khmelevskoy (about her
husband) ironically but accurately characterizes the Normalizing
subtype. However, the sphere of ordering has a clear boundary: that
which is inside is “mine”, “that with which I can identify with”. “My
house,” “my job,” etc. This “mine” must stay in a specific order, that
is introduced by the Normalizing subtype. This order may or may not be
visible to third-party observers. Regardless of this, any violation of
order is perceived as troubling, much like a pebble in the shoe.
Things that symbolize order - compartment trays, cases with partitions
(for screws, for example), sets of identical items (jars of spices,
dinnerware), drawers, cabinets, holders, organizers - delight the
Normalizing subtype.
Any activity the Normalizing subtype begins with establishing order,
structure, designation of boundaries, methods and deadlines. He is very
efficient and diligent. He is not afraid of monotonous work,
“nit-picking”, polishing and finishing work begun by someone else. It is
difficult for him to start on a task, but once he “gets into it” the
rest proceeds much better. It is much more pleasant to work when “the
end line” is visible, when the bigger part has already been
accomplished.
If there is no opportunity to “bring order”, the unsettling feeling can
be dispelled by means of moving the “mess” beyond the borders of what is
“mine”. “Other people have a right to as much as much disorganization as
they wish, and it’s none of my business.” This happens when someone else
has the right to the territory or activity, or when the activity is
shared but the partner who opposes organization. Then the Normalizing
subtype goes into “whatever you say, I will do” mode, by force of his
will erasing the image of mass chaos from his awareness.
In general, leaving the situation is a common way for Normalizing to
solve the problem. Normalizing subtype’s method of fighting and
expressing protest and disagreement - passive observation and inaction -
are designed for the Dominant subtype; however, this may also be a sign
of lack of energy (interest, time, etc.). In this case the Dominant
subtype will add more energy, and then it becomes clear either the
Normalizing subtype does what the Dominant subtype wants from him, or he
will leave his influence and move away.
In comparison with other subtypes, Normalizing subtype is dull,
inexpressive, boring. But balanced and “thick-skinned”, as the
Normalizing-Dominant pair is in general. Doesn’t easily take offense or
show initiative. His motto is: “Let’s see how you will show yourself.”
He analyzes, weighs, estimates all the plusses and minuses. In
relationships he by default leaves much to the discretion of his
partner, though he makes notes to himself of the type “shouldn’t try to
resolve business questions with this person”, “this information is not
to be trusted”, etc. Thus, ngative relations the Normalizing subtype
formulates as: “Don’t associate/become tied to this person!”
Does not strive to participate in competitive struggle, is not
ambitious. This does not mean that he doesn’t grow as a person and
develop further  he fully develops and improves, for example, in
professional work; he is diligent and strives to do his job as well as
possible. However, the realm of ambitions he leaves to the Dominant
subtype, not even trying to compete with him (or with anyone in
general). He prefers to be second.
Cleaning for the Normalizing subtype is means for removing discomfort.
When “something is wrong”, he begins to clean up his living space (the
main thing here is not “to wipe off dust and mud”, but “to arrange
things in their places”).
With logical types of Normalizing subtype it is especially noticeable
how each thing has its place in their houses, and by default gets put
there. The “order” of ethical types is more difficult to track down;
however, try moving anything from place to place in Normalizing
subtype’s apartment, and immediately - by the reaction of owner - it
will become clear that these things weren’t put there haphazardly.
Moreover the person of Normalizing subtype will not curse or scold, but
he will simply immediately move everything “as it should be”. Although
he might perhaps frown.
The Normalizing subtype calls for carrying out norms and rules that have
to do with his own role function (other types, of course, also adhere to
norms of their role function, but with Normalizing subtypes this is more
noticeable, especially requiring the same from others). For example,
Normalizing Dumas (SEI) is adamant in his wish that guests do not arrive
late, Normalizing Balzac (ILI) will make sure that everyone washes their
hands before eating, and Normalizing Jack (LIE) calls for control over
emotions: “We were worried, but that’s enough!”
Harmonizing Subtype
¶
Most important is the weather in the house
Quite lively and recognizable by his main type’s description, however,
in comparison with the classic type description he is “suspiciously”
nice. It seems that the negative traits of a sociotype have no relation
to the harmonizing subtype.
Soft and delicate; although these qualities are somewhat limited by the
capabilities of the type. That is, an ethical type of Harmonizing
subtype is usually a very ethical person. He always wants to do
something so that everyone is well. Even a logical type, but with
logical type for some reason it turns out to be “he wanted to do best,
but it turned out as always”.
In contrast to the Normalizing-Dominant dyad, Harmonizing and Creative
is a complementary pair with a “delicate structure of the soul”.
Especially, of course, the Harmonizing subtype: sensitive, worrying,
touchy, altruistic, self-sacrificing.
Like the Dominant subtype, the Harmonizing subtype functions as a
connector, that is, he establishes the necessary links to the
environment. But where Dominant does so crudely and directly,
Harmonizing does so by careful manipulation (he is capable of
manipulation that provides multiple moves, for the purpose of making
another person become well).
The Harmonizing subtype monitors social desirability and conforms to it.
(“A gentleman is that man who calls a cat a cat, even having stepped on
it in darkness”) This especially applies to relational and gender
stereotypes. Moreover, if the Harmonizing subtype has armed himself with
a gender stereotype, he doesn’t simply behave in accordance with it, but
moves it closer to an ideal. This is the Ideal Man (“I’m going to earn
money for my beloved!”) or an Ideal Woman.
The Harmonizing subtype doesn’t really want to do something “for
himself”. Now, if it was for a close person, then  anything they wish.
Always ready to help, to go for agreements and compromises, often
thereby inconveniencing himself. Often he lives with a sensation of
discomfort and stress, and consciously goes for this. If something is
coming together on its own - this isn’t sufficiently valuable to him.
But if he does something for someone else, that’s he didn’t wish to do -
this will be a significant Good Deed. Therefore Harmonizers are often
doing something with their painful function. When people talk about PoLR
as a “secondary creative function”, this is about Harmonizing subtype.
The Harmonizing subtype cannot stand it when anyone argues or scolds, or
disharmonizes their environment somehow. Here again he tries to help, to
fix the situation, since it makes him feel badly.
He is well aware of how he must behave so that others won’t feel badly.
Evaluates those around him from the point of view of the ethicalness of
their behavior, strives to educate them. Worries and feels himself bad
if he has committed some unethical act.
The Harmonizing subtype finds it difficult to insult people “directly”,
to fault and accuse a person even if he/she has deserved it. He either
tries to express his displeasure and resentment delicately, or he keeps
silent and sulks. Even when it is already evident that he thinks poorly
of someone, it is put across something like this: “I think poorly of
you, but for the sake of our good relationship, I won’t say anything
about it”. As a result, a “delicate hint” coming from harmonizing can be
much more offensive than a direct “attack”. For example: “Thank you for
the lack of birthday congratulations. It was very nice, ladies and
gentlemen.” The Dominant subtype would have said: “It’s my birthday!
Quickly, everybody congratulate me!” And no problem
Or another situation - a guest hasn’t taken off his shoes at the
entrance as the home owner would have liked. The Dominant subtype puts a
stop to this business at the root: you won’t have time to enter, you
will immediately be told where to remove your boots. (“Where are you
going? Stop! - they will say.) The Normalizing subtype will mutter to
the side: “Why is it that everyone walks in their boots past the green
rug, which is is the size of the entire lobby?” (and he himself will put
the shoes where they must go). The Creative subtype might not notice
anything; or he will notice, but consider it too unimportant to say
anything about it. But the Harmonizing subtype will keep silent out of
delicacy, but will remember: “how could a guest enter in his shoes, is
he a bad person?!”
See also
¶
Subtyping Systems
Theory of Subtypes: DCNH System by Victor Gulenko
Accentuation of Functions