# DCNH is for you :)



## LibertyPrime

@________@


----------



## d e c a d e n t

FreeBeer said:


> @__________@


To think this member exists too.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Kink said:


> To think this member exists too.


:laughing: I just made a smiley....how odd.


----------



## ALongTime

Just to clarify something. Can any type be any subtype, so for example can you have an H-EII even though Si/Ni are outside the mental ring?


----------



## MNiS

Kink said:


> It's still confusing to me. :bored:


Structurally, it's simple. In addition to the basic intertype relations, there is also an accompanying set of relations that isn't well explained with Model A alone. That second system is DCNH which is a set of supervisory chains. D supervises C; C supervises N; N supervises H; and finally H supervises D. The chain occurs only in that order and never in the reverse although there are instances where the supervisory chain can be temporarily reversed. That is never sustainable which is why it is unadvisable to attempt to do so. It's all explained in the article if you read it.

So it's this chain that have a subtle but definite impact on the normal Model A relations which is why it's also useful and necessary to make a unified theory a reality.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Hmm the first time I read it I didn't understand it. Now, I still don't lol.

Basically, I think this:


> Strengthening a pair of functions in this context means that you focus on the content of the information, the experience, it's very practical, not just processing. It does NOT mean that you start using the function more in the model A structure. For example, if a SEI strengthens Ni (Harmonizing), it is NOT the same as emphasizing the role (that would feel stressful). This is why some people have misunderstood DCNH because they think that it is against the rules of socionics to strengthen for example Si and Ni at the same time. But this is in fact the rule, this kind of strengening happens in pairs.


is what is preventing me from making sense of it. What is a "focus on the content of the information" and in what way does it differ from model A's information processing?


----------



## Entropic

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Hmm the first time I read it I didn't understand it. Now, I still don't lol.
> 
> Basically, I think this:
> 
> is what is preventing me from making sense of it. What is a "focus on the content of the information" and in what way does it differ from model A's information processing?


Know the feel bro. DCNH never made much sense to me either. Sometimes I think Gulenko's Ti gets too much hiccup around the number 4 for the sake of it regardless of whether it makes sense to do that or not.


----------



## AST

-Ephemeral- said:


> Know the feel bro. DCNH never made much sense to me either. Sometimes I think Gulenko's Ti gets too much hiccup around the number 4 for the sake of it regardless of whether it makes sense to do that or not.


I experience something similar. I tend to group things in fours as a symbol of completion and harmony. Things that come in sets outside of four or a multiple of four just seem "off". I don't know if it has something to do with the fact that four is, mathematically, easily divisible and sectioned, which makes perfect sense from a Ti perspective. Just something to think about.


----------



## MNiS

AST said:


> I experience something similar. I tend to group things in fours as a symbol of completion and harmony. Things that come in sets outside of four or a multiple of four just seem "off". I don't know if it has something to do with the fact that four is, mathematically, easily divisible and sectioned, which makes perfect sense from a Ti perspective. Just something to think about.


That's because you mathematically think in base 2 and you like two raised to the second power as opposed to the third power.

Nice round numbers like a base 10 system makes the most sense to me, however.

...but I guess if I were to revert to mathematical thinking, I think I'd prefer thinking in base four and preferably four squared or even Eight, raised to the power of One.


----------



## AST

MNiS said:


> That's because you mathematically think in base 2 and you like two raised to the second power as opposed to the third power.
> 
> Nice round numbers like a base 10 system makes the most sense to me, however.
> 
> ...but I guess if I were to revert to mathematical thinking, I think I'd prefer thinking in base four and preferably four squared.


I'm probably reading too much into this, but I can easily see how Ti would favor base 2 and Te would favor base 10.


----------



## MNiS

AST said:


> I'm probably reading too much into this, but I can easily see how Ti would favor base 2 and Te would favor base 10.


Nah, Te would favor Eight, raised to the power of One.

That's very empowering. Look: [SUP]1[/SUP]8[sup]1[/sup]


----------



## AST

MNiS said:


> Nah, Te would favor Eight, raised to the power of One.
> 
> That's very empowering. Look: [SUP]1[/SUP]8[SUP]1[/SUP]


I don't understand what you're trying to communicate and I suspect you're fucking with me. In either case, could you please elucidate?


----------



## MNiS

AST said:


> I don't understand what you're trying to communicate and I suspect you're fucking with me.


Why on Earth would you think that. 0



> In either case, could you please elucidate?


I value Harmony, not Dominance and bullying.


----------



## AST

MNiS said:


> Why on Earth would you think that. 0
> 
> 
> 
> I value Harmony, not Dominance and bullying.


I see the 8 jokes have extended to the Socionics forum.


----------



## MNiS

AST said:


> I see the 8 jokes have extended to the Socionics forum.


There's a reason why Enneagram Eights believe in a higher plane of existence and willingly follow such transcendental thoughts.


----------



## AST

MNiS said:


> There's a reason why Enneagram Eights believe in a higher plane of existence.


That's because it exists.


----------



## MNiS

AST said:


> That's because it exists.


You don't like the thought of an afterlife where everything imaginable just continuously improves? That makes me happy to think there's an even better place waiting for me after I die at the ripe old age of 112 or... somewhere around there.


----------



## AST

MNiS said:


> You don't like the thought of an afterlife where everything imaginable just continuously improves. That makes me happy to think there's an even better place waiting for me after I die at the ripe old age of 112 or... somewhere around there.


I don't know what you think you're getting at, but you're wrong. Such thought doesn't bother me because I don't even firmly believe that an afterlife even exists, and attempting to guess that based on my type is absurd. And even if I did believe in an afterlife, I don't have any reason to object to a constant state of improvement. I'm done with this discussion until it returns to the actual topic at hand.


----------



## Kanerou

ESI-H here. I like the concept. For one thing, it explains how I, despite being lazy, procrastinating and absolutely abysmal at completing things, am still a rational. Obviously, I'm rational because I am Fi-base, but DCNH takes these other habits into consideration as well. There isn't a perfect box for me, since I'm something like Distant/Initial/Ignoring, and that doesn't exist in the 4-sub system, but H is close enough. If I broke it down into an 8-sub system, it would put me at ESI-Ni, and I have no problem with that.


----------



## Entropic

AST said:


> I experience something similar. I tend to group things in fours as a symbol of completion and harmony. Things that come in sets outside of four or a multiple of four just seem "off". I don't know if it has something to do with the fact that four is, mathematically, easily divisible and sectioned, which makes perfect sense from a Ti perspective. Just something to think about.


Yep, I've seen this so much in Ti types. It just leaves me scratching my head to be honest. Ti must just utterly strive towards that kind of symmetry and if it doesn't fit they will darn make it fit sometimes imo, to the detriment of the actual reality of things. 

I mean, I do appreciate symmetry too, but I feel like Te types appreciate symmetry in a different way from Ti. Ti likes how everything lines up logically based on some subjective axiomatic standard, but Te likes symmetry because it literally looks the same or has the same result or whatever.

The reason why I like the symmetry of a squared box is because the squares look the same, not because whatever weird reason Ti types like it.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

MNiS said:


> Fi-PoLR types only appear to lack tact to the Serious Quadras. They're considered clever; "charming"; quaint; witty; funny; etcetc to the Merry Quadras.


Perhaps, but I meant to an unhealthy degree, beyond sociotype. 



> Alphas and Betas probably think I'm a major ass nowadays because I purposely offend their Fe sensibilities.


You Fi-egos. >.<


----------



## MNiS

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Perhaps, but I meant to an unhealthy degree, beyond sociotype.


Nah, I've never met an SLE I didn't like. It's the sociopathic ILEs that I wanted to strangle though. So f**king narcissistic in a way that I really *do not* like.



> You Fi-egos. >.<


You know your Role. Mine is Se. :bored:


----------



## d e c a d e n t

MNiS said:


> Strengthened Se and Ne are known as Creative types because Pe is the creative function as what society deems to be creative. SEE, SLE, IEE, ILE are all super creative within their respective domains. LII, EII, LSI, ESI; to a lesser extent.


Yeah ok, I'm probably not a Creative type according to this then. =P


----------



## MNiS

Kink said:


> Yeah ok, I'm probably not a Creative type according to this then. =P


You seem very much like a Normalizing type. -_____-


----------



## d e c a d e n t

MNiS said:


> You seem very much like a Normalizing type. -_____-


Lol! Is that so? Guess I should look into that then. =P Anything specific that gives you the impression?


----------



## MNiS

Kink said:


> Lol! Is that so? Guess I should look into that then. =P Anything specific that gives you the impression?


Well, mainly because you said you're not a Creative type, clearly not a Domination type and you enjoy conflict too much to be a Harmonizing type. Thus Normalizing. : )


----------



## d e c a d e n t

MNiS said:


> Well, mainly because you said you're not a Creative type, clearly not a Domination type and you enjoy conflict too much to be a Harmonizing type. Thus Normalizing. : )


I see. Well, enjoying conflict... depends on how involved I am in it, I guess. It's easier to just observe lol.


----------



## Entropic

@MNiS what subtype do you think I am and if so, why?

Also re: creative and Pe, what do you mean by that? Creative as in creating things like arts, ideas, whatever?


----------



## MNiS

-Ephemeral- said:


> @_MNiS_ what subtype do you think I am and if so, why?


Harmonizing because you don't enjoy conflict.



> Also re: creative and Pe, what do you mean by that? Creative as in creating things like arts, ideas, whatever?


Creative as in creating creative things, yes.


----------



## Entropic

MNiS said:


> Harmonizing because you don't enjoy conflict.


That honestly doesn't seem accurate in a sense, at all. I am clearly an instigator of conflict quite a lot of the time. I am very sure I am contact on the first dichotomy because I think depression is making me more introverted than I really am. Also pretty sure I am initial. Not sure I understand the last one but the only other one I could be if so would be dominant. I don't think I am as I do not seem very good or place much emphasis on Je.


----------



## MNiS

-Ephemeral- said:


> That honestly doesn't seem accurate in a sense, at all. I am clearly an instigator of conflict quite a lot of the time. I am very sure I am contact on the first dichotomy because I think depression is making me more introverted than I really am. Also pretty sure I am initial. Not sure I understand the last one but the only other one I could be if so would be dominant. I don't think I am as I do not seem very good or place much emphasis on Je.


I think you're a Harmonizing type who is a reflection of his respective society.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Well, seems like finally this thing is making some sense to me, though I'm still not completely sure about two dichotomies, just contact seems legit, while between terminal/initial and connecting/ignoring I still have to think a bit more. Anyway after reading the information I think that N or H make no sense to me.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

@MNiS
I'll admit, it's interesting that you see me as liking conflict while Eph does not. :laughing:

With that said, having taken a look at the Harmonizing subtype, it doesn't quite sound like me no. Now to see if Normalizing sounds any closer.


----------



## MNiS

Kink said:


> @_MNiS_
> I'll admit, it's interesting that you see me as liking conflict while Eph does not. :laughing:


Well, it's the truth.



> With that said, having taken a look at the Harmonizing subtype, it doesn't quite sound like me no. Now to see if Normalizing sounds any closer.


Good luck. : )


----------



## Entropic

MNiS said:


> I think you're a Harmonizing type who is a reflection of his respective society.


WTF? Do you even know what Sweden is like lol? 



MNiS said:


> Well, it's the truth.


Your understanding of the truth then quite frankly sucks.


----------



## MNiS

-Ephemeral- said:


> WTF? Do you even know what Sweden is like lol?


Well, pleasant with a lot of countryside and harsh winters.



> Your understanding of the truth then quite frankly sucks.


Well...


----------



## Entropic

MNiS said:


> Well, pleasant with a lot of countryside and harsh winters.


But Swedish society lol? Clearly not. I mean, do you think these posts of mine come across as someone who is a harmonizing type to you? Take this for example:



> Or another situation -- a guest has walked in street shoes further than the home owner would like. Dominant puts a stop to this business at the root: you will not have time to enter, you will immediately be told where to remove your boots. (“Where do you think you're going?” they can also say.)* Normalizing will mutter to the side: “And why is it that everyone walks in their boots past my wonderful green custom bristly rug, which is is the size of the entire lobby?” (and he himself will rearrange all the shoes to where they must go)*. Creative - it is not at all certain that he will notice anything; or he will notice, but consider it too unimportant to say anything about it. But Harmonizing will keep silent out of delicacy, but will remember: how could this guest enter in boots, the fiend?!


How am I doing the latter in bold? I am clearly doing the former, asserting exactly what I think. 

And I read the descriptions and based off that I'd say I would overall frankly fit dominant better but it's whatever really. I don't have a real opinion on the subject.


----------



## MNiS

-Ephemeral- said:


> But Swedish society lol? Clearly not. I mean, do you think these posts of mine come across as someone who is a harmonizing type to you? Take this for example:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I doing the latter in bold? I am clearly doing the former, asserting exactly what I think.
> 
> And I read the descriptions and based off that I'd say I would overall frankly fit dominant better but it's whatever really. I don't have a real opinion on the subject.


Okay then Normalizing or N type.


----------



## Kintsugi

I looked into this shit once and it felt like my brain was going to explode. It defeated me.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

> Normalizing's negative relationship is formulated thus: “Do not be connected!”


:crazy:


----------



## The Exception

myst91 said:


> Wow so many versions of this? I didn't know... btw I can't decide on my DCNH subtype. I can be D, C or N (going by Gulenko). I feel most natural in D mode, I think. As soon as I read that N brings stability to a system/society, I discounted it. Lol. I could also see some C behaviour about myself at times. The only thing I am *not*, is H. Which honestly just makes D more likely.


You're kind of like the opposite of me. I'm *not* D and you're *not* H. I'm not totally sure either, H is probably the closest. I'm going by Gulenko which seems the most accepted definition. Plus most of the people have DCNH subtyped me have said H but that's a very small sample size. 4 votes for H , 1 vote for C.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

hornet said:


> I dunno I havn't even bothered to look into it.
> I just had to diss the title.
> 
> For the little I read, model a still applies so this is like
> an addon or more fine grained resolution of the issues or something.


Now that I understand it, it's actually pretty cool because it offers more nuance and states the difference between how people interact with others and their cognition (energetic socionics vs informational socionics, though I believe Gulenko's made an energy model or something that I don't know anything about). So you can have like stereotypically Ne zany, innovative, experimental SLEs or IEIs that are quite domineering and offer very poor demonstrations of Te or how people's words may not match their actions very well. And it is a very flexible system given that your type may change throughout your life, emphasizing the behavioural aspect. Of course, it's not necessary to learn it if you are already aware of what cognition is and how people that belong to the same type behave differently.


----------



## myst91

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Now that I understand it, it's actually pretty cool because it offers more nuance and states the difference between how people interact with others and their cognition (energetic socionics vs informational socionics, though I believe Gulenko's made an energy model or something that I don't know anything about). So you can have like stereotypically Ne zany, innovative, experimental SLEs or IEIs that are quite domineering and offer very poor demonstrations of Te or how people's words may not match their actions very well. And it is a very flexible system given that your type may change throughout your life, emphasizing the behavioural aspect. Of course, it's not necessary to learn it if you are already aware of what cognition is and how people that belong to the same type behave differently.


Actually I'm warming up to DCNH myself - this is the aspect that was missing in trying to type my brother. He's apparently LIE-Te-C and finally it all adds up about him.

From a theoretical viewpoint, I would say it's good that it adds refinement in a logical way but I could totally nitpick at the core idea behind it. No problem though, I know how to treat Socionics anyway as a system with issues but still describing something very real.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

myst91 said:


> Actually I'm warming up to DCNH myself - this is the aspect that was missing in trying to type my brother. He's apparently LIE-Te-C and finally it all adds up about him.


You are going off Borisova then? I say this because there seems to be less information on that theory compared to Gulenko's. Unless there's some articles I haven't seen.



> From a theoretical viewpoint, I would say it's good that it adds refinement in a logical way but I could totally nitpick at the core idea behind it. No problem though, I know how to treat Socionics anyway as a system with issues but still describing something very real.


And what would the core idea be?


----------



## Inveniet

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Now that I understand it, it's actually pretty cool because it offers more nuance and states the difference between how people interact with others and their cognition (energetic socionics vs informational socionics, though I believe Gulenko's made an energy model or something that I don't know anything about). So you can have like stereotypically Ne zany, innovative, experimental SLEs or IEIs that are quite domineering and offer very poor demonstrations of Te or how people's words may not match their actions very well. And it is a very flexible system given that your type may change throughout your life, emphasizing the behavioural aspect. Of course, it's not necessary to learn it if you are already aware of what cognition is and how people that belong to the same type behave differently.


Yeah well I'm finding more variation trough the instincts and the enneagram for the moment.
If I ever wonder what to do next after those DCNH will be on the list.


----------



## Kintsugi

I want to understand this but.....UGHHH. :frustrating:

_...I think I might be creative sub type (C)_


----------



## Entropic

myst91 said:


> Gee no that's not how Ti works. I mean this is like an oversimplified view of how a Ti ego works. It's not simply getting "hiccup" on a specific neat number


No, I know, but that's what it looks to me. 



> To the detriment of actual reality, you mean LxI's only, right?


Yes. 



> The bolded sounds more Se to me unless you have a logical reason for why you want things to look the same.


I don't think it's Se because Se wouldn't care about whether objects lining up logically like that in the first place in that their definitions or criteria for being are made equal. 



> "Whatever weird reason" - are you honestly interested in the reason? I'm glad to talk to you about this - at least about how I experience this because yes I do relate to liking symmetry for a deeper reason than just squares looking the same...
> 
> And lol, I don't think I will understand Te as much as I understand Ti, and vice versa for you hahahah which is my real point here hahah ;p


No shit.


----------



## myst91

Entropic said:


> No, I know, but that's what it looks to me.


OK.




> I don't think it's Se because Se wouldn't care about whether objects lining up logically like that in the first place in that their definitions or criteria for being are made equal.


OK but the idea that "because it literally looks the same", it doesn't sound very Te either unless it has some point to it.




> No shit.


Riiight


----------



## Typhon

What advantage do you get, from promoting a system like DCNH? What money do you gain? What power? etc. 

My opinion is that DCNH is just too complicated. Sorry. I prefer two subtypes system.


----------



## The Exception

It's been said that the D subtype focuses on the base, the C subtype on the creative, the N subtype on the role, and the H subtype on the PoLR. 

Could someone explain this too me as this would contradict the idea that D strengthens Te/Fe, C strengthens Se/Ne, N strengthens Ti/Fi, and H strengthens Si/Ni. Wouldn't this also depend on the temperament? 

In an EJ type, you have
Base: Te or Fe (corresponds to D functions)
Creative: Si or Ni (Corresponds to H)
Role: Te or Fe (corresponds to D)
PoLR: Si or Ni (corresponds to H)

Adding the other 4 functions for EJs
Suggestive: Ti or Fi (N)
Mobilizing: Ne or Se (C)
Ignoring: Ti or Fi (N)
Demonstrative: Ne or Se (C)

So for EJs, wouldn't be better to say that D-EJs focus more on base/role, C-EJs focus more on mobilizing/demonstrative, N-EJs on Suggestive/Ignoring, and H-EJs on creative/PoLR?

Doing this for the other temperaments, you would then have:
EPs: D-EP focuses more on mobilizing/demonstrative, C-EP on base/role, N-EP on creative/PoLR, and H-EP on suggestive/ignoring
IJs: D-IJ focuses more on suggestive/demonstrative, C-IJ on creative/PoLR, N-IJ on base/role, and H-IJ on mobilizing/demonstrative
IPs: D-IP on creative/PoLR, C-IP on suggestive/ignoring, N-IP on mobilizing/demonstrative, and H-IP on base/role


----------



## Typhon

Kintsugi said:


> I want to understand this but.....UGHHH. :frustrating:


Yeah. I dont really feel like going through all these explanations either, especially since it feels Im never gonna be able to use it. I have a hard enough time explaining socionics to my friends and relatives as is, it doesnt need to be more complicated, lol.


----------



## Entropic

Typhon said:


> What advantage do you get, from promoting a system like DCNH? What money do you gain? What power? etc.
> 
> My opinion is that DCNH is just too complicated. Sorry. I prefer two subtypes system.


The advantages are that you can explain why two people who are of the same sociotype can be very different. If you want a more Te-oriented advantage, it is that it explains what kind of roles people are likely to fulfill in a group environment where they need to cooperate with each other in order to get something done. Here you can see a lot of practical application knowing people's DCNH type because you can quickly identify whether someone is working in a role that is suitable according to their DCNH and shuffle people around based on such needs and preferences thus overall, making the group production much more efficient.


----------



## LibertyPrime

@Entropic

:frustrating: ok, so i'm creative subtype. :\ what does this mean for me as IEE >_> other then being a natural born anarchist & loving this song? XD?








> This subtype, conversely, is the least similar to the canonical type description. It is the most flexible subtype. It has a strong inclination toward "Mirror", as though the 1st and 2nd functions had switched places. The introvert is similar to the extravert, and the extravert to the introvert. And in general all type features in Creative are watered down.


Makes sense why I feel like I'm a introvert, when in truth I'm not.



> It seems there is a feeling that with Creative subtype the intertype relationships are also "watered down" -- because he conducts himself "outside the box" by the standards of his type.


Hmm.....



> Creative, one way or another, finds himself in the sphere of ideas and creativity, and not necessarily artistic creativity -- it may well be scientific, or a hobby; generally a creative element is introduced into any pursuit, otherwise the Creative is uninterested. If someone else's product falls to him, the Creative will remake it, "upgrade it", rethink it.


BECAUSE its BORING to leave shit as it is  & FUN to play around with it.



> It is easiest to demonstrate Creative in the 2nd function, but in principle, variants are possible. Incidentally, if a product originates from a Dominant it is immediately exposed as show and "hype" -- Creative can easily work "for himself", "on the table" [Translator's Note: this seems to be an idiom meaning "alone" or "at home, in private"], or for a narrow circle of those to whom it may be necessary and/or interesting.


XD ahahahaha...true.



> He does not really understand the various social-relational games, but he does not protest if he gets entagled in such a game.


<_< ahaaa, so this is why I'm blind & deaf to that crap...screw that!



> Easily stirred, an "odd duck", can act in ways unusual in general and alien to his type in particular (for example, Robespierre, not only going hitchhiking himself, but also sending the wife and children off on/to track/run)


 makes sense, I'm one hell of an odd ENFP even for ENFP standards....and I pride myself in it (amongst other eccentricities)



> *The Creative 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 logicals -- "those people are boring sheep"). May actively renounce something if it hinders him personally. By this Creative "slips by", since a renounced topic is not important to understand, once it is outside the scope of his interests.


Ohhh..now we are talking! Cats out of the bag now! ....fuck, its true. Its more like that stuff is not on the radar at all.



> The attitude to standards in general is negative or indifferent, which is displayed especially clearly in the aspect of role function: that is, Creative does not strive to abide by "generally accepted" standards (At an attempt to wash market fruit, Julia (Balzac) was genuinely surprised -- what for? At my explanations "So they are clean", and that "I may eat unwashed fruit, but it shouldn't be given to a small child unwashed," Julia just waved her hand dismissively.).


:crazy:


----------



## Entropic

It's late and I need to prepare for the night but I'll try to get back to you on this tomorrow but tl;dr is that it makes you like, Ne and Se-ish.


----------



## Artorias

-Edo-Tensei.

-I still don't understand the correlation between the subtype system in socionics and this.


----------



## counterintuitive

The question I've had since I started looking into this is about the model A connection in the OP. What happens for instance with C-Ep? Creative subtype strengthens Ne/Se, supposedly, which seems right. But then it also strengthens the creative function, so boosts Ti/Fi in an Ep as well. So essentially a C-Ep will have their whole ego block strengthened?

That seems to conflict with Inert/Contact subtype, where a more valued base/HA will suppress the creative/DS and a more valued creative/DS will suppress the base/HA (comparatively). The whole ego block cannot be strengthened together.

I guess there is some ambiguity (perhaps only in my mind ) in whether it's saying I'd _more highly value_ Ne/Se or whether Ne/Se would actually be _stronger/boosted_. Because, I guess, the Inert/Contact subtype is about valuing the functions vs. the DCNH seems to be about boosting their strength. IDK if that's right though.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> The question I've had since I started looking into this is about the model A connection in the OP. What happens for instance with C-Ep? Creative subtype strengthens Ne/Se, supposedly, which seems right. But then it also strengthens the creative function, so boosts Ti/Fi in an Ep as well. So essentially a C-Ep will have their whole ego block strengthened?


Creative subtype in DCNH is not the same thing as Contact/Creative subtype in the Inert/Contact subtype system, it's a coincidence that the label is similar.

Btw I don't buy either Inert/Contact or Accepting/Producing subtype systems in the way they are presented - I don't think all inert functions would necessarily be strengthened together, for example.




> That seems to conflict with Inert/Contact subtype, where a more valued base/HA will suppress the creative/DS and a more valued creative/DS will suppress the base/HA (comparatively). The whole ego block cannot be strengthened together.


It could actually be strengthened together.


----------



## isuma

How are the same people thanking the post multiple times? That's weird, oh well, off topic.

Anyway, thanks!


----------



## isuma

Funny, if anything, I think I'm probably a Harmonizing type, and it so happens that the music of Harmonizing SLEs is the type of SLE music that I like, spiritual-oriented. I had noticed the phenomenon of 'spiritual SLEs' before and noticed that I could relate to them surprisingly well, for my extinguishment relation, especially in the realm of music. They seem to be talking about something that I understand, more so than SLEs who are not 'spiritually oriented' in some way. I had asked myself, 'Why is it that I actually resonate with something that my extinguisher is doing?' Some of my favorite songs from my teenage years might have been written by suspected SLEs, although I don't know, I don't have a lot of examples right now.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Creative subtype in DCNH is not the same thing as Contact/Creative subtype in the Inert/Contact subtype system, it's a coincidence that the label is similar.


I figured as much (that the name was a coincidence), but was puzzled by the "Model A Connection" (rightmost column) in the OP which says that each DCNH subtype strenghtens a function:









(image is from the OP)

Is that not saying that for a C-Ep, the DCNH Creative subtype strengthens Ne/Se, but also strengthens the creative function due to the "Model A connection", so boosts Ti/Fi as well? Or is that "Model A connection" just some BS? 



> Btw I don't buy either Inert/Contact or Accepting/Producing subtype systems in the way they are presented - *I don't think all inert functions would necessarily be strengthened together*, for example.


Yeah, on first glance that doesn't seem like it would necessarily be the case.

Would I at least be correct in thinking, for instance, that both Ti and Fe couldn't simultaneously be strengthened because they repress each other.



> It could actually be strengthened together.


Well that renders my original question moot either way. Lol. Thanks.




isuma said:


> How are the same people thanking the post multiple times? That's weird, oh well, off topic.


Forum glitch.  http://personalitycafe.com/support-suggestions/700562-really-weird-stuff-going-thanks.html


----------



## The Exception

Self-submerged, autistic subtype for me. Yippee!:smilewoot:


----------



## Jerdle

I'm LII-C, with a strong enough subtype that I have been mistaken for an extrovert.


----------

