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.

  1. 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].

  2. 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.

  3. Normalizing along the primary axis produces role of the conscience of the group, while normalizing along the secondary creates the role of the coordinator.

  4. 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.