DCNH Subtypes: Empirical Portraits by Vera Borisova¶
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:
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.
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?!”