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:
Terminating
Initiating
Contacting
Distancing
Dominating
Normalizing
subtype
subtype
(connecting)
(ignoring)
Creative
Harmonizing
subtype
subtype
(ignoring)
(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