System of DCNH Subtypes
From Wikisocion
Viktor Gulenko September 20, 2006. Теория подтипов: система DCNH
Contents |
[edit] The problem of intra-type differences
Why are people of one type so different? This question has for a long time disturbed each sober-minded socionics-practitioner. Why can two carriers of one and the same psychological system, which has an identical structure, demonstrate in one and the same situation such different models of behavior?
Conduct a simple experiment. Gather 3-4 people of a single type, it unimportant which type their school’s specialist determined. Give them any mutually accessible task (a jointly solved intellectual puzzle or a game and such) and observe their behavior. And you will see that in spite of the identity of their type, some of them will be more active, others more passive, some more resourceful, others more conservative and so forth. The most interesting thing is that the greater the number of representatives of the same type which you gather, the greater the large number of differences will you reveal between them. Thus, the depth of the typology is possible to increase even further.
This state of affairs must not seem astonishing. Other regions of human perception have an analogous arrangement. Actually, scrutinizing a surface drawn in primary colors of paint you will, as a rule, see one nuance or another. And in the sound of a musical instrument, you can grasp a characteristic overtone – the timbre. The situation is comparable to holding a stamp in your hands, which does not change in the course of time, yet different imprints are obtained each time. So in the psyche of a real person - a carrier of the type - there is always present, in effect, an admixture of some other type. Here I call this admixture subtype, or a version of the type.
We meet a similar phenomenon in other sciences. You will recall isomerism - the ability of a chemical compound, without changing its composition, to form substances with different properties. Subtypes are nothing more than unique psychological isomers. The existence of varieties of a type is a completely normal phenomenon within the framework of a biological outline.
I proposed long ago a sufficiently systematic solution to the problem of intra-type differences - near the end of the ‘80s. In this report I would like to present a contemporary appraisal of the problem.
Purely theoretically, the subtype problem is solved in two ways.
The first way lies through the introduction of special dichotomies. With respect to the customary common type dichotomies, they bear a specific concrete nature, thus coming out as lower level factors. I call this procedure combinatory-dichotomous.
The alternate path examines the strengthening of various functions within the framework of the classical sociomodel. The fact is that the manifestation (and development) of a function is not equal to its position – its hierarchical place within the structure of psyche. Equally located, i.e. occupying one and the same position in the sociomodel, functions can have completely different degrees of manifestation. This circumstance, according to the ideology of this approach, forms the subtype’s special features in behavior. This concept in contrast to the combinatory-dichotomous approach mentioned above can be named functional-positional.
Combinatory-dichotomous and functional-positional concepts do not contradict one another, but rather supplement each other. Therefore the specialists of the school of humanitarian socionics use both of these approaches. It all depends on the goals and the purposes of the researcher.
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 are dealing with. In small groups – at the lower component of the collective hierarchy - it suffices to distinguish between four to eight subtypes. But if we happen to deal with the whole society – with the entire system of tightly interacting small groups, representing the top level of communicative organization, then it becomes an unavoidable question to distinguish the admixtures and nuances of all 16 sociotypes.
[edit] Isolating four subtypes
This degree of detail is needed when, for example, you have the problem of selecting one of three-four uniform candidates for a vacant post, or if there are several representatives of the same type which have to work together and it becomes necessary to solve the question of which to appoint for different tasks.
And even in personal life it is now and again necessary to choose in favor of one of several familiar duals. Each of them has different benefits; therefore it is desirable to preserve them all. And if you intend to associate with all of them, then you must try to figure out for yourself in what order they should be encountered; as contact will be intensive in each case, what different tasks can be solved with each dual. No doubt, that after failing to arrange priorities, you can bring chaos about into the communicative system, which as a result, in the course of time is destroyed.
[edit] Three pairs of polarities
First polarity: contactability/distance.
The first pole indicates the predominance of the need for contact, and the second - the need to maintain distance. Into the category of contact will fall the clearly expressed extraverts, as well as extraverted introverts. Distant will respectively be the clearly expressed introverts, but also those avoiding intensive contact - introverted extraverts. The scale of vertness is thus split into four internal gradations.
Second polarity: terminating/initiating.
I understand terminating as the ability to finish what was started and a tendency towards regulation. Initiating - as the opposing ability to initiate and to easily move on to something else, and the corresponding disorder in things and matters. As you see, these are the concrete definitions of the usual dichotomy rationality/irrationality. It would be incorrect to think that in the house of any rational reigns pristine order, that it clearly plans all, and that all irrationals throw everything to the side and are burdened by planning. In actuality two intervening gradations are frequently encountered between these extreme poles.
To terminal pole belongs, primarily, clearly expressed rationality, and secondly, regulated irrationality. Initial behavior possesses clearly expressed irrationality and disordered rationality.
And the third, additional polarity - connecting/ignoring.
Level of sensitivity to changes in the environment is assumed as the basis of this scale. Connectors are very sensitive to such changes, and ignorers are capable of turning no attention towards this, as the name suggests.
This polarity is the subtype refinement of the classical dichotomy dynamic/static. Combining these three scales, we obtain the following four subtypes:
— contact, terminal, connecting - dominant subtype (D);
— contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C);
— distant, terminal, ignoring - normalizing subtype (N);
— distant, initial, connecting - harmonizing subtype (H).
[edit] Strengthening the pair of the functions
— Strengthening the linear-energetic functions ( and ), whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms dominant subtype (D).
— Strengthening of the pliable-deployment functions ( and ) leads to the appearance of creative subtype (C).
— Strengthening of the even-stable functions ( and ) gives normalizing subtype (N).
— Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions ( and ) - harmonizing subtype (H).
These functions are strengthened precisely in pairs, since they possess close energization (another way of saying they complement each other).
[edit] Models of behavior in autonomous groups
The four subtypes named above can be seen experimentally. This is done with the aid of the observation of models of the behavior of participants in the autonomous groups of four identical types. Dominant better than others will manage the leadership role, Creative - the generator of ideas, Normalizer - the finisher, Harmonizer – the corrector.
Labor group SHGS checked the presence of these informal roles in a whole series of experiments, carried out for a period during 2006.
If a group consists of not four, but three people, then one person takes on two roles. Most frequently, leader with the generator of ideas, finisher with harmonizer, since they are nearer in terms of power engineering. Although in life any, even improbable combinations are encountered.
But if the small group consists of different types, then the distribution of roles begins to influence not only subtype, but type factors as well. However, the main type factor, as testify our observations, due to the conditions of close contact in close distances is closer to the background.
[edit] Test situations
Subtype is also revealed through the fixation of the behavioral reactions of man to specialized test situations. After entering into a situation, the subject is forced to manifest such qualities as persistence or resourcefulness, keenness or pliability. This applied direction only begins to be created. Is its first priority the selection of such tasks, which can equally effectively be solved by any of the four methods, or, on the contrary, is it clearly specialized in the solution method.
[edit] Do subtypes affect intertype relations?
It goes without saying, their influence is considerable, especially due to the conditions of intensive and close contact within a limited territory.
However, let us at first build a system of relationships, which appear between the subtypes within the framework of an autonomous four-type group. Most visibly it is obtained by describing the two following polarities:
— on the presence of the leader: symmetrical relations (equal, without the need for a fixed leader) versus the asymmetric (unequal, require a fixed leader);
— on the direction of the connection: attractive relations versus those which repel;
— on the place and time of action (additional polarity): sequential relations against the relations of parallel action.
I want to emphasize that the above cited characteristics of relations are not extensible abstractions, but completely checked sufficiently experimentally concrete parameters.
Combining these polarities, we obtain the following picture:
— Symmetrical attractive relations. Conditionally this is called subtype duality. They appear between opposite subtypes. They bear a smoothing, harmonizing nature. They are difficult to begin at first, but then partners all the more greatly begin to value the advantages of the division of labor, which these relations allow them. The harder the conditions for existence, the more durable they are.
— Symmetrical repellent relations. They are called subtype identity. Their nature - creative. They appear between identical subtypes. Mutual lift is caused at first, but differences increase in the course of time in the dyad and mutual disappointment begins. Verification of the strength (of the relationship), as a rule, is not performed. They are useful for duplicating, redundancy, preparation for change.
— Asymmetric attractive relations. Working name - subtype benefit. Their nature includes pushing, urging, and one-sided activation. D-subtype prevails over C-subtype. Which prevails over N-subtype. Normalizing, in turn, prevails over H-subtype. But harmonizer by paradoxical means influences the dominant participant. Thus the circle is locked. These relations are the main accelerators of group dynamics.
— Asymmetric repellent relations. For their designation we will use the code term subtype supervision. They bear the nature of rate setting, retention within the framework, one-sided braking. They are directed in the opposite direction in comparison to benefit. They are useful from the point of view of correction, the correction of errors. Dominant inspects harmonizing. Harmonizing inspects normalizing. Normalizing impedes and corrects creative. And creative - dominant. And here occurs the closing of the outline, only in the reverse direction of the main vector.
But now a few brief conclusions on the specialization of intertype relations:
— identical subtypes contribute to intellectual development (understanding, instruction, the generation of ideas in their region);
— benefit subtypes are most suitable for social activity, intensive work, overall expansion;
— supervision subtypes are specialized for psychological stabilization, balancing of dreams and reality, they are most suitable for friendship or training;
— dual subtypes offer physical compatibility (way of life, intimate relations).
[edit] Next step - isolation of eight subtypes
This task becomes urgent when the group increases to 7-8 people. For distinguishing eight subtypes is added the additional scale - primary/secondary, which reflects the hierarchy of personal needs.
It must be noted, that theoretically there must be seven such differences (including the three already known polarities). However, the description of the entire spectrum of subtype dichotomies is not the object of this report.
Any type of behavior which has the priority of the satisfaction of common group needs can be both primary and secondary. Primary needs - these are needs of a concrete, current nature (food, health, shelter, family, intimacy and so forth). Secondary needs - deep, lofty (quarry, social status, spiritual peace, knowledge and so forth). Any questionnaires with the use of this scale have yet to be created.
Experimentally these subtypes are derived through their internal role within the octal group of identicals.
— Domination along the primary axis generates the intragroup role of the motivator (psychologists call this the informal leader), and along secondary axis - role engine (formal leader).
— Creative along the primary axis contributes the acquisition to itself of the role of contactor, and on the secondary - role of group innovator.
— Normalizing along primary axis in a given role is the conscience of the group, and along the secondary - coordinator.
— And finally, primary harmonization leads to the role of decorator, and secondary - expert.
Most frequently our school determines octal subtypes not through dichotomies, but through the examination of the strength of one of the eight functions of the socionics model. Here I derive the following patterns...
— Strengthening function forms demonstrative-artistic behavior. Corresponds to primary domination - through emotional pressure, the skill to inspire or frighten. Primary domination in animals is connected to the bright colorings, cries, expressive mimicry and gestures.
— Strengthening function forms the lingering behavior. This method of domination is secondary. This is the business leader, who persistently and emphatically gets his own way.
Both these models of behavior are frequently encountered together, being combined through the role mask. This bears out the fact that domination, although it is manifested through two varieties, is nevertheless a one-piece process.
— Strengthening function forms the excitable behavior. This treats creativity as primary and instinctive. It gives nonstandard, rapid solutions during extreme, critical (for survival) situations.
— Strengthening function forms affective-labile behavior. This is secondary creativity, connected to intellectual fantasy, nonstandard ideas, directed not towards output based on the dead-end situation, but the solutions of future problems.
Both these functions frequently work in the bond as two sides of a united innovation- introductory process.
— Strengthening function gives alarming-over-anxious behavior. This is the primary-axis setting, which does not require the formal fixation on traditional rules.
— Strengthening function leads to the formation of formal-pedantic behavior. It is secondary in its nature in response to the satisfaction of common group needs. It is based on regulation, instruction and official laws.
Both these models of behavior can act together, strengthening each other. Conscientiousness and pedantic relation to one's responsibilities are considered as two sides of normalizing behavior.
— Strengthening function is responsible for the formation of asthenoneurotic (see: Asthenia) behavior. This is the primary, vital harmonization, connected to the value of solid comfort.
— Strengthening function forms shut-off and self-submerged, up to autistic behavior. This is harmonization in terms of a secondary, spiritual-mental plan.
Both these models of behavior are equivalent, i.e. they are frequently developed together and strengthen each other. It is well known that for the meditation of the mind it is necessary to relax the body.
If we advance ourselves further according to our algorithm, then the next step of the elaboration of subtype will be 16 subtype. These, I have encountered thus far only with the need for providing a solution to the problem of selecting a professional orientation, when it is necessary for a person to select a career from different spheres of activity. This most complex level will be examined in our subsequent works.
