As previously touched on in my “Defining Dimensionality” article, there’s a trend to prioritize quadra over clubs, or values over strengths in socionics. See that article here if you’re interested in hearing more. In this article I want to take the time to detail some of the dangers of over emphasizing one aspect of the theory over another by detailing what is lost when this is done.
I want to start by saying that I fully support people working on different aspects of the theory, and developing a deeper or more rich insight or understanding of a part of it. However I have noticed that these “Quadra Evangelists” are fundamentally changing Socionics and the types by extension. Instead, losing sight of critical differences between types, in order to greater emphasize the meaning of Quadra. For instance, in this proto-socionics the goal is to derive the meaning of the Quadra Values, or Quadra Elements. This asserts that the elements are different when expressed through each quadra. This idea alone is not dangerous or even incorrect. The inescapable reality of Quadra Values, is that they are only known through each types distinct expression of them. Therefore, the idea of a quadra value which is between these types or arises from these types, is not a true expression of those values. Instead, it is simply an idea of Quadra Values removed from type itself.
I myself have explored ideas of Quadra removed from type, and I find it useful to explore some of these ideas in order to better understand the overall theme or meaning between those types and what they have in common. However, because the Quadra Evangelists throw out Dimensionality in favor of Quadra Values, this removes the distinctions that exist in the way the values are expressed from type to type. The Quadra Evangelists admit they have an issue when it comes to discerning activators. There is effectively no real way to discern the difference between activator types, primarily because the Ignoring Function being 3 Dimensional no longer matters to discerning the type. In some cases, there are even those of the Quadra Evangelists that would suggest the Ignoring Function is actually weaker than the POLR function. This is also a move towards de-emphasizing or dismissing clear observational capacities of the types.
If you can no longer discern activator types, and you no longer consider strengths potential to deceptively present as a value, then you have effectively cut down the Socion from 16 types to 4. Thankfully, it’s not this extreme just yet. As it currently stands, The Quadra Evangelists still have 8 types on their Socion. Two for each Quadra. The activator pairs of each Quadra being identical and indiscernible.
I will give some examples of key nuances that are lost on the Quadra Evangelists. The first one that comes to mind is the use of the ignoring function. To the Quadra Evangelist, the Ignoring function is weak, or not used. The LSI and IEI for instance are very different types. The LSI having 4D and 3D sensation elements. While the IEI has 4D and 3D intuition elements. You would think this would cause a significant difference in the types, with one predominantly oriented towards the physical environment and surroundings, and the other one primarily being concerned with the abstract content of their own mind. But instead the ignoring function is not used in their opinion, and as a result should not be noticeable at all. This implies that the IEI does not have the capacity to generate ideas. This simply isn’t true. Instead, the IEI uses ideas when it serves the direction of their base function, which depending on what that is, can be quite often. I type as IEI in Socionics, and am a writer. I have an endless fountain of ideas streaming through my mind I often don’t know what to do with, or don’t align with any particular aim of mine. However to the Quadra Evangelist, LSI and IEI are just as capable in generating ideas, even though the LSI has POLR Ne.
Another key nuance is the failure to recognize the roles influence on how a type appears. Not only is the role function in the same domain as the suggestive, it is also stronger. This results in a reliance on the role in that given domain when the suggestive fails. The role is also characterized as a societal pressure or expectation the person feels they must fulfill. In this case, we should see it quite frequently. The IEI is often recognized for instance to be acting as a mediator, or oriented towards harmonization. Why, if they value Se? This shows how a types behavior can vary from the way the Quadra might depict them. The same can be found with the demonstrative. I would argue that each type has one foot in a neighboring Quadra not only because of the role of the demonstrative, but also because of the role function. Whether the Quadra Evangelists like it or not, these strong, commonly used functions do characterize the types in a way that does not complement the Quadra Values in isolation.
I write this article to document and detail some of the degradations of Socionics, partially in order to draw a line in the sand and make it clear where I stand on things, as well as make a case against these ideas. However, I do hope that those Quadra Evangelists who may be reading this, will have the humility to recognize that the core concept they are chasing, and rewriting Socionics on is an extrapolation not a reality, and therefore not foundational to the Socion itself.
It’s my belief that Socionics is specifically designed to give explanation to our similarities and differences, and I feel that as this overemphasis of Quadra grows, so too does the lack of observational awareness on the nuances between type.