Having been involved in the Socionics community for a number of years, I have often seen the growing contention between other Socionists on what aspects of the theory should rule. This is often bloated into a vague idea of why, which tends to be either highly abstract or not up for discussion or debate. One that I have witnessed lately is the claim that values matter more than strengths, and that the idea of Quadra is the very foundation of what makes Socionics what it is. With strengths often being completely disregarded or the grey area between them being amplified into irrelevancy. Where does this come from? Let’s start with the theory side.
The beauty of Socionics is it’s incredible fairness to every type. What do I mean by this? Well the geometry of every type is identical. There’s a basic structure referred to as Information Metabolism (or the functions), that gives a basic fundamental structure to every type. If you were using MBTI, it’s often so vague that some types are often considered better or worse than others. The beauty of Socionics is that every flaw and every strength of a type is put on display, clear for anyone to see. The LIE struggles in Homeostasis and Relationships. The SEI struggles with Pragmatism and Potential. This incredible sense of fairness is what I believe makes the theory so compelling. It doesn’t treat your differences as something to be ashamed of, but instead something to be celebrated, along with the differences of others. Central to this idea, is the idea that none of us are perfect, but there are some aspects of our talents that come naturally to us, where others may struggle. Emphasizing creating bonds that will create synergy, also known as a sum that is worth more than it’s parts.
So how does this fairness of Socionics contribute to the debate on Strengths and Values? It comes down to where these ideas are rooted. Fundamentally, Quadra arises when you divide the Socion into 4 groups. However, there is another grouping that can occur when you do so. Clubs. Ultimately, dividing the Socion by quadra has been considered to be very useful for recognizing behaviors and is one of the most popular divisions of the Socion. People find the similarities to types in their Quadra to be quite compelling, even despite the obvious differences in strengths. Quadra highlights values, and clubs highlights strengths. Strengths also tends to be a very useful and helpful way to look at type as well, as there is a commonality of attention. So on the one hand, while some types may ultimately care about some things more, they may naturally focus on other things with greater ease. There are some who prefer the simplicity of Quadra, seemingly eventually becoming 4 types, instead of 16. But there is a rich degree of nuance to be found in the interplay between both. For instance, the role function and the demonstrative function.
In a given type, the role function and demonstrative function stand out as taking up space and influencing a person beyond their valued elements. For instance, an IEI tends to often act as a mediator rather than constantly engaging in conflict. That mediation a much clearer trait in terms of how frequently it is used or expressed. Meanwhile their use of Se mostly shows up in theme, and then occasionally being used in lower frequency than Si. In the past, I’ve referred to the role function as a “crutch” function. As it tends to be used as a crutch, due to the weakness of the suggestive. This is a nuance that plays into type quite frequently. I think of ESI, which when questioned on their partiality, often falls back on the idea of fairness or rules to back up their reasoning. This is done over using Te, as it’s not as capable. Meanwhile the demonstrative, shows up so clearly in a type that a common mistype is Quasi-Identity. It’s also true that every type in a Quadra will often seem that they hold the value of another quadra. For instance, given that a largely beta quadra group has a member that’s own values clash with the groups ideology, which type in beta is the most likely to reconnect or fix the bond with that individual? The IEI. The one type that has demonstrative Fi. I have often said throughout the years that each member of a quadra is equipped to contend with the values of another quadra. Fi values for IEI, Te values for SLE, Ne values for EIE, and Si values for LSI. They may not value these things, but it is strongly integrated into the way they operate and therefore, can easily be mistaken for values in the wrong setting or context. These are some of the examples of the nuance found in a type when carefully weighing values and strengths.
Now consider what might happen if one was to overlook one or the other. In this case we’ll consider overlooking strengths. You are bound to think that the role, which is often more apparent than the suggestive may be an expression of values. You may make the mistake of thinking that the demonstrative function, which is so heavily integrated into a type and the way in which they operate, is an expression of their values. These are easy mistakes that can be made when it’s not thoroughly considered, and can result in huge deviations in type.
I have seen cases where this is made worse by rewriting the idea of strengths altogether, such as considering that the Ignoring function is weaker than the Blind function.
Which then makes the difference between a type with Base Se effectively no different from one with mobilizing Se, as the mobilizing is so often considered strong from its constant development.
These sorts of things make a difference in the way we practice Socionics, but ultimately this issue is much simpler than an argument about dichotomy. Backing away from theory for a moment, let’s ask ourselves honestly. In our own lives, which makes the biggest difference, our strengths or our values? We all know intuitively that there are those of us who have natural abilities, and sometimes take them for granted because of that natural talent. You can think in sports, where someone may be predisposed to playing a sport, or having a great athletic advantage. But never truly putting in the same amount of effort as someone who doesn’t have that natural talent, ability, skill, or advantage. In other words, you can be good at something and take it for granted. We also know that there some things about us that we care an awful lot about and spend a lot of time working on, sometimes with such slow rate of progress. There are those things we don’t care about and could care less to develop or understand with the same kind of level of detail we understand other things in our lives. These things are interwoven deeply into our lives.
In summary, values are so important and do make up a significant part of who we are. I understand the temptation to overlook our strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes it may be easier to disregard our weaknesses altogether, and pretend like they aren’t there. But naturally there are some things you are well equipped to handle, that others in your life may struggle or contend with. Without careful observation of this, we miss the opportunity to appreciate what others have to offer, but also miss the opportunity to appreciate our strengths, and hold on to humility for the things we struggle with. Let’s not forget the simple things we all intuitively know and understand from our daily life, as those things can be so deeply insightful to the pursuit of a deeper understand of ourselves, and one another.