Blocks are subcategories of Quadras

This post deviates, as my other description content does, from example-focused content. This is probably the most theoretical post that will ever be made on this blog.


People have sometimes asked me, without additional context, to explain blocks. I define blocks and their associated characteristics as follows.

A block is a combination of two elements of opposite rationality. All elements of common rationality have a defined pattern of compatibility or opposition. In other words, Te conceptually has an inherently oppositional relationship to Fe and Ti, and an inherently complementary type of opposite relationship with Fi. However, in Augusta's model of IM there is no inherent complementary or oppositional relationship between Te and Si, or more generally between any rational and any irrational element. Therefore, blocks such as Te+Si, Te+Ne, etc. can be seen as describing meaningful independent combinations of elements whose combinations constitute thematic types of information metabolism (i.e., psychological filters), similar to how IM elements themselves are thematically meaningful IM elements. Each block is specific to one quadra, and each block is a specific emphasis of that quadra (e.g. Te+Si is a delta block, since both elements are delta). Different types within different quadras, emphasize the quadra's values differently, and may or may not have a strong expression of each individual block (e.g., the LSE strongly expresses Te+Ne, but maybe expresses more weakly Fi+Si). In other words, all blocks are subcategories of quadras.

Blocks can be ordered or unordered. An ordered block X+Y emphasizes the first element X of the block as more present than the second element Y. An unordered block, can be written either as X+Y or Y+X, and does not emphasize either element as more present than the other. For example, the ordered block Te+Si could be seen as the delta flavor of Te, which describes the LSE, while the unordered block Te+Si is the block which defines the delta ST. There is heretofore no standard notation for differentiating the ordered block Te+Si from the unordered block Te+Si. I suggest, where meaningful, to clarify the difference between the ordered block Te+Si and the unordered block Te+Si by saying ordered Te+Si or unordered Te+Si. Another possible terminology for unordered blocks is Te=Si. It's fewer characters. I am not a terminology nazi, keep your concepts clear. 

A classical block is defined as a block with both elements in the mental ring, or both elements in the vital ring (alternately, either both elements are static or both are dynamic). A skew block is defined as a block with one element in the mental ring and the other element in the vital ring (alternately, one element is static and the other is dynamic). Sometimes classical blocks are also called standard blocks or accepting-producing blocks, even though the name "accepting-producing blocks" is a misnomer because classical blocks and skew blocks alike always feature one accepting and one producing function (the fault for this name is mine alone). Sometimes I also call them heteroverted blocks to be unambiguous. 

This post establishes definitions for five extensions of model A whose elements are blocks, in other words, subcategories of quadras. Rather than make creative names for these models, the names of these five models are A8, A8-skew, A16-unordered, A16-ordered, and A32, and the functions of these models will use block notation. I believe of these five models, A16-ordered is the most interesting and practical. 

These models differ in the number of functions because of their different choices of allowing the order equivalency, whether the ordered blocks are equivalent to the opposite ordered block, and are therefore unordered, and the skew equivalency, whether classical blocks are equivalent to their corresponding skew blocks leading with the same function. 

Model A32 has the most functions because it makes neither equivalency. 

Model A16-ordered, the most natural model, makes one equivalency, the skew equivalency, but holds the order inequivalency. Model A16-unordered does the opposite, making the order equivalency, but separates the skew blocks separate.

Models A8 and 8-skew, have the order equivalency, and have separate skew and classical blocks. If they allowed the skew equivalency, there is a transitivity problem, and the model would reduce to A4, a model which already exists in socionics, which is, the four quadras, with no subdivisions. 

The models are defined more formally as follows:

Model A8
Model A8 has 8 functions, which are defined as 1+2, 1+4, 2+3, 3+4, 5+6, 5+8, 6+7, and 8+7. Equivalent function names such as 2+1 are possible, but in Model A8, 1+2 is the same as 2+1.
The functions of Model A8 are the classical blocks of the quadras; in other words, the 1+2 function of the LSE is, delta ST, as in, the unordered block Te=Si. 
In model A8 there are no skew blocks. Defining that the classical block 1+2 is equivalent to the skew block 1+6, would break this model since it is unordered, since 6+1 would also be equivalent to 1+6 and 6+1 would be equivalent to 6+5. Therefore allowing for a skew block to exist in model A8 would make all blocks in the same quadra equivalent. Therefore the model would have 4 elements and not 8, so we must disallow this equivalency.

Model A8-skew
Because the Model A8 does not describe skew blocks at all, you could additionally define a new model very similar to model A8, model A8-skews, which uses skew blocks instead of classical blocks. In other words, the functions of this model are 1+6, 1+8, 2+5, 2+7, 3+6, 3+8, 4+5, and 4+7. The function 1+6 of the LSE is therefore, the delta extrovert block (i.e., the unordered block Te=Ne). It is not necessarily clear to me that this model is of more application than model A8, which emphasizes the classic construction of clubs in quadras like Delta ST, which is in my the view the most basic category subdivision of quadras.

Model A16-ordered
Model A16-ordered has 16 functions, which are, 1+2, 1+4, 2+1, 2+3, 3+2, 3+4, 4+1, 4+3, 5+6, 5+8, 6+5, 6+7, 7+6, 7+8, 8+5, and 8+7 These functions are all classical blocks. In this model, the classical blocks can be defined to be equivalent to their corresponding skew blocks, because now there is no transitive equality between 1+6 and 6+1, since the two ordered blocks are considered different depending on which function is "in charge." Therefore, the eleemnts in this model are "quadra IM elements." As an example, in the LSE, the function 1+2, which is Te+Si, is delta Te, which is equivalent to Te with Ne, which is also a valid description of delta Te. Delta Te contrasts with other elements, like gamma Te, and is also distinct from, delta Si, and delta Ne, although they closely related elements to delta Te. Likewise, the Delta Te used by the LSE as function 1+2 is the same delta Te used by the SLI in their function 2+1, and the IEE in their function 6+5, and so on, in other words, the elements of A16-ordered are quadra-element combinations in every respect.
It is worth noting also that, delta Te can be alternately defined as, the Te of the LSE. A16-ordered is the only model of the five models described here in which each socionics type has a unique block as it's leading function (this relationship is an isomorphism). 
To my readers that know that my emphasis is on quadras, it will make sense why I find this particular model, A16-ordered, of particular interest. This is likely the model with the most reasonable set of descriptions for how an individual of a certain type in socionics might represent an element. For example, the LSE has a particular attitude towards delta Te, it is their main, leading function, but characterizing their attitude towards gamma Te, which is not exactly the same as their leading function, but similar, may be well enough specified to write a description about. By contrast, writing descriptions about how individual types, like the LSE, would relate to elements differently in model A16-unordered, and model A32, are both more challenging to meaningfully specify, especially for non-ego-block blocks. (In A32, each type has two blocks that correspond to that type's identity, ie it's leading function, namely 1+2 and 1+6, and since both of these blocks describe the same type's leading function, it isn't so clear how different they are).

Model A16-unordered
Model A16-unordered has 16 functions, which are, 1+2, 1+4, 1+6, 1+8, 2+3, 2+5, 2+7, 3+4, 3+6, 3+8, 4+5, 4+7, 5+6, 5+8, 6+7, 7+8
This model represents classical blocks and skew blocks as separate functions. In other words, the LSE has as their function 1+2, Te+Si, which is distinct from function 1+6, Te+Ne. In addition, the blocks are unordered, such that The LSE's function 1+2 Te+Si, is identical to the function 1+2 of the SLI, which is also Te+Si. However, the SLI has a different function 1+6, Si+Fi, than the LSE. This model therefore describes as its elements, all possible unordered quadra blocks.
Whether or not it is sensible to write a description where the LSE's unique relationship to blocks not of its own quadra, for instance, how the LSE as a type expresses Ne+Fe, compared to Ne+Ti, is not really clear if this is grasping at straws. That said, the elements of this model are interesting to talk about because different quadra blocks represent different emphases of quadras.

Model A32
Model A32 makes both of the distinctions in A16-unordered and A16-ordered, of separating classical from skew blocks, and distinctly addressing ordered blocks where one or the other element is in charge. Therefore, the 32 functions of A32 are 1+2, 1+4, 1+6, 1+8, 2+1, 2+3, 2+5, 2+7, 3+2, 3+4, 3+6, 3+8, 4+1, 4+3, 4+5, 4+7, 5+2, 5+4, 5+6, 5+8, 6+1, 6+3, 6+5, 6+7, 7+2, 7+4, 7+6, 7+8, 8+1, 8+3, 8+5, and 8+7.
This is the set of all possible blocks representing all possible quadra emphases in every subtlety.
A full description of every type's attitude towards every function in this model, is definitely too complicated to be of use. It is fair to say that it is already grasping at straws to describe that the LSE's attitude of Ne+Fe is a meaningfully different thing to their attitude of Ne+Ti, without additionally adding more functions of extremely similar attitudes, like Ti+Ne.


One of the reasons for discussing these models is to compare one's views on how the different types have different attitudes towards blocks from other quadras. Some disagreements exist among western socionists about how emphasized certain non-quadra blocks are. Ibrahim Tencer, for instance, wrote about a 16 element model which he calls model A2 (Ibrahim, provide me with a link to the description of model A2, all I could find that is not deleted is this, which to the best of my recollection isn't structured the same way as your original article and is filled with confusing nonsense language). Ibrahim argued, for instance, that in many types the block 6+7 was used a lot compared to 6+5, which seems overall dubious but I agree that certain types (like the EIE's use of Se+Fi) seem to use 6+7 more extensively than others (like the SLI's use of Fi+Se).

A full elaboration of all of the different function attitudes in all of these models is beyond the immediate scope of this article. However, I will provide a brief outline of functions in model A16-ordered, the most interesting model here defined.

Function 1+2 This function, which is the main quadra expression of the identity type, is, well, the main quadra expression of the type, which is emphasized the most fully in their interaction with the world.
Function 1+4 This function is the main quadra expression of the kindred type. Like many other adjacent quadra blocks, it is probably not very often emphasized by an individual, but it is probably relatively easy for many people to understand.
Function 2+1 This function is the main quadra expression of the mirror type. People use this function extensively, as it is the main form of expression of their creative function. Like the creative function in model A, it is not "on" at all times, but it is a much more recurring emphasis than 2+3.
Function 2+3 This function is the main quadra expression of the supervisee type. Probably, this function has an inconsistent emphasis, certainly less persistent in its presence and goals than function 2+1. That said, as a kind of creative function, that is not on all the time, it might be on occasionally as a way in which people interact with the role function more easily than dealing with the role function.
Function 3+2 This function is the main quadra expression of the business type. This function is likely the more well represented by Augusta's description of the role function in general, which is partially valued, partially used, and has an element of colloquial super-ego feeling that one should be doing better with this function, but a lack of drive to interact with it with consistency.
Function 3+4 This function is the main quadra expression of the super-ego type. It is hard to see why anyone would focus on 3+4 rather than 3+2. As an opposite quadra block, this is pretty substantially opposed to the individual's own quadra values. Probably this block is hardly ever focused on at all.
Function 4+1 This function is the main quadra expression of the supervisor type. Between 4+1 and 4+3, both are blind spots, but probably if people's attention is redirected towards the vulnerable function, it would be redirected more readily to the 4+1 information.
Function 4+3 This function is the main quadra expression of the conflictor type. It's hard to see why anyone would focus on this preferentially to 4+1. It should be the least attended block in A16-ordered (Keep in mind that this block is equivalent to 4+7, but does not include the demonstrative function, whereas block 7+8 is equivalent to 7+4 but does include the demonstrative function.
Function 5+6 This function is the main quadra expression of the dual type. It is the main manifest weakness of the individual. Whether it is easier to access 5+6 or 5+8 is open for interpretation. If we considered skew blocks, you might consider that 5+2 is relatively more accessible and relevant, whereas 5+4 is relatively disattended. But, by the same token, the influence of the demonstrative function might make 5+8 a relatively more obvious pattern of interaction, than the "dual's" suggestive function 5+6 that seems an elusive weakness.
Function 5+8 This function is the main quadra expression of the semi-dual type. As before, it is a potentially open question whether this is easier to access than 5+6, or whether it is altogether less of a focus. One interpretation is that this block is relatively unused and unattended, and the 5+6 block is the weakness and point of growth. What do you think? Does it vary between different types?
Function 6+5 This function is the main quadra expression of the activator type. This is clearly the main expression of the strong mobilizing function, in people who strongly express the mobilizing function, which is a majority of people.
Function 6+7 This function is the main quadra expression of the beneficiary type. In all cases, I conjecture that 6+5 should be used more strongly than 6+7. But in the case of some types more than others, there is more reason to feel that they might use 6+7 more extensively. Overall, I would think of 6+7 as a relatively minor cousin to 6+5, but one which still has some emphasis in some cases.
Function 7+6 This function is the main quadra expression of the mirage or illusion type. To the extent that people focus on their ignoring function, it seems likely that they will probably focus on 7+6 much more than 7+8. But, it seems overall very likely that people will completely ignore them both, while interacting with the ignoring function primarily from the lens of 1+2 instead, or, possibly, 2+7 rather than 7+2.
Function 7+8 This function is the main quadra expression of the contrary or extinguishment type. This is the total opposite value of people's quadras and almost all of the time it will be the "true" ignoring function, ignored completely.
Function 8+5 This function is the more likely avenue of considering the demonstrative function compared to 8+7. 8+5 should probably be considered the "true" demonstrative function that is seen as a strong function in some balance with the creative function 2+1.
Function 8+7 Compared to 8+5, this function is much more likely to be seen as a waste of time or misguided approach, and probably will not be attended very much.

Ordered blocks are 16 element models and share some structural equivalence with other 16 element models. The most notable alternative 16 element model in practice are the signs of functions in Model B and Model G, developed by Aleksandr Bukalov and Viktor Gulenko, respectively. Both of these models describe their elements not as Alpha Fe and Beta Fe, etc., but instead as Fe+ and Fe-, etc. They additionally impute some semantic meaning of the positive and negative charge attributed to these elements. The semantic meaning is dubious; it makes sensefor certain elements, e.g. it makes sense to describe Delta Fi/Fi+ as positive in its judgments while Gamma Fi/Fi- is negative in its judgments. But other elements are complicated, for instance it would be logical to think of Alpha Fe as positively valenced and Beta Fe as negatively valenced, but the actual signs in model G are reversed, where the ESE has Fe- and the EIE has Fe+. Likewise, Delta Ne is described as Ne- while Alpha Ne is Ne+, the meaning of which is confusing to understand and much less obvious to apply in practice. I suggest therefore to disregard the semantic meaning of signs entirely and instead conceptualize these models as erroneous formulations of quadra-based blocks.

Also, while I refer to ordered blocks by their quadras, for instance, Alpha Fe which is the same as Fe+Si, the signed functions in the Gulenko and Bukalov models are not necessarily quadral. For example, in Model G, it is normally described that the ESE has Fe+, Si-, and, additionally, Ne- and Ti+ (whereas, the LII has Ti- and Ne+ instead). Therefore, in this model the ESE is not described as having access to Alpha Ne, but rather has Delta Ne as either the main or only type of Ne in the mobilizing function (probably the only type, since in Model G the 16 element model is not elaborated). This is aquadral, and in my view should be considered a design error. In other words, model A16-ordered is the correct 16 element model of signed functions, and model G's charges are an error. (Model B charges are different than Model G charges, but they also are aquadral in the mobilizing function. In Model B, alpha Fe is called Fe-, whereas in Model G it is Fe+, but in both models the ESE has delta Ne instead of Alpha Ne. As an aside, Gulenko used to follow the same charges as Model B, but he changed his mind in or prior to 1998, discussed here https://socioniko.net/ru/articles/sign.html)