The World of Peripheral and Central Quadras - One and the Same, Yet Different

The world in PERIPHERAL quadras appears relatively sparsely populated; the resources necessary for life are scattered over large areas, and there is an acute sense of a shortage of knowledge about where to find what, and of the hands needed to gather and process these resources. In such a situation, competition between people recedes into the background, and nature becomes the main factor limiting survival. Activity in peripheral quadras is directed precisely toward transforming nature, harmonizing it in accordance with human needs.

Sensory sensations here are concentrated primarily on the physical processing of a material resource to the required quality. The ultimate measure of the success of such processing is the physiological pleasure derived from the process of consuming properly processed resources. Together with the striving to optimize the processing itself, this allows us to assert that the sensation of physical COMFORT is especially valued in peripheral quadras. Moreover, whereas linear-assertive “white” sensing types in such a situation are more concerned with the routine tasks involved in the initial organization of work processes, receptive-adaptive ones turn these processes into as pleasant and relaxed a pastime as possible, adapting them to the needs of everyone involved.

Intuitive imagination in peripheral quadras finds its quintessence in the image of FREEDOM. The opportunity to move freely through the world and learn about it, without entering into unnecessary clashes at boundaries, thereby finding new resources and services, is critically important both for the judicious intuitive type (since resources already discovered are processed by sensing types, and obtaining them requires offering something in exchange) and for peripheral society as a whole. The playful, nonaggressive self-expression of flexible-maneuvering “black” intuitive types, which removes prohibitions and boundaries, serves as the original source of all freedom. The role of balanced-stable Ne is different and consists in preserving freedom that has already emerged. Thus, through its moderation and restraint, creative Ne prevents situations in which an acute shortage of resources arises (which, if it occurs as a consequence of overconsumption, inevitably leads to clashes and the disintegration of society into hostile factions).

The world of CENTRAL quadras, in its extreme manifestations, differs radically from the picture outlined above. Here, there is excessive population density in places where highly processed resources are concentrated - resources already found, gathered, and processed earlier on the periphery. Competition among numerous hungry mouths for the fruits of others’ labor (the choicest portions of which are often displayed as the elite’s status possessions) leads to widespread embitterment, increasing distrust, a sense of experiencing injustice, and the desire to obtain one’s share by any available means. The limiting factor here is therefore any neighbor - as an individual or a community of some kind, as a competitor and an enemy. The struggle for the dominance of one individual over another, of one society over another, achieved through force, deception, or a combination of these methods, becomes the principal component of social life.

Sensory sensations here are primarily sensations arising from a physical clash with an antagonistic force and, in the event of success, from dominance through force and coercing the defeated into activities required by the victor. All of this can be encompassed by the broad concept of POWER. Thus, flexible-maneuvering “black” sensing, being an extraverted function, is responsible for probing and forcing through others’ boundaries, for forcibly invading beyond them, accompanied by the seizure of material resources - for everything that constitutes the original source of all power. Balanced-stable Se, being an introverted function, concentrates on retaining power already possessed - it establishes and maintains a system of prohibitions whose ultimate purpose is to prevent others from moving beyond the boundaries of control established by the ruling subject and from taking outside them the property that this subject has accumulated.

In a situation of escalating prohibitions and punishments, when all resources have been appropriated and are held by more sthenic sensing subjects, the intuitive subject is likewise forced to redirect their imagination toward other goals. Specifically, in such a situation, this subject acquires value only if they somehow succeed in anticipating DANGER and managing it. Linear-assertive “white” intuition here acts as the organizer of various risky ventures. On the one hand, all its activity is an attempt to achieve its aims in a high-risk environment through extreme exertion and the asceticism associated with it; on the other hand, through these very actions it destabilizes the situation, pushing it beyond the bounds of normality. Ultimately, it itself becomes the main source of risks - which, unlike those created by the activity of Se, are difficult to predict and therefore all the more dangerous. Receptive-adaptive Ni, too, only at first glance passively defends itself against risks in the external environment, hiding from them in the shell of escapism. No: because the subject of this function sometimes does not wish to do anything else productive apart from anticipating possible threats from the external environment, they do indeed need at least some real dangers to persist in the surrounding world in order to remain in demand as a seer and predictor. Accordingly, the entire system of positive reinforcement of Ni turns out, paradoxically (for someone from the peripheral quadras), to be tied not to a feeling of physical contentment but to the joy of successfully overcoming risky situations.

The spectrum between judicious and decisive values, as in the case of any other dichotomy, is continuous.

As the environment becomes more dangerous, ordinary routine tasks gradually turn into risky ventures; games as a means of learning about one’s surroundings become more aggressive and turn into fights; internal moral restraints become insufficient, and physical restraints come to the forefront; comforts become unattainable, and pleasure is derived no longer from them but from dreams of successfully overcoming dangers. Conversely, as soon as danger subsides and the humanization of society becomes the main trend, everything moves in the opposite direction (the susceptibility of actual societies to such a drift in values has yet to be assessed, but, judging by the history of Western Europe in the 20th century, it apparently is quite high).

So, is the world of peripheral and central quadras one world after all, or are these two different worlds?

It is difficult to give an unequivocal answer. Yes, initially, apparently, in peaceful tribes of gatherers and farmers - wherever a “herbivorous” feeding strategy predominated - natural selection favored the gradual accumulation of judicious traits in the gene pool. By contrast, the more “predatory” tribes of hunters and pastoralists, and especially communities engaged in plunder and piracy (which served as the seed material for the emergence of the first classical “natural” states), attracted from outside and gradually accumulated within themselves predominantly decisive genes. In the modern world, the overwhelming majority of which has passed through the “mixer” of a more or less prolonged process of globalization, isolated communities no longer exist, and the average urban person lives in complete separation from the conditions that historically gave rise to their particular psychological type. Under such conditions, the balance along the judiciousness-decisiveness axis (as along any other dichotomy) loses its original adaptive role.

Essentially, there is now one world; however, the views of it held by people belonging to opposite poles of judiciousness-decisiveness differ. Some pick out evidence of the hostility of their surroundings in what is happening and, accordingly, advocate intensifying rivalry; others see (sometimes in the very same events!) processes of increasing general peacefulness and tolerance, and demand a reduction in aggressiveness toward opponents.

It is quite possible that both groups, simply out of habit, pay more attention to people around them who hold similar views, underestimating the influence of representatives of the opposite pole.

In part, this is sometimes justified (there are still communities in the world that pursue more judicious policies, and others that pursue more decisive ones, although these are now more often entire countries rather than local communities), and in part it is not (after all, both judicious and decisive subjects are represented in sufficient numbers in any society).

Which approach will prevail in the future? Or will they gradually, as before, diverge into different social niches, integrating into the emerging global system? Your opinion on this would be of interest.

In the comments:

Alexander Nechaev (02.12.2020): The views of those from the central quadras are well conveyed by the aphorism “There is not enough of everything for everyone, because there is little of everything and there are many people”. And probably, as the Earth’s population grows, the balance shifts increasingly toward central values.

Ivan Romanov: Alexander, it seems to us that the issue is not the absolute population size at all, but the relative one - in comparison with the ecosystem’s carrying capacity. Hunter-gatherer, agricultural, and industrial societies are three different societies forming ecosystems whose capacities differ by one or two orders of magnitude. Moreover, even the mere introduction of new technologies (both scientific and production technologies and those in the humanities and management), without a change in the prevailing mode of economic activity, can appreciably increase this capacity and, accordingly, shift the balance toward judicious values. At least for some time, until the population grows and a shortage of anything and everything is felt again.

Alexander Nechaev (05.12.2020): In my view, the problem with judicious people is that, even when they attain power, they are not prepared to retain it by force, whereas decisive people always actively try to take it away (with ease when it is held by judicious people, and with varying success - when it is held by other decisive people). Therefore, the ruling circles of almost all states, which determine their policies, consist mainly of decisive people. It seems that a chance for judicious people arises only when, in a succession of wars instigated by decisive people, those same people, as the most active participants, are largely killed off, their proportion of the population declines sharply, and judicious people come to predominate in society. It seems to me that something similar happened in Germany, where, after two world wars in 30 years, there was a noticeable shift from the clearly decisive values of the times of the Kaiser and Hitler to the present judicious values that favor avoiding conflict.

I once came across an interesting study of human behavior in war: only 2% of soldiers, called “psychopaths” by the author, are prepared to kill in close combat and essentially accomplish the task for the entire unit. In my opinion, there is a clear connection here with decisiveness. Although it is strange that such people accounted for only 2%. Perhaps, in addition to decisiveness, some other factors must also be present, such as base Se?

Ivan Romanov: Alexander, yes, in addition to decisiveness, irrationality, sensing, and statics (which together produce base Se, with the contribution of decisiveness here indeed being decisive), the logic pole is also very important, preferably in combination with merriness - so that Fi, the function more responsible than any other for empathy, reaches the most negative extreme. Sociopathy results only from a combination of strong Se (and, in part, Ni) with repressed Fi. Strong Se by itself, without extremely weak Fi, produces the character of a selfish proprietor, but still not a psychopath. And weak Fi against a background of middling or weak Se gives rise to nonconformism, which may be useful, for example, in science, but, again, not psychopathy.

In addition, the pole of declatimity is also somewhat important, since questims have a more developed sense of harm and, accordingly, less desire to court danger - so as not to harm themselves.

Thus, these 2% are presumably predominantly Beta logic types, especially SLE. But ethics types from the peripheral quadras have absolutely no place in war.

PS I will also add a couple of links to posts from Viktor Lvovich’s group that directly concern the topic under discussion:
1. On sociopathy; 2. On empathy for others’ pain