Why Peace Fails: Socionics Quadra Values Explained
Jun 19, 2025
This paper demonstrates that the idea of “eternal peace” reflects only the value matrix of the Delta quadra, where the Fi + Te axis establishes a norm of mutual responsibility and institutionalizes it into a practical infrastructure. Alpha views peace as a technical condition for the free exchange of ideas, Beta—as a strategic pause before the next phase of expansion, Gamma—as a byproduct of fair resource redistribution. At the intersection of these incompatible metrics arises latent tension, undermining any universal project of nonviolence—from the League of Nations to ESG frameworks.
The article relies on Yakovlev’s quadral cycle, the functional hierarchy of Model A, and Shulman’s club theory of semantic fields; through these instruments, it formalizes four orthogonal systems of validity and shows how any attempt at global unification inevitably becomes a default conflict. The final conclusion: sustainable agreement is only possible in a polycentric format, where the Delta coordination procedure is not imposed as an absolute value, but serves as a frame for the coexistence of divergent quadral filters.
Methodological Framework
This analysis is grounded in the functional approach to human information metabolism. Model A establishes a fixed hierarchy of eight cognitive functions, each operating on a specific informational aspect. This hierarchy determines the internal “weight” of values: the dominant function guides semantic selection, the creative defines everyday strategies, the role function shapes public behavior, and the vulnerable marks the boundary of admissibility. Without recognizing this priority, any discourse on “peace as a universal value” becomes methodologically empty: for the Beta culture, where Se-Ni drives expansion, nonviolence simply does not reach the level of significant functions, whereas in the Delta matrix, Fi-Te is structurally aligned with the core axis of “relations ↔ utility.”
Historical shifts in these priorities follow the law of quadral succession: Alpha’s energetic minimum, Beta’s rise, Gamma’s peak, and Delta’s decline. According to V. Gulenko, this cycle mirrors the four-phase rhythm of natural and social processes and shows that each quadra forms its own “ring” of values and mechanism of group cohesion. Therefore, “eternal peace” is not a universal aspiration of humanity but the ideological product of a final phase, where measured governance organizes already accumulated resources rather than conquering new ones.
The linguistic layer of semantic divergence is exposed by club theory: four “professional” clubs (NF, SF, ST, NT) cluster types by intuition/sensing and logic/ethics axes, creating stable semantic groupings. Speakers from different clubs may use the same words with radically different weightings—hence why negotiations between, say, NT researchers and SF humanitarians stall even when terminology aligns. Overlaying quadral dynamics with club semantics helps explain how the Delta rhetoric of “common good” loses meaning when absorbed into Beta’s gravity of force or Gamma’s pragmatics of equivalent exchange.
Thus, the article rests on a three-layered model: the horizontal trajectory of functions (Model A), the vertical rhythm of quadral phases, and the cross-cutting mesh of club-based semantic filters. The intersection of these systems provides the structural frame for demonstrating why any universal nonviolence strategy collides with irreconcilable conflicts of value metrics.
Architecture of Quadral Values
A quadra is not a club of shared interests but a compact matrix for information selection: all four of its types share the same set of “valued” elements (1st, 2nd, 5th, and 6th functions in Model A). These elements form the filter through which each participant perceives threats, opportunities, and socially acceptable forms of interaction. The formal definition of a group (“coincidence of aspects in Ego + Super-Id”) moves the quadra out of the realm of taste and into that of ontological priorities—hence the exceptionally high internal compatibility of types within a single quadra.
Alpha (Ti Ne Fe Si)
The first quadra values clarity of structural concepts (Ti) and the horizontal circulation of possibilities (Ne); emotional tone (Fe) remains light, aimed at maintaining the background for free exchange. The sensory element (Si) ensures comfort as the “invisible infrastructure” of the process. Peace here is a technical lubricant for the idea. Any disruption to free exchange is perceived as a direct threat, and violence is interpreted primarily as censorship.
Beta (Ti Se Fe Ni)
The second quadra reorients the Ti → Ni logical axis vertically and pairs it with the force vector Se. What matters is not what is true, but what mobilizes. Collective feeling (Fe) becomes a “military chorus”; tension is valued for its own sake because it propels expansion. Pacifism is seen as a loss of tone. Peace is acceptable only when framed as victory—or as a stage for future triumph.
Gamma (Fi Se Te Ni)
The third quadra transforms Beta’s pathos into pragmatics: Se remains an instrument but shifts into a private “territory-as-property” format. The core is fair exchange: private boundaries (Fi) and equivalence of transaction (Te). Peace is appreciated post-factum, once the balance of power and assets is documented. Violence is rationalized as a cost of establishing a fair price.
Delta (Fi Ne Te Si)
The fourth quadra gathers the trailing threads of the cycle. The Fi-Te vector institutionalizes personal responsibility: “relations ↔ utility” are formalized into procedures that regulate interaction without force. Ne provides a vision for nonviolent development, Si supports a stable long-term environment. Here, global agreement becomes an end value for the first time, rather than a byproduct. For Delta, nonviolence is not idealism but an engineering standard for social systems.
Systemic Asymmetry
The attachment of each value ring to a different phase of the cycle means that peace, as a Delta norm, becomes “invisible” to the central quadras (Beta, Gamma) and only “optional” to Alpha. Alpha supports peace as long as the freedom of ideas remains intact; Beta—as long as dramatic tension is preserved; Gamma—as long as the principle of fair exchange holds. Delta, however, treats peace as a built-in constant. This shift in weight coefficients causes a chronic mismatch in threat thresholds and turns the universalization of the Delta norm into a latent source of conflict.
Thus, the analytical framework is set: each historical “peace” initiative fails not because of diplomatic missteps but because its Delta semantics fall into an alien quadral metric of significance and lose logical coherence.
Ontogenesis and the Overcoming of Egocentrism
The quadral sequence mirrors the basic ontogenetic arc of “childhood → youth → maturity → late adulthood.” Research by Gulenko shows that Alpha values are rooted in the cognitive phase of childhood, Beta inherits adolescent maximalism, Gamma correlates with economically productive maturity, and Delta performs the function of cultural sublimation at the later stage of the life cycle.
Childhood is centered on a dominant “I”-perception: the child maintains attention within their own intent and struggles to distinguish their perspective from others’. This cognitive centering is reflected in Alpha: free circulation of ideas (Ne) and a need for logical clarity (Ti) create a risk-free space for play, where differences of opinion are experienced as variation, not threat. Egocentrism is not condemned here—it is simply invisible to the participants as long as the game unfolds without external pressure.
Youth brings a surge of energy and the need for self-assertion through a group of “one’s own.” Beta condenses this impulse into the Se-Ni axis: the personal “I” expands into the scale of a flag or myth that must triumph, or else the dynamic itself loses meaning. Egocentrism is preserved but becomes collective—group identity is perceived as an extension of the individual body, and an outside perspective is acknowledged only if integrated into the “us–them” narrative.
Maturity shifts the focus from names to things: attention moves toward the exchange of equivalent resources, the fixing of boundaries, responsibility, and contract. Gamma embeds egocentrism in the scheme of “private property”: emotional distance (Fi) protects personal zones, while pragmatic logic (Te) evaluates any transaction based on utility. Recognition of the other arises not from moral impulse but from rational acknowledgment of mutual usefulness.
Late adulthood, aligned with Delta, marks the point where cognitive egocentrism fully decouples. The Fi-Te axis no longer serves to reinforce territory but institutionalizes mutual responsibility; Ne retains the vision of possibility for all sides, and Si regulates the environment so those possibilities don’t erode accumulated order. The personal “I” ceases to be the sole center of experience—internal and external contours merge into the concept of “common good.” In Piaget’s terms, this is the completion of the transition from egocentrism to the ability to accept another point of view as equal to one’s own.
This ontogenetic shift explains why the Delta concept of nonviolence is untranslatable into the languages of earlier quadras without loss of meaning. As long as a subject or community remains in Alpha, Beta, or Gamma, the mechanism of decentering is incomplete: peace is seen as an external condition or transaction, not an internal norm. Therefore, the claim to “universal” peace becomes an attempt to impose coordinates attainable only at the final stage of development—and thus provokes rejection where the cycle is still incomplete.
Threat Filters and the Semantics of “Peace”
A threat is not an objective set of facts, but a signal processed through a quadral filter, where the valued elements of Model A redistribute the weight of information. What one quadra perceives as a call to immediate resistance may barely register in another. Hence the diverse interpretations of the term “peace”: each quadra ties it to its specific danger threshold and preferred method of neutralization.
Alpha (Ti Fe Si Ne)
A threat emerges when external pressure blocks the free circulation of ideas. The main danger indicator is censorship or coercion, disrupting the soft sensory environment (Si) and the logical clarity (Ti). For Alpha, “peace” equals continuous information exchange; as long as this stream remains open, even a forceful setup is perceived as decorative background.
Beta (Ti Fe Se Ni)
The central filter is Se-Ni, so the key fear is loss of momentum—the inability to “break through.” Any lull is read as energy decay; tension is inherently valuable, as it mobilizes the group. “Peace” is acceptable only as a pause in a dramatic arc or as a trophy of already achieved victory; when the power dynamic stalls, Beta seeks a new arena for expansion.
Gamma (Te Fi Se Ni)
A threat is formed at the border of private territory: a broken contract or unequal exchange immediately triggers the Fi-Se pair. Force is acceptable as long as it restores value balance; “peace” appears post-factum as a legally fixed contract. If the document does not record resource distribution, peace is treated as fiction, and a force scenario is seen as a rational cost.
Delta (Te Fi Si Ne)
For the final quadra, the critical threat is the erosion of trust and long-term environmental stability. The danger lies in procedural breakdown, undermining the mutual responsibility of Fi-Te and the comfort infrastructure of Si. Thus, “peace” becomes a normative principle: a tool for long-term development rather than an ideological declaration. When external pressure forces a choice between short-term gain and relationship preservation, Delta consistently prioritizes the latter.
Systemic Divergence
These four filters generate incommensurable threat scales: Alpha protects freedom of thought, Beta—kinetic force, Gamma—equivalence of exchange, Delta—trust-based stability. It is this misalignment of thresholds—not a lack of diplomacy—that disrupts universal nonviolence projects: each side accepts as “peace” only the configuration that leaves its own alarm system untouched, and immediately undermines the agreement when its own filter registers critical failure.
Historical Cases: How the Delta Concept of Peace Breaks on Quadral Threat Filters
League of Nations (1919–1939)
Collective security was conceived as an unconditional value: a member state that used force would automatically face a coalition response. This logic reflected the Delta Fi-Te axis: relationships as duty, sanctions as infrastructure. But the era’s main drivers remained Beta and Gamma impulses—expansion and resource revision. Japan seized Manchuria (1931), Italy invaded Ethiopia (1935); both nations exited the League when the “no force” clause clashed with their Se interests. Council decisions required unanimity, and the U.S. (Alpha-style commercial neutrality) never ratified participation, leaving the system without enforcement. The attempt to universalize a Delta norm collapsed: even formal sanctions couldn’t outweigh Beta-Gamma calculations of power advantage.
United Nations: Peace Through Law Under Beta Parity
The 1945 Charter reiterated the Delta principle of “force only through collective action” but embedded veto power for five nuclear states—effectively institutionalizing a Beta balance of fear. When permanent members’ interests diverged, the mechanism stalled. In Rwanda (1994), the peacekeeping mandate was too weak to prevent genocide; over a dozen resolutions on Syria were blocked by Russia and China, reflecting their Se-Ni strategy of spheres of influence. The rhetoric of nonviolence collided with the filter “kinetic force sets the agenda,” and the Delta metric again became secondary.
Paris Agreement, SDGs, and the ESG Agenda: When the “Common Good” Becomes a Transaction
The 2015 climate coalition relied on the Delta postulate of long-term stability (Si) as a supreme norm. A decade later, UNEP reports confirm: to meet the 1.5°C target by 2030, global emissions must drop 42%, but the current trajectory leads to +2.5–2.9°C; the carbon budget may be exhausted by 2028. The problem is not technological—but quadrally incompatible incentives: Gamma-oriented economies interpret decarbonization through the Te-Fi lens of “affordability ↔ competitive edge” and stall radical goals if they cut into short-term returns. In the U.S., anti-ESG backlash turned sustainable finance into an ideological conflict; firms shifted to “green-hushing,” concealing climate credentials to preserve access to Beta-Gamma capital.
Diagram of Divergence
Each project was founded on a Delta premise—“peace/sustainability above the value of force”—but implemented in fields where:
- Beta actors view peace as a pause between willful climaxes;
- Gamma agents evaluate ecology and security by ROI metrics;
- Alpha players support the process as long as it doesn’t limit idea flow or capital.
As long as threat coordinates remain quadra-specific, the Delta norm will be nullified at the first contact with Beta-Gamma logic of force or transaction—as demonstrated by the League, the UN, and the climate agenda.
TIM Illustrations: How Quadral Filters Operate “in Miniature”
In corporate projects, the microdynamics between TIM pairs from different quadras often determine whether a value conflict escalates—or transforms into a productive “division of labor.” Below are three illustrative dyads, each demonstrating a distinct mode of priority reconciliation.
EII (INFj, Dostoyevsky) + LSE (ESTj, Shtirlitz) — Activation-Based “Business Humanism”
Both types belong to the Delta quadra, so their value base aligns, but their leading functions are anti-symmetric: Fi ↔ Te, Ne ↔ Si. The activation effect boosts energetic tone without direct pressure on vulnerable zones; partners quickly move to joint action without requiring deep trust.
Coordination Practice. EII surfaces hidden social risks (loss of loyalty, trust erosion) and formulates ethical success criteria; LSE instantly translates these into procedures, KPIs, and checklists. To prevent overloading the pair, alternate EII’s “humanitarian” brainstorming with LSE’s hard sprints, and summarize each cycle in a short written protocol.
SEE (ESFp, Napoleon) + LII (INTj, Robespierre) — Confrontational Ti ↔ Se Rift
Gamma-SEE operates through direct force (Se), while Alpha-LII relies on formal-conceptual structure (Ti). Each perceives the other’s mode as a threat: SEE sees abstract logic as passive sabotage; LII reads active pressure as system violation. This is a structurally conflictual dyad: one’s base hits the other’s vulnerable.
Damage Control Practice. Mediation is essential: translate SEE’s Se-style “orders” into goal metamodels LII can process, and reframe LII’s Ti critiques into measurable benefits for SEE. Keep contact brief and output-focused; attempts to debate “principles” trigger escalation.
LSI (ISTj, Maxim) + IEE (ENFp, Huxley) — Asymmetrical Observation (Supervision)
Delta-IEE, leading with Ne, supervises Beta-LSI, for whom Ne is a painful blind spot. IEE’s initiatives appear as “scatterbrained” to LSI, while LSI’s structured demands trigger Fe-role strain in IEE, interpreted as emotional pressure. The pairing is attractive at first—values partially overlap, information seems fresh—but eventually generates low-grade tension.
Coordination Practice. Innovation quotas help: IEE brings a limited batch of ideas, LSI evaluates each by hard feasibility criteria. To buffer Ne-strain, IEE should include risk scenarios; LSI should define tolerance levels for uncertainty. Written feedback works best—reducing emotional load on IEE’s Fe role and avoiding LSI’s perfectionist phrasing being taken as personal critique.
Conclusion.
The same principle that derails “global peace” plays out at the micro level: the same stimulus is interpreted in opposite ways when one’s base function exposes the other’s vulnerable. Sustainable “peaceful” configurations are built not on shared values, but on procedural seams that turn incompatible filters into a structured cycle of exchange.
Applied Conclusions
Diplomatic Practice: Procedural Peace Over Value-Based Peace
Universal nonviolence pacts collapse precisely at the point where quadral filters clash. What’s needed is not a new “catalog of values,” but an engineering frame capable of holding divergent weightings of threat perception. Comparative studies of consociational models show that peace agreements are more durable when built not on ideological slogans but on detailed procedures of shared governance—proportional power-sharing, mutual veto rights on symbolic issues, and a structured arbitration ladder.
- Polycentric Architecture. Each side receives an institutionalized “room of its own” (committee, quota, autonomy) and the right to temporarily suspend interaction without exiting the process. This relieves Beta-Gamma pressure for forceful rupture.
- Layered Procedures Instead of Unified Platforms. Alpha actors engage through transparent information flows; Beta via collective security blocs; Gamma through contract-based resource logic; Delta through stable procedural guarantees. The coexistence of all four layers removes the burden of a “one-size-fits-all” value system.
- Limited Censorship Mandates. In Lebanon and Northern Ireland, neutral commissioners focus solely on procedural violations—thus maintaining legitimacy across quadras without triggering filter backlash.
Corporate Practice: Quadra-Specific Change Management
Transformations—sustainability, digitalization, any shift in strategic orientation—fail for the same reason global pacts do: one message filters into four interpretations. The ESG backlash in the U.S. shows this clearly: by mid-2024, over 20 states passed anti-ESG legislation, and survey data shows rising resistance from operations and finance units.
- Gamma Angle: ROI Translation. For Te-Fi-driven departments, sustainability is framed in terms of cost efficiency, regulatory de-risking, and access to capital markets. ESG becomes an asset valuation tool, not a normative claim.
- Beta Angle: Competitive Dramatization. Leaderboards, benchmarking, and gamification turn environmental goals into arenas of visible power and performance. This reframes “sacrifice” as domination.
- Alpha Angle: Market of Signals. APIs, dashboards, and audit trails make ESG an information flow, not a command. Open formats appeal to the Alpha preference for unpressured participation.
- Delta Angle: Normative Embedding. Procedures and operating manuals integrate ESG into long-term metrics and compliance. Business schools already teach ESG as operational and reputational risk, not philosophy.
General Principle.
Whether in statecraft or business, sustainable change is not held together by universal values but by multi-level protocols—each allowing a different quadra to verify that its threshold of danger is accounted for. Procedure becomes, in practice, what peace is for Delta: not an aspiration, but an engineering norm of interaction.