Four intimate-relationship styles defined by the irrational function in the leading block (Se / Ni / Si / Ne)
The leading-block irrational function × polarity (+/−) yields 8 subdivisions. Each page covers the details.
Romance (love-style) — the Psychoanalytic Groups (Психоаналитические группы) — is a small-group classification systematized by Viktor Gulenko in his 1996 paper Life Scenarios (Жизненные сценарии). The 16 types are sorted into four styles according to the irrational function (sensing Se / intuition Ni / sensation Si / possibility Ne) placed in the leading block. The framework is preserved when extended to Model K's 32 types and 8 Quadras.
What makes this classification decisively different from the other small groups (Quadra, Club, Bouquet, etc.) is that its classifying axis is specialized to the domain of intimate relationships. Where Quadras address "shared values," Clubs address "fields of interest," and Bouquets address "life rhythm," Romance addresses the role configuration of courting and being-courted. It is a coordinate system designed to describe behavior specific to intimate relationships, on a dimension separate from everyday personality and ethics.
The classification rests on three crossing dichotomies: Sensing/Intuition (is the leading-block function a sensing or an intuitive function?), Static/Dynamic (is the relationship viewed as "a state that ought to be changed" or as "something in flux"?), and Prudent/Resolute (is intimate relationship a place for play and dialogue, or for intensity and resolve?). The Prudent Quadras (α, δ) produce Caring and Childlike; the Resolute Quadras (β, γ) produce Aggressor and Victim.
An important caveat: "Aggressor" does not mean an aggressive personality, nor does "Victim" mean a victim-like disposition. These concepts denote the dynamic configuration of roles in the domain of intimate relationship; an ordinarily mild-mannered Aggressor or a highly active Victim is perfectly normal. The style names are not to be taken literally — they are kept as translations of Gulenko's original terms.
The three-axis cross of Sensing/Intuition × Static/Dynamic × Prudent/Resolute produces four styles. Under the Model K extension, each style contains 8 types (the basic 4 × Q/D).
The group of types with volitional sensing Se in the leading block. They perceive the relationship as a static state and assume it will not move on its own, so they feel a need to take the initiative and move it themselves. They do not doubt their own interest in a partner and have no hesitation in expressing it. Through the suggestive Ni, they expect the other person to respond dynamically along the temporal axis.
Member types (8): Conqueror SLE-D · Inspector LSI-D (β Quadra) / Performer SEE-Q · Guardian ESI-Q (γ Quadra) / Politician SEE-D · Protector ESI-D (−α Quadra) / Reformer SLE-Q · Overseer LSI-Q (−δ Quadra).
Typical behavior:
Male version: Tends to "possess" a woman through will. In the game of love he likes to stage a struggle and expects the woman to yield to his strength.
Female version: Tends to compete with men, and this does not change even in erotic relationships. She wants to feel that she is more capable than men in every situation, and expects submission, feigned weakness, and emotional instability from them (after Gulenko 1996).
The group of types with temporal intuition Ni in the leading block. They perceive the relationship as a dynamic state, assuming it changes naturally over time, and so they constantly check whether the partner's interest is still continuing as before. Through the suggestive Se, they expect the partner to exercise a certain steady, static force. They seek a presence that will "forcibly pull them back" from their tendency to retreat into introspection and forecast — back into present physical reality.
Member types (8): Mentor EIE-Q · Dreamer IEI-Q (β Quadra) / Strategist ILI-D · Pioneer LIE-D (γ Quadra) / Commander LIE-Q · Critic ILI-Q (−α Quadra) / Prophet IEI-D · Hero EIE-D (−δ Quadra).
Typical behavior:
Male version: Idealizes a dominant woman and adapts himself to her preferences. He unconsciously waits for commands and reproaches from women, and when they are not forthcoming, he tries to draw them out by provocation.
Female version: Idealizes a physically strong man, the protagonist of some story. She wants to experience the man's power on herself, to resist his pressure, and to feel that she herself is a "sacrifice (жертва)" (after Gulenko 1996).
The group of types with sensation Si in the leading block. They perceive the relationship as dynamic and continuous, regarding their partner's physical comfort as something that is always changing. So they pay constant attention to it, adjusting in order to maintain an optimal state. Attraction is generated by aesthetic and intellectual qualities, but they cool quickly when an overly aggressive sexual approach accompanies it. Through the suggestive Ne, they welcome the external stimuli and discoveries that shake them out of their own sensory inertia.
Member types (8): Mediator SEI-D · Enthusiast ESE-D (α Quadra) / Administrator LSE-Q · Artisan SLI-Q (δ Quadra) / Craftsman SLI-D · Executive LSE-D (−β Quadra) / Harmonizer ESE-Q · Expressionist SEI-Q (−γ Quadra).
Typical behavior:
Male version: Experienced, attentive to the inner world of his female partner. Skilled at drawing out affection through protective courtship.
Female version: Tends to take care of her male partner. Drawn to men who are weak but intellectual and who accept her initiative in everyday activities. She permits — or actively prefers — qualities that are not socially regarded as "masculine" (after Gulenko 1996).
The group of types with possibility intuition Ne in the leading block. They perceive the relationship as a static state, assuming that the status quo is essentially boring and stagnant, and so they feel they must constantly present various options and alternatives in order to "get things moving." Interest in the partner is generated by positive aesthetic qualities but stands apart from active, direct sexuality. Through the suggestive Si, they welcome being supplemented by others' support and effort in the areas where they tend to be inattentive — their material conditions, quality of life, and physical comfort.
Member types (8): Seeker ILE-Q · Analyst LII-Q (α Quadra) / Empath EII-D · Publicist IEE-D (δ Quadra) / Counselor IEE-Q · Philosopher EII-Q (−β Quadra) / Designer LII-D · Visionary ILE-D (−γ Quadra).
Typical behavior:
Male version: Dependent, naive about worldly matters. He waits for practical, sincere support from women. He cannot help emphasizing that he has been overlooked, that his talents have gone to waste, and how hard adaptation to ordinary life has been.
Female version: Idealizes a kind, experienced man well-adapted to life — usually older than herself. In his presence she feels almost like a girl, dependent on him in nearly everything. She values tolerance and support, attention to her problems, and considerateness above all (after Gulenko 1996).
Romance is a group that contains not a single Dual pair. The eight types within the same style share a common leading-block irrational function (Se/Ni/Si/Ne) and so behave similarly in the domain of intimacy, but the Dual relation always arises between different Romance styles (every Aggressor's Dual is a Victim; every Caring's Dual is a Childlike). The internal relations among the 8 types — owing to differences in the rational functions (T/F) — consist of Model K relations such as Business, Kindred, Super-Ego, Role, and so on.
For example, within Aggressor, SLE-D and LSI-D (β Quadra, logical-function pair) project authority and systematic strength, while SEE-Q and ESI-Q (γ Quadra, ethical-function pair) project strength in human relations. They take on the same "leading role," but the content expressed differs greatly.
Each style has a partner in the Dual relation that meshes with it like a mirror image: Aggressor ↔ Victim and Caring ↔ Childlike. The crucial point is that this is not a hierarchical division of roles such as "strong/weak" or "parent/child," but a dynamic responsiveness between leading and suggestive functions.
The Aggressor wants to confirm "an intensity the partner can keep up with." The Victim wants to confirm "whether the partner will remain reliably strong." To an outside observer their mutual checking looks like "a game of attack and evasion," but it is in fact a ritual that mutually guarantees each other's presence over time. The Victim's resistance is a prelude to surrender; the Aggressor's forcefulness is a signal of the certainty of their interest.
The Caring is rescued from their own sensory inertia by the partner's "unexpected ideas and proposals." The Childlike has their everyday material life held together by the partner's "fine-grained attention and practical support," which secures the space they need to concentrate on thought and invention. The relationship is not a division of labor but a functional mutual dependence. It is not a one-sided "parent-child" relationship — the Caring also needs the Childlike's surprise.
Romance is formed by a principle different from the other small groups.
| Group | Bonding principle | Dual pairs | Primary functions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quadra | All values (value-perception + value-judgment) | 2 | 4 functions (leading + suggestive blocks) |
| Club | Domain of interest (perception functions) | 0 | 2 functions (perception side only) |
| Bouquet (Temperament) | Life rhythm (Extraversion × Rationality) | 0 | Function form (EJ/EP/IJ/IP) |
| Romance (love-style) | Leading-block irrational function (Perception × Static/Dynamic × Prudent/Resolute) | 0 | 1 function (Se / Ni / Si / Ne) |
Romance is established on a finer grain than the Quadra because it is defined by just one irrational function in the leading block. Conversely, this shows how strongly the leading-block irrational function dominates the domain of courtship — enough that courtship behavior alone can be sorted into four styles on that basis.
Under Model K each base type splits into Q (Question) and D (Declaration), so each Romance style contains 4 base × 2 = 8 types, with all 32 types distributed evenly across the four styles. Q/D differs in conversational style and cognitive direction, but the irrational element placed in the leading block (Se / Ni / Si / Ne) remains invariant, so the axis of Romance itself is unaffected. The polarity (+/−), however, is reversed by Q/D, so polarity-based subdivisions such as the Victim subdivision below depend directly on Q/D.
| Quadra | Aggressor (Se) | Victim (Ni) | Caring (Si) | Childlike (Ne) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| α Genesis | — | — | SEI-D Mediator ESE-D Enthusiast |
ILE-Q Seeker LII-Q Analyst |
| β Empire | SLE-D Conqueror LSI-D Inspector |
EIE-Q Mentor IEI-Q Dreamer |
— | — |
| γ Market | SEE-Q Performer ESI-Q Guardian |
ILI-D Strategist LIE-D Pioneer |
— | — |
| δ Tradition | — | — | LSE-Q Administrator SLI-Q Artisan |
EII-D Empath IEE-D Publicist |
| −α Privileged Society | SEE-D Politician ESI-D Protector |
LIE-Q Commander ILI-Q Critic |
— | — |
| −β Civil Society | — | — | SLI-D Craftsman LSE-D Executive |
IEE-Q Counselor EII-Q Philosopher |
| −γ Utopia | — | — | ESE-Q Harmonizer SEI-Q Expressionist |
LII-D Designer ILE-D Visionary |
| −δ Revolution | SLE-Q Reformer LSI-Q Overseer |
IEI-D Prophet EIE-D Hero |
— | — |
A diagonal distribution is visible. Aggressor and Victim sit in the Resolute Quadra family (β, γ, −α, −δ); Caring and Childlike sit in the Prudent Quadra family (α, δ, −β, −γ). This symmetry forms the structural basis of dual complementarity.
In combinations other than Dual, channel mismatches between leading and suggestive functions cause signals to be misread. Same-style pairings also fail to mesh, because both parties want the same role.
| Combination | Typical friction pattern |
|---|---|
| Aggressor × Caring | The Aggressor's forceful approach reads to the Caring as high-handed and inconsiderate. The Caring's solicitous questioning reads to the Aggressor as boring and overprotective. |
| Aggressor × Childlike | The Childlike strongly rejects Se-style pressure as "scary" or "rude." The Aggressor feels the Childlike's many-option proposals are "indecisive" and ultimately does not take them seriously. |
| Victim × Caring | The Caring's protective approach feels pleasant to the Victim at first, but gradually they begin to feel they are "being treated as the weaker party" and read it as insulting. |
| Victim × Childlike | Neither can provide the other with Si-style support or Se-style initiative; both feel "the other isn't responding." The Victim grows irritated by the lack of practical support; the Childlike is confused by the mixed signals. |
| Same-style pair | Both want the same role, so they fail to mesh. Two Aggressors fall into an endless contest for dominance; two Victims keep waiting for the other one to become the Aggressor. |
How each style perceives the others. Summarized after Gulenko 1996 and Wikisocion.
| vs Aggressor | vs Victim | vs Caring | vs Childlike | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aggressor's view | A stimulating partner worthy of admiration and respect, but the endless contest over dominance leaves them dissatisfied. | Dual: keeps up comfortably with intense interaction, without competitive feeling. | Somewhat boring and high-handed-looking. Hard to develop into a stable intimate relationship. | Fun at first, but invites confusion. Too many options, no decisiveness. |
| Victim's view | Dual: gives comfort and reassurance. Takes direct, clear signals and concrete action. | Disorienting, evasive, no clear signals. | Stable, supportive, and smooth, but boring and monotonous. Excessive care becomes irritating. | Intellectually interesting and refreshing, but does not take concrete action — too focused on speculation. |
| Caring's view | Their way of approaching the domain of romance looks "over the top." Not comfortable in a stable intimate relationship. | Disorienting; never satisfied; paranoid and unstable. | Comfortable, but both focus excessively on the other's needs and fail to show their own, so it stagnates. | Dual: fun, interesting, and welcome company. Refreshing and unexpected remarks bring joy to daily life. |
| Childlike's view | A bit "too rough," sometimes a little scary, or unpleasant. | Paranoid and disorienting, sending contradictory signals. | Dual: pleasant, comfortable company with a wonderful sense of fun. | Fun to spend time with, but powerless and demanding — leaves one feeling stressed. |
Gulenko (1996) acknowledged that the four psychoanalytic groups contain finer internal differences, and for Victim in particular introduced Stratievskaya's distinction between "Tragic Victims (IEI, EIE)" and "Comic Victims (ILI, LIE)." This has long been known as an empirical rule in the classical 16-type framework; from the standpoint of Model K's polarity theory, the distinction corresponds to the polarity difference of the Ni function (−Ni / +Ni). That is the functional basis of the tragic/comic split.
| Polarity | Meaning of the function | Manifestation in the relational domain |
|---|---|---|
| −Ni (result / control) | Converging time — a linear time-axis directed toward a necessary, unavoidable ending | Tragic: fated, suffering narratives; elevation of anguish; heroic devotion; irreversible bonds |
| +Ni (process / diffusion) | Diffusing time — a non-linear time-axis open to parallel possibilities | Comic: irony and distancing; narratives of inversion and deviation; discomfort with the "victim" label itself |
Stratievskaya's classical observation (IEI/EIE = tragic, ILI/LIE = comic) corresponds, in the 16-type frame, to IEI/EIE carrying −Ni and ILI/LIE carrying +Ni. With Q/D taken into account in Model K, Q/D inverts the function's polarity, so the tragic/comic classification coincides with the Q/D classification: of the eight Victim types, the four Q types are the tragic group and the four D types are the comic group.
The group whose leading block carries Ni in the result/control polarity, living a converging time-axis. They tend to experience partnership as "progression toward an inevitable ending," with anguish, sublimity, and the language of fate at the emotional center. The −Ni-c types (EIE-Q, LIE-Q) emphasize an outwardly dramatic expression; the −Ni-p types (IEI-Q, ILI-Q) emphasize inward suffering and foreboding. In the classical 16-type Stratievskaya split, this corresponds to IEI/EIE (β Quadra).
The group whose leading block carries Ni in the process/diffusion polarity, living a diffusing time-axis. They tend to experience partnership as "unexpected developments, deviations, inversions," with irony, distancing, and cool observation at the emotional center. They are uncomfortable with the "victim" label itself and resist defining themselves that way. At the same time, in the Dual relation they inwardly keep waiting for the Aggressor's direct approach — and this contradiction is what often leads to their being called "pseudo-Aggressors." In the classical 16-type Stratievskaya split, this corresponds to ILI/LIE (γ Quadra).
If the difference between "tragic (−Ni)" and "comic (+Ni)" Victims can be reduced to the function's polarity, the same logic applies to the other three styles. Aggressor (Se) splits along ±Se; Caring (Si) along ±Si; Childlike (Ne) along ±Ne. This yields 4 styles × 2 polarities = 8 subdivisions.
By the structure of Model K, all irrational functions within a given Quadra take the same polarity (α, γ, −β, −δ are + polarity; β, δ, −α, −γ are − polarity). The polarity-based bipartition therefore aligns with similarity of behavior at the Quadra level. This structurally explains the empirical observation that "δ Childlikes resemble δ Carings" — both share the same − polarity (Prevention).
Model K's +/− polarity aligns strikingly with the Promotion/Prevention focus of E.T. Higgins's Regulatory Focus Theory (1997, 1998). It is also consistent with J.A. Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (BIS/BAS) and R.J. Davidson's research on frontal-lobe asymmetry, making for a persuasive psychological and neuroscientific basis for the +/− polarity.
| + polarity (process / diffusion) | − polarity (result / control) | |
|---|---|---|
| Higgins focus | Promotion focus | Prevention focus |
| Need | Nurturance, advancement, growth | Security, certainty, defense |
| Strategy | Eagerness | Vigilance |
| Sensitivity | Presence/absence of gains | Presence/absence of losses |
| Gray RST | BAS (Behavioral Activation System) dominant | BIS (Behavioral Inhibition System) dominant |
| Frontal-lobe asymmetry | Left frontal activation (approach) | Right frontal activation (withdrawal) |
| Manifestation in the relational domain | Focus on growth, novelty, and expansion of the relationship | Focus on stability, certainty, and defense of the relationship |
Each subdivision is given both an academic name (a polarity-based functional designation) and an intuitive English/colloquial name with a tagline, easier to grasp in a romantic context. The latter naming is the Association's own and is meant for use in educational and self-understanding settings.
| Style | + polarity (Promotion) | − polarity (Prevention) |
|---|---|---|
| Aggressor (Se) | Pioneering — Hunter (γ + −δ) A hunter who reads the moment and catches the wave Catches opportunities broadly — opportunistic conquest SEE-Q Performer · ESI-Q Guardian · SLE-Q Reformer · LSI-Q Overseer |
Possessive — Owner (β + −α) Once chosen, never let go Secures the chosen target — exclusive possession SLE-D Conqueror · LSI-D Inspector · SEE-D Politician · ESI-D Protector |
| Victim (Ni) | Comic — Ironist (γ + −δ) [Stratievskaya] Lightening heavy fate with wit Diffusing time — distancing, irony, inversion ILI-D Strategist · LIE-D Pioneer · IEI-D Prophet · EIE-D Hero |
Tragic — Dreamer (β + −α) [Stratievskaya] Unwaveringly believing in the love they dreamed of Converging time — fate, suffering, the sublime EIE-Q Mentor · IEI-Q Dreamer · LIE-Q Commander · ILI-Q Critic |
| Caring (Si) | Hospitable — Homemaker (α + −β) Filling the place that belongs to the two of you with warmth Wrapping in abundant comfort — diffusive hospitality SEI-D Mediator · ESE-D Enthusiast · SLI-D Craftsman · LSE-D Executive |
Practical — Concierge (δ + −γ) Anticipating "what is needed" and quietly arranging it Focused on concrete needs — focal service LSE-Q Administrator · SLI-Q Artisan · ESE-Q Harmonizer · SEI-Q Expressionist |
| Childlike (Ne) | Exploratory — Wanderer (α + −β) A traveler whose heart leaps at the unknown Plays at pure possibility — diffusive exploration ILE-Q Seeker · LII-Q Analyst · IEE-Q Counselor · EII-Q Philosopher |
Accompanying — Mentor (δ + −γ) Quietly guiding you from beside you Attends to the individual — focal empathy IEE-D Publicist · EII-D Empath · LII-D Designer · ILE-D Visionary |
Each Quadra contains either the Caring/Childlike (Prudent) pair or the Aggressor/Victim (Resolute) pair, and those two styles share the same polarity focus, giving the Quadra as a whole a unified flavor. Model K has 8 Quadras, and the adjacent Quadra pairs (α↔−β, β↔−α, γ↔−δ, δ↔−γ) share the same Romance polarity pair. This is because both Quadras share the element and polarity of the irrational perception function (sensing or intuition); only the pair of rational judgment functions (logic/ethics) differs.
| Quadra | Polarity | Romance polarity pair | Integrative Quadra style |
|---|---|---|---|
| α (Genesis) | + | Hospitable Caring + Exploratory Childlike | Abundance and exploration — the Promotion mode of the Prudent family |
| −β (Civil Society) | + | Hospitable Caring + Exploratory Childlike | |
| β (Empire) | − | Possessive Aggressor + Tragic Victim | Possession and fate — the Prevention mode of the Resolute family |
| −α (Privileged Society) | − | Possessive Aggressor + Tragic Victim | |
| γ (Market) | + | Pioneering Aggressor + Comic Victim | Opportunity and irony — the Promotion mode of the Resolute family |
| −δ (Revolution) | + | Pioneering Aggressor + Comic Victim | |
| δ (Tradition) | − | Practical Caring + Accompanying Childlike | Service and attendance — the Prevention mode of the Prudent family |
| −γ (Utopia) | − | Practical Caring + Accompanying Childlike |
Adjacent Quadra pairs (e.g. α↔−β) differ in the pair of rational judgment functions (Ti/Te, Fe/Fi), so they differ in social outlook and style of judgment, but share the element and polarity of the irrational perception function (Ne/Si or Se/Ni). This is the consequence of Romance depending not on the whole of the value-functions but solely on the element and polarity of the irrational function in the leading block. For example, α and −β are split on the judgment axis (subjective logic vs. objective fact), but in the romantic domain they operate in the same "hospitality + exploration" mode (Promotion focus).
This integrative style explains why, for instance, the δ Childlikes (IEE-D Publicist, EII-D Empath) often give an impression of "caretaking children" that is hard to distinguish from the same δ Carings (LSE-Q Administrator, SLI-Q Artisan): the functional elements differ, but both share the same Prevention focus (concreteness, attendance, defensive orientation). Conversely, the α Childlikes (ILE-Q Seeker, LII-Q Analyst) show a pure exploratory orientation of + polarity and never assume a Caring-style caretaking role.
As confirmed in Section 3, no Dual relation exists within the same Romance style — it always arises between different styles (Aggressor↔Victim, Caring↔Childlike). At the level of polarity subdivisions, Dual pairs appear as same-polarity combinations of different styles.
| Dual pair (polarity subdivision) | Polarity | Quadras (primary / counter) | Example Dual relations (K-type) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospitable Caring ↔ Exploratory Childlike | + (Promotion) | α / −β | ESE-D ↔ LII-Q, SEI-D ↔ ILE-Q |
| Practical Caring ↔ Accompanying Childlike | − (Prevention) | δ / −γ | LSE-Q ↔ EII-D, SLI-Q ↔ IEE-D |
| Pioneering Aggressor ↔ Comic Victim | + (Promotion) | γ / −δ | SEE-Q ↔ ILI-D, ESI-Q ↔ LIE-D |
| Possessive Aggressor ↔ Tragic Victim | − (Prevention) | β / −α | SLE-D ↔ IEI-Q, LSI-D ↔ EIE-Q |
Observed structural fact: both partners in a Dual relation always share the same polarity focus. As a result, Dual complementarity is consistent not only at the courtship-behavior level (the Aggressor↔Victim role pairing, etc.) but also at the motivational-structure level (Promotion with Promotion; Prevention with Prevention). For example, the "Hospitable Caring + Exploratory Childlike" pair shares + polarity (growth orientation, novelty-seeking, eagerness), so their daily motivational rhythm resonates naturally on top of the courtship behavior. The "Possessive Aggressor + Tragic Victim" pair shares − polarity (defense orientation, certainty-seeking, vigilance), and a structure of bond-formation through rituals of tension and confirmation arises easily.
This is consistent with the empirical finding of Bohns et al. (2013), "Opposites fit" — couples who are Promotion-Promotion or Prevention-Prevention report higher relationship well-being than Promotion-Prevention cross-couples. That Model K's Dual structure also coincides at the polarity level explains the natural meshing of the relationship on multiple layers.
Conversely, cross-polarity pairings (e.g. Exploratory Childlike + Practical Caring, or Pioneering Aggressor + Tragic Victim) correspond, in Model K relational theory, to relations other than Dual — Activation, Mirror, Kindred, Semi-Dual, and so on. Because the polarity focus diverges (Promotion vs. Prevention), even when the courtship roles complement each other the motivational rhythm fails to mesh, so the all-layered natural complementarity of the Dual is not established. This is the obverse of Bohns's observation that "same-polarity Duals dominate in well-being," and it shows that polarity subdivision functions not as a mere classification category but as a generative principle of relational structure.
While this extension has theoretical consistency and psychological grounding, empirical verification remains a task. Each subdivision should be operationalized in terms of measurable behavioral variables — growth orientation vs. defense orientation within the relationship; sensitivity to gains vs. losses; novelty-seeking vs. stability-seeking — and the qualitative differences of Dual complementarity should be demonstrated empirically. Just as Stratievskaya's Victim subdivision was derived from empirical observation, the subdivision of the other three styles is positioned as an open hypothesis to be checked against observation and clinical experience.