Is there any logic behind describing the particular functions separately? As in describing what is, for example. It just doesn't click for me to use the functions as nouns. For instance, why does it make sense to say "Xx function is stronger for certain types" or "Xx function is related to this and that"? I've been considering that it might be wrong in a realistic (actually practical) sense to do so, and that it might be better to describe pairings rather than individual functions. Has anyone thought about this more or less? I'm finding myself straying from the "block" way of describing personality types. Of course, it might be that I'm not understanding this aspect of Socionics well, or that the impression I get is from people who project their own personal understanding of it. I'm just curious to see if there is some kind of thought behind approaching types as the combination of individual function blocks, and depending on the specific order, you get a personality type. Ultimately, what seems to be the main issue for me is the justification that types are a mix of primary colors, using the color spectrum as an analogy, instead of each type having their own primary colors.