More small groups

[Taknamay]

So, I'm not sure if anybody has already brought this up, but I think that there are logically a couple small groups missing. I only have two in mind at the moment, which I have based on existing small groups.

My first proposal:
Quadras share valued function blocks. Clubs share skilled function blocks. Then, what shares conscious function blocks (Ego block and Super-ego block)? That is the premise of this new group.

I will refer to the small group that shares conscious function blocks as frames-of-reference. This is because, to my understanding of Socionics, types who share the conscious function blocks will look at the same information in the same way, but ultimately differ because of their individual values. When I make these groups, realize it is done by a novice, so please correct me with all your might. If you think my interpretation of how these groups relate to types is wrong, then do you think that there is a real connection to be made within these groups at all? Or are there no important unifying traits? Now, here are the definite properties of frames-of-reference.

Relationships within a frame-of-reference:
Identity
Mirror
Super-ego
Conflict

Dichotomies shared by a frame-of-reference:
Democratic/Aristocratic
Static/Dynamic
Asking/Declaring

So now, here is how I have interpreted the four frames-of reference:

Convicting frame-of-reference: EII, IEE, LSI, SLE. Static, aristocratic, declaring. These types base their actions on specific beliefs about what is universally true.

Remembering frame-of-reference: LII, ILE, SEE, ESI. Static, democratic, asking. These types base their beliefs on specific observations they have made over time.

Learning frame-of-reference: SEI, ESE, ILI, LIE. Dynamic, democratic, declaring. These types base their beliefs based on general observations they are making locally.

Conforming frame-of-reference: EIE, IEI, LSE, SLI. Dynamic, aristocratic, asking. These types base their actions of general beliefs about what is locally true.

Like I said, I might be way off base with this one.


The second one I was thinking of goes: If romantic styles are based on perception elements in the ego block, then is there something based on the judgement elements in the ego block? In an attempt to parallel romantic styles, I will refer to them as Professional styles, referring to how one behaves in non-personal relationships. Once again, I might be basing this on my own misconceptions. Now, here are the definite properties of professional styles:

Dichotomies shared by a professional style:
Thinking/Feeling
Static/Dynamic
Merry/Serious

And now, my personal take on professional style:

Substantiator: LSE, SLI, ILI, LIE. Thinking, dynamic, serious. When acting professionally, substantiators use factual information to interact with those in the same profession.
Motivator: SEI, ESE, EIE, IEI. Feeling, dynamic, merry. When acting professionally, motivators use emotional environment to interact with those in the same profession.
Negotiator: SEE, ESI, EII, IEE. Feeling, static, serious. When acting professionally, negotiators use interpersonal relationships to interact with those in the same profession.
Explanator: ILE, LII, LSI, SLE. Thinking, static, merry. When acting professionally, explanators use conceptual systems to interact with those in the same profession.


Eh, these aren't the best descriptions. I am certain that all of this is mostly wrong, I'm mostly just curious if these even exist.

[FDG]

Not, bad, really, not bad. Actually, really good, definitely. If you're interested in such types of categories, you might want to check out smilingeyes' posts - he wrote quite a bit about them, even though he never further detailed each small group.

[Taknamay]

Why, thank you. While I am sure my descriptions are not entirely accurate, I am happy just being a pioneer in these concepts. In any case, I will check out those posts right now.

[EyeSeeCold]

Nice Taknamay, I'll have to check my observations for these groups. Could you lay out all the missing groups you have focused on? Reinin's Book lists 35 but only accounts for 9.

The Socioniko database details more small groups.

Convicting frame-of-reference: EII, IEE, LSI, SLE. Static, aristocratic, declaring. These types base their actions on specific beliefs about what is universally true.

Remembering frame-of-reference: LII, ILE, SEE, ESI. Static, democratic, asking. These types base their beliefs on specific observations they have made over time.

Learning frame-of-reference: SEI, ESE, ILI, LIE. Dynamic, democratic, declaring. These types base their beliefs based on general observations they are making locally.

Conforming frame-of-reference: EIE, IEI, LSE, SLI. Dynamic, aristocratic, asking. These types base their actions of general beliefs about what is locally true.

Smilingeyes encountered these dichotomic groups, here's what he compiled:

Dynamic-Aristocratic-Taciturn INFp-ENFj-ISTp-ESTj

A group of people who try to find explanations and uses for a selection of communally accepted facts, theories or similar. Each finding the particular accepted facts as important and something to wonder, they are essentially lost, without explanations, as if being in a labyrinth, none having the courage to lead them away from the situation. These are sort of the resentful servants of the group or community. But since in this group there's no one to be the servant of, they're not too likely to get anything done.

The group consists of two mirror pairs who make up the superego of and the conflict partners of the opposing pair. While a single such mirror couple might make for a delightful discussion, having the conflict and superego partners present turns the situation into an argument between the two couples.

Dynamic-Democratic-Narrator ESFj-ISFp-INTp-ENTj

If the former group lacked explanations, this group of narrators have them galore. Their explanations on the other hand, lacking in concrete detail and often contradicting each other would form another kind of a labyrinth of twisting explanations and paths of reasoning. Each individual full of solutions but none willing to carry them out, answers to unasked questions. A group of coffee table know-it-alls.

Static-Aristocratic-Narrator ESTp-INFj-ISTj-ENFp
In opposition to the other narrator group, this one is more clear about personally important information and accepted explanations. They're not exactly the servants of groups, more like wary and capable members. The mirror pairs' disagreements would generally center around beta versus delta values ( to be further determined later, and also discussed in various other places).

Static-Democratic-Taciturn ENTp-ESFp-INTj-ISFj
The final group consists of people who are moved by individual issues of the environment and trying to turn this into their social role. They need people who accept them and give them credit for this. These are people who sort of say: "This is what I am, what are you going to do about it?"

Substantiator: LSE, SLI, ILI, LIE. Thinking, dynamic, serious. When acting professionally, substantiators use factual information to interact with those in the same profession.
Motivator: SEI, ESE, EIE, IEI. Feeling, dynamic, merry. When acting professionally, motivators use emotional environment to interact with those in the same profession.
Negotiator: SEE, ESI, EII, IEE. Feeling, static, serious. When acting professionally, negotiators use interpersonal relationships to interact with those in the same profession.
Explanator: ILE, LII, LSI, SLE. Thinking, static, merry. When acting professionally, explanators use conceptual systems to interact with those in the same profession.

It's not very detailed but these groups are listed here:
http://www.socioniko.net/ru/group/way-handle.html

[Taknamay]

Oh, wow. A lot of those terms are similar to mine.

Substantiator = Methodology
Motivator = Inspirer
Negotiator = Harmonizer
Explanator = Conceptualist

I was looking for smilingeyes thread, but could not find it. Thank you for posting his descriptions. He does seem to interpret these relationships quite differently...

I have not focused on any other small groups yet. These are the only two I have thought about. They seemed like the easiest to approach since I could model them after preexisting groups.