Small groups

From Wikisocion
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page or section is incomplete. Additional contributions are needed.

Socionic types can be combined into groups that share common socionic traits. These are referred to as small groups, or quaternions if the number of types in the group is four. The most well-known small groups in socionics are quadras and clubs.

Small groups as a socionic concept generally include four types which have three Reinin traits in common. For example, the club of Pragmatists is Sensing, Logical, and Aristocratic. There are 140 such small groups.


Small groups
Quadras Alpha Beta Gamma Delta
Clubs Researchers Socials Pragmatists Humanitarians
Temperaments EP EJ IP IJ
Communication styles Businesslike Passionate Cold-blooded Sincere
Romance styles Aggressor Victim Caring Childlike


Classical socionics
IM elements - Functions - Socion - Type dichotomies - Intertype relations - Small groups


Sortable Small Group Table

# Diagram Source Small Groups Dichotomy Triad    Types
1 Gulenko
Stimulus Seeking
Uniqueness
Prestige
Self-Confidence
Well-being
E N EN
Extrovert Intuitive Carefree
Extrovert Sensory Farsighted
Introvert Intuitive Farsighted
Introvert Sensory Carefree
       
ILE LIE IEE EIE
SLE LSE SEE ESE
ILI LII IEI EII
SLI LSI SEI ESI
1 Model B
Dimension (Irrational)
-4d
-4d
-4d
-4d
E N EN
Extrovert Intuitive Carefree
Extrovert Sensory Farsighted
Introvert Intuitive Farsighted
Introvert Sensory Carefree
       
ILE LIE IEE EIE
SLE LSE SEE ESE
ILI LII IEI EII
SLI LSI SEI ESI
2 Gulenko
Communication Style
Business-like
Passionate
Cool
Sincere
E T ET
Extrovert Logical Yielding
Extrovert Ethical Obstinate
Introvert Logical Obstinate
Introvert Ethical Yielding
       
ILE LIE SLE LSE
IEE EIE SEE ESE
ILI LII SLI LSI
IEI EII SEI ESI
2 Model B
Dimension (Rational)
-4d
-4d
-4d
-4d
E T ET
Extrovert Logical Yielding
Extrovert Ethical Obstinate
Introvert Logical Obstinate
Introvert Ethical Yielding
       
ILE LIE SLE LSE
IEE EIE SEE ESE
ILI LII SLI LSI
IEI EII SEI ESI
3 Classic
Temperament
Flexible-Maneuvering
Linear-Assertive
Receptive-Adaptive
Rigid-Stable
E P EP
Extrovert Irrational Static
Extrovert Rational Dynamic
Introvert Irrational Dynamic
Introvert Rational Static
       
ILE IEE SLE SEE
LIE EIE LSE ESE
ILI IEI SLI SEI
LII EII LSI ESI
4 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
E NT ENT
Extrovert Democratic Positivist
Extrovert Aristocratic Negativist
Introvert Democratic Negativist
Introvert Aristocratic Positivist
       
ILE LIE SEE ESE
IEE EIE SLE LSE
ILI LII SEI ESI
IEI EII SLI LSI
5 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
E NP ENP
Extrovert Tactical Judicious
Extrovert Strategic Decisive
Introvert Tactical Decisive
Introvert Strategic Judicious
       
ILE IEE LSE ESE
LIE EIE SLE SEE
ILI IEI LSI ESI
LII EII SLI SEI
6 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
E TP ETP
Extrovert Constructivist Merry
Extrovert Emotivist Serious
Introvert Constructivist Serious
Introvert Emotivist Merry
       
ILE SLE EIE ESE
IEE SEE LIE LSE
ILI SLI EII ESI
IEI SEI LII LSI
7 Gulenko
Rings of Benefit
Energy Generators
Energy Carriers
Information Accumulators
Information Generators
E NTP ENTP
Extrovert Process Asking
Extrovert Results Declaring
Introvert Process Declaring
Introvert Results Asking
       
ILE EIE LSE SEE
LIE IEE SLE ESE
ILI EII LSI SEI
LII IEI SLI ESI
8 Classic
Club
Researcher
Humanitarian
Pragmatist
Social
N T NT
Intuitive Logical Democratic
Intuitive Ethical Aristocratic
Sensory Logical Aristocratic
Sensory Ethical Democratic
       
ILE LIE ILI LII
IEE EIE IEI EII
SLE LSE SLI LSI
SEE ESE SEI ESI
9 Gulenko
Perceptual Groups
Associative
Dissociative
Commutative
Distributive
N P NP
Intuitive Irrational Tactical
Intuitive Rational Strategic
Sensory Irrational Strategic
Sensory Rational Tactical
       
ILE IEE ILI IEI
LIE EIE LII EII
SLE SEE SLI SEI
LSE ESE LSI ESI
9 Structural
Functional Axis (Irrational)
Intuitive Base
Intuitive Creative
Sensory Base
Sensory Creative
N P NP
Intuitive Irrational Tactical
Intuitive Rational Strategic
Sensory Irrational Strategic
Sensory Rational Tactical
       
ILE IEE ILI IEI
LIE EIE LII EII
SLE SEE SLI SEI
LSE ESE LSI ESI
10 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
N ET ENT
Intuitive Yielding Positivist
Intuitive Obstinate Negativist
Sensory Yielding Negativist
Sensory Obstinate Positivist
       
ILE LIE IEI EII
IEE EIE ILI LII
SLE LSE SEI ESI
SEE ESE SLI LSI
11 Gulenko
Romance Style
Childlike
Victim
Aggressor
Caring
N EP ENP
Intuitive Static Judicious
Intuitive Dynamic Decisive
Sensory Static Decisive
Sensory Dynamic Judicious
       
ILE IEE LII EII
LIE EIE ILI IEI
SLE SEE LSI ESI
LSE ESE SLI SEI
11 Structural
Ego Element (Irrational)
N EP ENP
Intuitive Static Judicious
Intuitive Dynamic Decisive
Sensory Static Decisive
Sensory Dynamic Judicious
       
ILE IEE LII EII
LIE EIE ILI IEI
SLE SEE LSI ESI
LSE ESE SLI SEI
12 Gulenko
Project Groups
Ideation Process
General Results
Concrete Results
Concrete Process
N TP NTP
Intuitive Constructivist Process
Intuitive Emotivst Results
Sensory Constructivist Results
Sensory Emotivist Process
       
ILE EIE ILI EII
LIE IEE LII IEI
SLE ESE SLI ESI
LSE SEE LSI SEI
13 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
N ETP ENTP
Intuitive Merry Asking
Intuitive Serious Declaring
Sensory Merry Declaring
Sensory Serious Asking
       
ILE EIE LII IEI
LIE IEE ILI EII
SLE ESE LSI SEI
LSE SEE SLI ESI
14 Gulenko
Reasoning
Restructures
Constructors
Diplomats
Guardians
T P TP
Logical Irrational Constructivist
Logical Rational Emotivist
Ethical Irrational Emotivst
Ethical Rational Constructivist
       
ILE SLE ILI SLI
LIE LSE LII LSI
IEE SEE IEI SEI
EIE ESE EII ESI
14 Structural
Functional Axis (Rational)
Logical Creative
Logical Base
Ethical Creative
Ethical Base
T P TP
Logical Irrational Constructivist
Logical Rational Emotivist
Ethical Irrational Emotivst
Ethical Rational Constructivist
       
ILE SLE ILI SLI
LIE LSE LII LSI
IEE SEE IEI SEI
EIE ESE EII ESI
15 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
T EN ENT
Logical Carefree Positivist
Logical Farsighted Negativist
Ethical Carefree Negativist
Ethical Farsighted Positivist
       
ILE LIE SLI LSI
SLE LSE ILI LII
IEE EIE SEI ESI
SEE ESE IEI EII
16 Structural
Ego Element (Rational)
T EP ETP
Logical Static Merry
Logical Dynamic Serious
Ethical Static Serious
Ethical Dynamic Merry
       
ILE SLE LII LSI
LIE LSE ILI SLI
IEE SEE EII ESI
EIE ESE IEI SEI
17 Gulenko
Implementation Groups
Transition of feminine to masculine
Most masculine
Transition of masculine to feminine
Most feminine
T NP NTP
Logical Tactical Process
Logical Strategic Results
Ethical Tactical Results
Ethical Strategic Process
       
ILE LSE ILI LSI
LIE SLE LII SLI
IEE ESE IEI ESI
EIE SEE EII SEI
18 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
T ENP ENTP
Logical Judicious Asking
Logical Decisive Declaring
Ethical Judicious Declaring
Ethical Decisive Asking
       
ILE LSE SLI LII
SLE LIE ILI LSI
IEE ESE SEI EII
SEE EIE IEI ESI
19 Structural
Dual Axis (Irrational)
or Base
or Base
or Creative
or Creative
P EN ENP
Irrational Carefree Judicious
Irrational Farsighted Decisive
Rational Carefree Decisive
Rational Farsighted Judicious
       
ILE IEE SLI SEI
ILI IEI SLE SEE
LIE EIE LSI ESI
LII EII LSE ESE
20 Structural
Dual Axis (Rational)
or Creative
or Creative
or Base
or Base
P ET ETP
Irrational Yielding Merry
Irrational Obstinate Serious
Rational Yielding Serious
Rational Obstinate Merry
       
ILE IEI SLE SEI
ILI IEE SLI SEE
LIE EII LSE ESI
LII EIE LSI ESE
21 Gulenko
Stress Resistance
Frozen by Stress
Resistant to Stress
Trained by Stress
Vulerable to Stress
P NT NTP
Irrational Democratic Process
Irrational Aristocratic Result
Rational Democratic Result
Rational Aristocratic Process
       
ILE SEE ILI SEI
IEE SLE IEI SLI
LIE ESE LII ESI
EIE LSE EII LSI
22 Gulenko
Club Displacement
Iridescent Hopes
Waiting
Realistic Plans
Avoiding Failures
P ENT ENTP
Irrational Positivist Asking
Irrational Negativist Declaring
Rational Positivist Declaring
Rational Negativist Asking
       
ILE IEI SLI SEE
ILI IEE SLE SEI
LIE EII LSI ESE
LII EIE LSE ESI
23 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
EN ET NT
Carefree Yielding Democratic
Carefree Obstinate Aristocratic
Farsighted Yielding Aristocratic
Farsighted Obstinate Democratic
       
ILE LIE SEI ESI
IEE EIE SLI LSI
SLE LSE IEI EII
SEE ESE ILI LII
24 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
EN EP NP
Carefree Static Tactical
Carefree Dynamic Strategic
Farsighted Static Strategic
Farsighted Dynamic Tactical
       
ILE IEE LSI ESI
LIE EIE SLI SEI
LII EII SLE SEE
ILI IEI LSE ESE
25 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
EN TP ENTP
Carefree Constructivist Asking
Carefree Emotivist Declaring
Farsighted Constructivist Declaring
Farsighted Emotivist Asking
       
ILE EIE SLI ESI
IEE LIE SEI LSI
SLE ESE ILI EII
SEE LSE IEI LII
26 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
EN ETP NTP
Carefree Merry Process
Carefree Serious Results
Farsighted Merry Results
Farsighted Serious Process
       
ILE EIE SEI LSI
IEE LIE SLI ESI
SLE ESE IEI LII
SEE LSE ILI EII
27 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
ET EP TP
Yielding Static Constructivist
Yielding Dynamic Emotivist
Obstinate Static Emotivist
Obstinate Dynamic Constructivist
       
ILE EII SLE ESI
LIE IEI LSE SEI
LII IEE LSI SEE
ILI EIE SLI ESE
28 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
ET NP ENTP
Yielding Tactical Asking
Yielding Strategic Declaring
Obstinate Tactical Declaring
Obstinate Strategic Asking
       
ILE LSE IEI ESI
SLE LIE SEI EII
IEE ESE ILI LSI
SEE EIE SLI LII
29 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
ET ENP NTP
Yielding Judicious Process
Yielding Decisive Results
Obstinate Judicious Results
Obstinate Decisive Process
       
ILE LSE SEI EII
SLE LIE IEI ESI
IEE ESE SLI LII
SEE EIE ILI LSI
30 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
EP NT ENTP
Static Democratic Asking
Static Aristocratic Declaring
Dynamic Democratic Declaring
Dynamic Aristocratic Asking
       
ILE SEE LII ESI
SLE IEE EII LSI
LIE ESE ILI SEI
LSE EIE IEI SLI
31 Gulenko
Cognitive Styles
Causal Determinist
Holographic Panoramic
Vortical Synergetic
Dialectic Algorithimic
EP ENT NTP
Static Positivist Process
Static Negativist Results
Dynamic Positivist Results
Dynamic Negativist Process
       
ILE LSI SEE EII
SLE LII IEE ESI
LIE IEI ESE SLI
EIE ILI LSE SEI
32 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
NT NP TP
Democratic Tactical Constructivist
Democratic Strategic Emotivist
Aristocratic Tactical Emotivist
Aristocratic Strategic Constructivist
       
ILE ESE ILI ESI
SEE LIE SEI LII
IEE LSE IEI LSI
SLE EIE SLI EII
33 Classic
Quadra
Alpha
Gamma
Delta
Beta
NT ENP ETP
Democratic Judicious Merry
Democratic Decisive Serious
Aristocratic Judicious Serious
Aristocratic Decisive Merry
       
ILE ESE SEI LII
SEE LIE ILI ESI
IEE LSE SLI EII
SLE EIE IEI LSI
34 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
NP ENT ETP
Tactical Positivist Merry
Tactical Negativist Serious
Strategic Positivist Serious
Strategic Negativist Merry
       
ILE ESE IEI LSI
IEE LSE ILI ESI
SEE LIE SLI EII
SLE EIE SEI LII
35 x
Undefined
1
2
3
4
TP ENT ENP
Constructivist Positivist Judicious
Constructivist Negativist Decisive
Emotivist Positivist Decisive
Emotivist Negativist Judicious
       
ILE ESE SLI EII
SLE EIE ILI ESI
SEE LIE IEI LSI
IEE LSE SEI LII

Error Correction

Each small group is a group of four types that share three dichotomy traits in common. Any combination of two of these three traits is enough information to define the small group. Since each small group is defined by all three traits, defining two selects the small group and implies what the third trait must be.

When using dichotomies to type a person, this redundancy can be used to double check observations. For instance, a person who is introverted and irrational, must be the receptive-adaptive temperament, and must also be a dynamic type. If all four of these traits, the three dichotomy and one small group, the are diagnosed independently and agree with each other, it is much more likely the assessment is correct. It is still possible to get a false positive, but it would require getting two dichotomy traits and the small group wrong. This dichotomy relation of two traits implying a third is true even for undefined small groups. The only difference is the description of the small group cannot be used as a check. In this case, it would still require two mistakes to get a false positive. In practice, it is likely that additional traits will be explored to check an original observation. It is very important to remain objective to avoid confirmation bias.

Even though all dichotomies are mathematically related through small groups, if a trait is not very accurate, it can harm the overall assessment. No method is always correct, so testing for the third dichotomy trait always increased the chances of getting inconsistent results. For traits that are reliable, this is worth it because the small chance of error is traded for a much higher confidence. However, traits that are not reliable harm the entire system, and are likely to contradict other correct observations.

In the case of an inconsistency, another method is needed to resolve the error. Some people apply small groups and dichotomies in a first phase to focus what model A questions to ask in a second phase. Others test as many traits as they can and then average the results.

There is not a consensus which dichotomies and small groups are reliable, so it is up to each individual practitioner to try them out and decide what combinations to use. Hopefully, in the future, rigorous scientific trials can test the accuracy of each concept and method, but for now, most of these concepts are still experimental.

Tetrachotomies

A tetrachotomy is like a dichotomy, but with four elements, instead of two. When applied to the types, each element of a tetrachotomy is a small group.

A tetrachotomy represent an overall theme of the four small groups it divide. Quadra is the tetrachotomy of alpha, beta, gamma and delta. Club is the tetrachotomy of the researcher, humanitarian, socialite and pragmatist small groups. Temperament is the tetrachotomy of flexible-maneuvering, receptive-adaptive, linear-assertive and rigid-stable small groups.

By far, the most common tetrachotomies are combinations of three dichotomies. The table of all 140 small groups are grouped by this kind of regular tetrachotomy. However, it is possible to mix the small groups from two regular tetrachotomies together as long as they share a dichotomy division in common. When two related tetrachotomies are mixed, they result in a conjugate pair of mixed tetrachotomies. There are over a two thousand ways to create unique mixed tetrachotomies, but only four make sense in the context of model A. They are created by mixing regular tetrachotomies #9 with #14 and #19 with #20. All four of these tetrachotomies share the P {irrational, rational} dichotomy. The reason for mixing is the functional and intertype relation structure of model A, which is made asymmetric by rationality. These specific tetrachotomies can be mixed to group all the base functions or all creative functions together.

This is necessary to produce some of Reinin's intertype relation tetrachotomies using type dichotomies, like the square (relaxation) and health group. Square is four types that all have the same leading quadra value and health group is four types with the same leading strength.

Dynamic Socionics

There has been further research on all 35 of the small group systems at the Dynamic Socionics Center, headed by Vladimir Mironov. The related resources are linked in the further reading section below, and there is also a one of a kind book written on the subject called "Semantics of information aspects" by Kochubeeva LA, Mironova VV, and Stoyalova ML. All of the resources mentioned in this section as in Russian, so further translation and acquisition of information in English would be greatly appreciated.

Semantics of information aspects book: http://www.dynamicsocionics.ru/magazin-socionics/product/view/2/3.html

Further reading