# Is the world as a whole moving towards a beta cycle?



## Afruabarkio (May 29, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> How is it random? I would say there's a pretty strong underlying theme uniting most of these in what I find interesting.


Attack on titan is included.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Afruabarkio said:


> Attack on titan is included.


How can I know what something is without watching it first? I saw less than an episode because I wanted to see what it was and realized quickly it wasn't for me.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> If you actually bothered to understand my posts aside just reading the words in them, you'd realize I never made such a claim. The only reason I use Hitler is because he's collectively agreed upon to be a beta NF and the logic behind Nazism is strikingly aristocratic, whether you like it or not. Does it mean every aristocratic type is going to be a racist or a nazist? Of course not. It is just simply inherent within the mentality of aristocracy to view people in terms of groups this way, where the development of racist ideas is simply _one potential option for an aristocrat to latch onto._ The only one? Of course not. Certain groups of feminists are likely beta NFs; certain group of human rights activists are likely beta NFs; certain groups of liberal left wingers are likely beta NFs. It's not about the ideal itself; it's about how and why they latch onto that ideal. Perhaps it would do you good to actually learn to use that supposed intuition of yours. Then you would finally be able to actually expand your own narrow understanding of the world and see what people are really trying to say instead of what you think they say. They are not the same thing.


As I wrote, I do not claim that you think that any Beta must be racist. It is that you claim that a racist must be Beta or at very least aristocratic. However considering your view of Delta then you seem to think that they are all hippie and flower-power, which leaves just Beta to be racist.



ephemereality said:


> Explain to how it's inclusive and how delta is not? Because to me beta is very exclusive from how I understand it after talking to Diph.


Because Fe. Isn't that what you found annoying with the ESE that raised you? That she wanted to include you into things and didn't stop bothering you?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Explain to how it's inclusive and how delta is not? Because to me beta is very exclusive from how I understand it after talking to Diph.


Fe vs. Fi. Fe creates a positive environment for the entire group completely independently from person's subjective hierarchy of relationships. Fe includes people even if they haven't been around to establish Fi bonds with everyone in a group.

I've had many arguments over this with Deltas when I tried to include all people who were involved, while they wanted to listen only to those people who have been around for a long time. In other words, they wanted to form an "ole boys club" that would make all the decisions away from the and for the "masses", while I wanted everyone involved have a voice and be able to make a contribution.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Fe vs. Fi. Fe creates a positive environment for the entire group completely independently from person's subjective hierarchy of relationships. Fe includes people even if they haven't been around to establish Fi bonds with everyone in a group.
> 
> I've had many arguments over this with Deltas when I tried to include all people who were involved, while they wanted to listen only to those people who have been around for a long time. In other words, they wanted to form an "ole boys club" that would make all the decisions away from the and for the "masses", while I wanted everyone involved have a voice and be able to make a contribution.


Then how does beta aristocracy differ? You don't experience that claiming that person X belongs to Y group because of A traits is exclusive?


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> According to Gulenko's (and maybe others'?) clock mechanic, each quadra and their values come and go replacing each other over time, influencing society in certain directions and try to make up for the previous quadra's messes creating a clockwork-like cycle.
> 
> I have observed tendencies where society has been and seems to be moving, though now apparently more aggressively, towards a beta phase of sorts. We for example see it in the arts where beta NF drama seems to dominate. Films like Black Swan come to mind though this is simply one example. I could cite several but I'm extremely sleep-deprived so I can offer more if someone's interested.
> 
> ...


I've been debating this question off and on. Whether or not countries can follow cycles. However, my assumption was that the US, and large parts of the world were becoming more Delta. I think the world is probably too large to go through one cycle, and I think if there were cycles, they would be brief and unhealthy for the country (world). One personality or one quadra couldn't rule without ramifications.

Also, I think the developing world is probably more Beta, so maybe that's where the theory came from. For example, Russia, Poland, and a few other similar countries (China maybe as well) is becoming more Beta, but obviously westerners are very different than people in the east.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> the parts of modern culture that are more Beta tend to be:
> 
> 2) corporate culture


I think corporate culture also has a large Gamma portion (ENTj/ISFj)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> I've been debating this question off and on. Whether or not countries can follow cycles. However, my assumption was that the US, and large parts of the world were becoming more Delta. I think the world is probably too large to go through one cycle, and I think if there were cycles, they would be brief and unhealthy for the country (world). One personality or one quadra couldn't rule without ramifications.


What other part of the world except the US? It's a bit vague and I'd like more concrete suggestions. 



> Also, I think the developing world is probably more Beta, so maybe that's where the theory came from. For example, Russia, Poland, and a few other similar countries (China maybe as well) is becoming more Beta, but obviously westerners are very different than people in the east.


Explain why?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Inguz said:


> As I wrote, I do not claim that you think that any Beta must be racist. It is that you claim that a racist must be Beta or at very least aristocratic. However considering your view of Delta then you seem to think that they are all hippie and flower-power, which leaves just Beta to be racist.


Ignore him. He has a rather ignorant view of the quadras. I'm a Delta and I'm neither a hippie or all about flower-power. I wouldn't mind joining the military if say, the US were attacked again in which case the cause for war were very clear and fully justified.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Ignore him. He has a rather ignorant view of the quadras. I'm a Delta and I'm neither a hippie or all about flower-power. I wouldn't mind joining the military if say, the US were attacked again in which case the cause for war were very clear and fully justified.


Since when are you a Delta?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Nonsense said:


> Since when are you a Delta?


I've been an H-Delta for since forever.  Is this a paradigm shift?


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I think it's becoming more pseudo-democratic. I think it's moving more toward Alpha personally. at the least, it's becoming more Si/Ne. traits like aggression, competition and fortitude which were prized in the 20th center (in the western world) at least are being abandoned for a more pseudo-kumbaya culture of perpetual eggshell walking. I think most Se/Ni users would be disgusted with the weakness and over sensitivity of modern culture.
> 
> the parts of modern culture that are more Beta tend to be
> 1) sports culture
> 2) corporate culture


??? Where have you seen this? I think the world is just getting more aggressive for resources to be honest. No body wants to share.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> What other part of the world except the US? It's a bit vague and I'd like more concrete suggestions.
> 
> Explain why?


The US and the (european) countries that the US have strongly influenced. I've noticed that some UK shows are now starting to strongly resemble some american ones in terms of concepts, but I've begun to doubt that the UK would be becoming delta... too many ISTjs (they'd resit this trend).

I do think that those countries I mentioned are pretty heavily Beta (including Spain). I went there over the summer, and it seemed from what I could tell, that one of the most "popular/succesful" type was the ESTp. But like I said, it's hard to base a country-wide assumption off of such a limited time spent there.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Edit:
So I qouted someone, but eh didn't really respond to them so removed the qoute.

Beta cycle?
What would be the definition of a Beta society?
Royalty plotting and scheming against each other in a Game of Thrones kind of way?
All the others are present, but the reins of power is open for Beta drama.
That is the definition of a Beta society, drama and backstabbings define who is the Boss.






It is hard to say what quadra has the sway at any one time.
I don't pretend to know or be able to track it for sure. It strikes me as a continuos dance of adaptation.
There are stances and counterstances. The faster you run the faster the landscape goes to keep up with you.

Sometimes there are Alphas setting the agenda, other times Beta, Gamma or Delta.
The nice thing is that you know what the types are about, then it is easy to deal with society manifesting any of these.
Being an ISFP I'm no revolutionary, but I guess I could easily be a very effective foot soldier in a "Gamma revolution."
But meh...* I find myself easily adapting to all the Ns trying to outmanouvering each other in the abstract.*
As long as I can do that I don't care how things really goes. 
All this activity opens and closes doors around me.
You never know what the next area the conflict will manifest at next.
Suddenly some law is passed and what was legal yesterday will get you in trouble today.
Then you step back and some other guy will find the counter, and a second guy will make a method of it.
In this age of information tech all you need to do is push a button.
Might not always be as easy, but if you are flexible there is really nothing you can't shift around.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

thats just the illusion fading more and more away


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Alpha must get skipped in these cycles...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Alpha must get skipped in these cycles...


The day alpha ruled the world people thought the emperor was a cat's yawn.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> The day alpha ruled the world people thought the emperor was a cat's yawn.


Do tell.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Do tell.


Spanish culture do have a lot of Alpha elements I must say.
If anything I'd say an Alpha society is like that, an organized anarchy.
It isn't the law that bind so much as the culture.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Kamishi's Anime List - Anime-Planet


Sweet. I was lurkin' in this thread, and I ends up with a treasure-trove instead.

Man... I love accidental rhymes. 

Don't blame you for stalling Dragonball. I got through quite a bit of it, but it's so... o_o I don't even know, dude.

... Jeepers creepers, batman! More threads to derail!

XMONAD-AWAAAY.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

hornet said:


> Spanish culture do have a lot of Alpha elements I must say.
> If anything I'd say an Alpha society is like that, an organized anarchy.
> It isn't the law that bind so much as the culture.


I think almost all Alphas (and the majority of other people) are libertarians at their core.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I think almost all Alphas (and the majority of other people) are libertarians at their core.


If by other people you mean Gammas? Sure! 
Betas and Deltas, not so much. My INFP ex had a sickly longing for strict hierarchy.
Only way they are Libertarians at core is that they want to sit free at the top of the hierarchy.
Or lead the forces of whatever struggle they have gotten embroiled in.
Aristocracy automatically leads to struggle, while democracy leads to cooperation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Sweet. I was lurkin' in this thread, and I ends up with a treasure-trove instead.
> 
> Man... I love accidental rhymes.
> 
> ...


It's mostly because my brother was watching and I was watching with him but I never saw him finish. So to be perfectly clear, it's more that I stalled because I didn't get to finish it since it was my brother who was watching it, and I never bothered to ask him to borrow it from him.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> while democracy leads to cooperation.


Struggle via cooperation? I love democracy as an ideal, but in practice it's sometimes such as a PITA. I do agree with that the most efficient rule would be a dictatorship, but clearly no one would agree with that and I would judge the dictator's competence as well.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

hornet said:


> If by other people you mean Gammas? Sure!
> Betas and Deltas, not so much. My INFP ex had a sickly longing for strict hierarchy.
> Only way they are Libertarians at core is that they want to sit free at the top of the hierarchy.
> Or lead the forces of whatever struggle they have gotten embroiled in.
> Aristocracy automatically leads to struggle, while democracy leads to cooperation.


Gammas seem to be the affluent white male sort of libertarian and Alphas seem to be philosopher-type of libertarian who are more likely to be an Anarchist or Voluntarist. xD 

Except for my Dad... He's an ESI and and very leftist, even if he hasn't educated himself enough to understand it.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Struggle via cooperation? I love democracy as an ideal, but in practice it's sometimes such as a PITA. I do agree with that the most efficient rule would be a dictatorship, but clearly no one would agree with that and I would judge the dictator's competence as well.


Yes I guess we would struggle just as hard.
But in a way I don't view that struggle as such a problematic thing.
So I really don't view it as a struggle, I would be free to make up any venture I would please to imagine.
And I know that once I don't have to deal with shallow Delta limitations or Beta bullying,
then how can I not succeed in making value?

I don't really care so much for efficinent rule. A dictatorship would be someone telling me what to do,
for the sole reason to outlaw my inefficinent way of being. Like who cares if things aren't perfect?
Once I die all my toys and hard work is lost anyway. 
What was the point if not to revel in subjective personal pleasures?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

hornet said:


> Yes I guess we would struggle just as hard.
> But in a way I don't view that struggle as such a problematic thing.
> So I really don't view it as a struggle, I would be free to make up any venture I would please to imagine.
> And I know that once I don't have to deal with shallow Delta limitations or Beta bullying,
> ...


Are you sure you're not an SEI? Not only does this post and your signature hint at it, but you're sounding a lot like someone I know very well who is an SEI.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Gammas seem to be the affluent white male sort of libertarian and Alphas seem to be philosopher-type of libertarian who are more likely to be an Anarchist or Voluntarist. xD
> 
> Except for my Dad... He's an ESI and and very leftist, even if he hasn't educated himself enough to understand it.


I think a lot of people fall for ideologies that would really bite their own ass if implemented.
As for an ESI I think one of our major strenghts is to Freeride on the holes in opposing types frameworks.
Since everything is a compromise it is easy to social manouver in between the cracks.
Having an understanding of Jungian types is sort of like having a full spectrum radar/sonar/whatever.
You can see how every social construct around you works and exploit it to your benefit.
Having no Si to tie you down you really have no need to care about staying put.
In fact I would suggest that NTJs would be far more invested in carrying forth a gamma society.
They are the big picture thinkers. The SFPs make do with whatever happens to be there.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Are you sure you're not an SEI? Not only does this post and your signature hint at it, but you're sounding a lot like someone I know very well who is an SEI.


Well I dunno.
I don't really believe I am such a type.
It doesn't strike me as likely.
Sounding like someone is hardly a case for being it.

My sig is a psychological experiment on myself learned from an ENFp.
I can hardly say it reflects me as a person.

Subjective pleasure was not an reference to Si, but more about feeling good being my type to the fullest.
Living for your own sense of meaning sort of.

Context my friend, context.
Without it all you have is random correlations like object X is yellow and object Y is yellow.
Hence they are indentical.

It makes me think of Socionics Ne/Ti background and how the ESI descriptions are a bit distorted.
I can see how that view would think it too be true, but I really feel weird thinking about myself from that frame.

Then you would also expect me to have this as a hidden agenda.



> Ti
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But nope... this is my predicament.



> Ni
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And this sounds very right on.

ENFp on ISFj: "set on their ways, without imagination, or always expecting the worst"
ISFj on ESTp: "how can anyone trust them?"

As opposed to this.
ISFp on ENFj: "too restless and is all to no good purpose, at the same time is hopeless with real work"
ESTj on ISFp: "lazy and can't do anything right"

Feel free to elaborate on your SEI theory if you find it still has merit.
I don't care if I'm proven wrong.
I'm in this to discover how things are, not how I wish them to be. :wink:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> Yes I guess we would struggle just as hard.
> But in a way I don't view that struggle as such a problematic thing.
> So I really don't view it as a struggle, I would be free to make up any venture I would please to imagine.
> And I know that once I don't have to deal with shallow Delta limitations or Beta bullying,
> ...


In an ideal world I wouldn't need to care about the motives or competence of the ruler. In a democracy, I need to constantly worry about the opposite i.e. people are fucking dumb and make dumb as fuck decisions like joining the EU that I don't trust either, so it's a lose-lose no matter how you look at it.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> In an ideal world I wouldn't need to care about the motives or competence of the ruler. In a democracy, I need to constantly worry about the opposite i.e. people are fucking dumb and make dumb as fuck decisions like joining the EU that I don't trust either, so it's a lose-lose no matter how you look at it.


What you don't trust that a massive union of bickering states can make good decisions.
Give the STJs more time to put up some redtape and it will become real good. 

I think the EU is a great opportunity, right now I'm profiting massively from renting in Spain.
Can live for 4 months down there for the price of one in Norway.
Additionally the Spanish culture is really relaxed, 
so I feel extra free from the ISTJ redtape culture I'm used to at home.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> What you don't trust that a massive union of bickering states can make good decisions.
> Give the STJs more time to put up some redtape and it will become real good.
> 
> I think the EU is a great opportunity, right now I'm profiting massively from renting in Spain.
> ...


Heh, so pragmatic of you to think that. I was thinking more in an idealistic sense really, that the idea of the EU is actually shit. It's what made it possible for you to rent in Spain and make a profit because of the financial crisis to begin with which just stinks beyond anything else. And people voted for it because they didn't know better. I can't trust the people and I can't trust the rulers so I can only really trust my own judgement hence, I rather not deal with anything of it if I had to choose, but that's not reality sigh.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> It's mostly because my brother was watching and I was watching with him but I never saw him finish. So to be perfectly clear, it's more that I stalled because I didn't get to finish it since it was my brother who was watching it, and I never bothered to ask him to borrow it from him.


Yay *Continues derailing*

As dubious as I am about Dragonball, it's still on my to-do list for finishing. I've already seen quite a few seasons, and only stopped when I couldn't find the next season in line with decent quality.

I think it's kind of an essential rite of passage for anyone who appreciates anime as an artform, since there are so many anime that derived inspiration and ideas from Dragonball, being one of the first to gain international success. There's a lot of the same stories being recycled, though, in the beginning especially. Still-- It's neat to see _how _they recycled material, and when they decided it was a good idea to bring in novelty. The fighting wasn't as much fun for me to see (And seeing as there's a _lot_ of fighting...), as much as the landscapes, concepts, and 'laws' of this world that the anime creators made and brought together as a whole.

So, yeah.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Yay *Continues derailing*
> 
> As dubious as I am about Dragonball, it's still on my to-do list for finishing. I've already seen quite a few seasons, and only stopped when I couldn't find the next season in line with decent quality.
> 
> ...


To be perfectly honest, my first anime was actually Sailor Moon lol. It aired on TV as a kid and as a kid I used to watch whatever animated that was airing. I was incredibly non-discriminate in this regard, actually, as I watched both Spider-man _and_ Sailor Moon without thinking it's bad despite their pretty much opposite target audiences and if I had been living with another family, perhaps they would have scolded me and try to force more obvious gender role expressions. So meh. I quickly outgrew the shojo genre though.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> As dubious as I am about Dragonball, it's still on my to-do list for finishing. I've already seen quite a few seasons, and only stopped when I couldn't find the next season in line with decent quality.
> 
> I think it's kind of an essential rite of passage for anyone who appreciates anime as an artform, since there are so many anime that derived inspiration and ideas from Dragonball, being one of the first to gain international success. There's a lot of the same stories being recycled, though, in the beginning especially. Still-- It's neat to see _how _they recycled material, and when they decided it was a good idea to bring in novelty. The fighting wasn't as much fun for me to see (And seeing as there's a _lot_ of fighting...), as much as the landscapes, concepts, and 'laws' of this world that the anime creators made and brought together as a whole.
> 
> So, yeah.


I actually just read the manga (well I watched an episode or two on youtube... and DBZ Abridged), but I did enjoy it. I like Toriyama's artstyle. I like how in DBZ you have all these buff dudes, but then they look pretty cute because of the artstyle. 

As for the topic at hand, I got to admit that as much as I try to be socially aware sometimes, I'm no good at paying attention to these things. Sigh, politics. When it comes to media, I'm somewhat better at paying attention, but I haven't watched any of the examples listed. There's this one anime I'm into where the main character is likely a Beta, but it's not the most successful anime I know of, so not the best example. I was going to check out SnK, but I never got around to it.




ephemereality said:


> I was incredibly non-discriminate in this regard, actually, as I watched both Spider-man





ephemereality said:


> _and_ Sailor Moon without thinking it's bad despite their pretty much opposite target audiences and if I had been living with another family, perhaps they would have scolded me and try to force more obvious gender role expressions.


I'm still pretty non-discriminate... er, I mean, I have _some _standards, but I don't care much about the target-audience. A lot of the things that seems intended for "me" seems pretty boring anyway. :/

Edit: Omg PerC. What are you _doing _​to my quotes.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Heh, so pragmatic of you to think that. I was thinking more in an idealistic sense really, that the idea of the EU is actually shit. It's what made it possible for you to rent in Spain and make a profit because of the financial crisis to begin with which just stinks beyond anything else. And people voted for it because they didn't know better. I can't trust the people and I can't trust the rulers so I can only really trust my own judgement hence, I rather not deal with anything of it if I had to choose, but that's not reality sigh.


Yeah idealisticly it is shit.
Thinking about it that way only makes my head hurt.
I guess it is easier for me to go all pragmatic on the issue.
But meh I define myself as apolitical cause I realized that I don't really care enough about the bigger picture.
I see it, but to care I have to wish it to go some direction.
Then I ask myself why I want that direction and the answer is sort of like,
cause I really want X, Y, Z result, and this is making that harder.
Then I realize that if I consentrate on finding a way to make X, Y, Z happen anyway...
Well why bother with the whole idealism?
So yeah that is where I'm at basically.

But lets open that can of worms anyway. xD

So for me the way I see it you have all these interest groups fighting for power.
Some have managed to get control over some social mechanism and now tries to leverage it for all it is worth.
All in the name of their stated ideal.
At this point all I see is someone working hard at beating all the others working just as hard.
And in the process they are willing to tear down everything else.
You better enjoy the struggle cause that is what your life will be, a long struggle for maybe, maybe
having your ideal getting to compromise with some other guys ideal.
He worked just as hard as you and now you are in each others way and your stubborness will lead to
some monster that isn't this nor that.

This is where I come in. The monster will make a mess for everyone except the ones who move
in between the cracks. Living good within others broken dreams.
Gee now I feel almost evil. }:-D

But that is the thing, I can't see the value of taking any ideal too far.
To me it becomes too removed from what strikes me as real.
My ideals crash long before they envelop anything too big.

You having pealed the archetypal cores way back probably have a very different take on this.
I can sort of imagining you seeing some grand way to make things work.
If only the Deltas/Betas/Alphas would get out of the way. :-/


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> Yeah idealisticly it is shit.
> Thinking about it that way only makes my head hurt.
> I guess it is easier for me to go all pragmatic on the issue.
> But meh I define myself as apolitical cause I realized that I don't really care enough about the bigger picture.
> ...


To be honest, this is why I am not involved in politics. I would implode first, because there's no way I could deal with people disagreeing with the POV I see as the correct one ethically all the time. There's no way I could fight for such things and I'm not concerned enough even when I should be, honestly. I would rather just rent an paradise island with wifi and be happy. That's pretty much how I live life right now anyway.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Heh, so pragmatic of you to think that. I was thinking more in an idealistic sense really, that the idea of the EU is actually shit. It's what made it possible for you to rent in Spain and make a profit because of the financial crisis to begin with which just stinks beyond anything else. And people voted for it because they didn't know better. I can't trust the people and I can't trust the rulers so I can only really trust my own judgement hence, I rather not deal with anything of it if I had to choose, but that's not reality sigh.


I can see why you think that the EU is crap, as organizing such monstrous group of countries is impossible as you have divergences that are rather clear between them from a political, economical and cultural point, so it's doomed to fail.

Now, for those reasons I hope that doesn't happen something similar here, but considering the current state of the latino countries I think that it would be impossible to create something like the EU here thanks to the local conflicts. Still if you find that the EU politicians are incompetent, you're lucky to not live in Chile, as the level of stupidity and short sightedness is so glaring that this damned country will continue being a third world one if those parasits continue profiting from this broken system. I don't bother with local politics, as the end everything is the same shit, only with different smells.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> In an ideal world I wouldn't need to care about the motives or competence of the ruler. In a democracy, I need to constantly worry about the opposite i.e. people are fucking dumb and make dumb as fuck decisions like joining the EU that I don't trust either, so it's a lose-lose no matter how you look at it.


When someone is given absolute power that does that give them benevolent motives nor competence... In fact, it does quite the opposite. 

"When there are rulers, there are no rules."

Also, how the hell is the EU a good thing in a "pragmatic rather than idealistic" sense (whatever that means)? Both it and the U.S economy are inevitably crashing one way or another within the next few decades. 



God, when did Socionics become Debate/Critical Thinking & Philosophy


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> When someone is given absolute power that does that give them benevolent motives nor competence... In fact, it does quite the opposite.
> 
> "When there are rulers, there are no rules."
> 
> ...


Since the beginning of conscious thought.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> To be honest, this is why I am not involved in politics. I would implode first, because there's no way I could deal with people disagreeing with the POV I see as the correct one ethically all the time. There's no way I could fight for such things and I'm not concerned enough even when I should be, honestly. I would rather just rent an paradise island with wifi and be happy. That's pretty much how I live life right now anyway.


Colour me confused, but how is this representative of Democratic values?


Edit for clarity: Not being able to deal with people whom does not share ethical views with you. Preferring to affiliate with people that holds similar political/ethical values. How is this 'Democratic'?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> To be perfectly honest, my first anime was actually Sailor Moon lol. It aired on TV as a kid and as a kid I used to watch whatever animated that was airing. I was incredibly non-discriminate in this regard, actually, as I watched both Spider-man _and_ Sailor Moon without thinking it's bad despite their pretty much opposite target audiences and if I had been living with another family, perhaps they would have scolded me and try to force more obvious gender role expressions. So meh. I quickly outgrew the shojo genre though.


I actually decided to watch through all of Sailor Moon about 6 months ago... Nostalgia or something. I kinda lost it at around last season or something, though. Having to fast-forward through all of the 1 minute magical scenes became rather tedious after a few seasons.

I was lucky growing up. I played war games with the boys and barbies with the girls, tinkered with computers and played dress up, watched Ninja turtles and... Well, Sailor Moon, bwa ha. Joined karate and girl scouts. My parents didn't see any real gender distinction between methods of play. Nor did my parents point out anything odd about my choices. The way it _should _be. :kitteh:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I actually decided to watch through all of Sailor Moon about 6 months ago... Nostalgia or something. I kinda lost it at around last season or something, though. Having to fast-forward through all of the 1 minute magical scenes became rather tedious after a few seasons.
> 
> I was lucky growing up. I played war games with the boys and barbies with the girls, tinkered with computers and played dress up, watched Ninja turtles and... Well, Sailor Moon, bwa ha. Joined karate and girl scouts. My parents didn't see any real gender distinction between methods of play. Nor did my parents point out anything odd about my choices. The way it _should _be. :kitteh:


Yeah, I agree. People should be free to express who they are without being judged for it.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> The discussion left aristocracy-democracy or anything close to it long time ago.


I'm not sorry for bringing it back to discussing quadra values. You still haven't answered the question.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> I'm not sorry for bringing it back to discussing quadra values. You still haven't answered the question.


Because there was no question last time I checked your post. I see it shows now. I can't be arsed answering it because I've explained this so many fucking times already and you still don't get it I won't fucking bother as to avoid myself a headache in the process.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Because there was no question last time I checked your post. I see it shows now. I can't be arsed answering it because I've explained this so many fucking times already and you still don't get it I won't fucking bother as to avoid myself a headache in the process.


When I edited the post I did not touch the first paragraph. If you didn't see the second paragraph then fine, it was just a clarification.

As far as I remember it then it's something along the lines of judging people individually instead of which 'group' or 'clique' it is that they belong to. As far as politics goes, that someone does not agree with your idea of what is ethically right then you will already know by their affiliation what their generalized opinion will be. So then, if you cannot stand people who holds an opposing view, would you not judge a person belonging to an opposing political party based on their affiliation rather than making individual judgments? If not then what is the difference?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Inguz said:


> I'm not sorry for bringing it back to discussing quadra values. You still haven't answered the question.


Personally I would guess at it being So last more than anything.
Having So aux I personally would have no problem in itself getting into politics.
I just don't view it as a very effective way to go about things.
I would most likely end up as one of those corrupt ones.
Using it for personal gain etc.
Then I would make everybody hate me by cutting trough red tape in a very thoughtless way.
Sort of like the Coffin scene in American Gangster.
The drugs in the coffins? Well let us check then.

I think someone wrote that it isn't really about demo vs aristo, but centralization of power vs decentralization.
That is my two cent anyway.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

hornet said:


> Personally I would guess at it being So last more than anything.
> Having So aux I personally would have no problem in itself getting into politics.
> I just don't view it as a very effective way to go about things.
> I would most likely end up as one of those corrupt ones.
> ...


In general terms I think that social instinct plays a large role in which people it is that actually gets involved into politics, yes, but now I asked a specific question about something in particular that he wrote was hard for him to deal with.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Inguz said:


> In general terms I think that social instinct plays a large role in which people it is that actually gets involved into politics, yes, but now I asked a specific question about something in particular that he wrote was hard for him to deal with.


Yes your question was about how it reflected democratic values.
It isn't as easy as that, since it isn't about democracy.
That is a label. A label doesn't tell you all that much about the content.
Finding accurate labels can be a pain in the ass.
Decentralization is a new label, it has flaws too. 
Any one word label of something complex will always fail to convey something.
To fixate on that label and try to hold people to it will get you nothing.

I've seen this type of discussion before.
To me it comes down to F blocked with N vs F blocked with S. 
When F is blocked with N large scale patterns seem valuable, 
what you sense in the moment is subject to meaning only.
Hence Betas and Deltas will not really feel strongly for any individual in front of them.
Any sense representation of the individual will not be affecting their values in any significant way.
Only large scale patterns will be seen as important.
Hence Betas and Deltas will in a large degree be drawn towards political systems that don't care about the individual.
It is all about manifesting their values on a large scale. Getting whole groups to comply.
While Alphas and Gammas having values blocked with sensation, well their values are tied to what they sense.
On that scale the individual become very obvious as something to value. 
So they are drawn towards political systems that take this into account.

This manifests very clearly in this discussion, as since you have your values directly involved in all these big patterns.
It becomes very important to you to be right. F with N.
While for us it is more about finding what is right. T with N.
We try to discover relevant meaning, you try to defend the meaning that support your values.
How this can get us anywhere is beyond me.

Here is a good example on how this discussion goes.
Hitchens: INTp vs Shmuley: INFp






My conclution is as always, Jung was right.
We cannot reconcile the different perspectives.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

@hornet My intent was to discuss the democratic/aristocratic dichotomy as it is defined by Reinin. If this isn't what you wish to make a reply to then clearly we are not discussing the same thing.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Inguz said:


> @_hornet_ My intent was to discuss the democratic/aristocratic dichotomy as it is defined by Reinin. If this isn't what you wish to make a reply to then clearly we are not discussing the same thing.


Ah right...
Well can't participate much there.
Personally I don't have much faith in that approach.
If it floats your boat.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

hornet said:


> Ah right...
> Well can't participate much there.
> Personally I don't have much faith in that approach.
> If it floats your boat.


At least we can agree to disagree.

It's just socionics theory that I want to discuss after all. :wink:


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> According to Gulenko's (and maybe others'?)


There is a hypothesis of Tatiana Yakubovskaya with cycles of 18 years per type in classical socion's sequence. I don't know about the World but my Russian civilization (Kievan Rus, Russian Empire and USSR) seems like moving from Beta cycle (1917-1989), through Gamma (1989-2061) to Delta cycle (2061-2133). There are not only abstract ideological changes in politics, but corresponding types of national leaders. Most of them beginning from 1917 were elected from beta: Kerenskiy (ENFJ), Lenin (ESTP most probably), Stalin (ISTJ), Hruschev (ESTP), Brezhnev was not (ISFP - close to INFP and had no much personal power). In 1980s Gamma have come: Andropov (INTP), Gorbachev (ESFP), Yeltsin (ESFP), Putin (INTP), Medvedev was not (ENFJ, but not many see him more than "shadow of Putin"), and now "good old" Putin again. In previous Tsars times there were not much possibilities to choose the leader, so I doubt their types correspond nearly as good and I have a lack of info to type Tsars befor Nikolay II (INFP).



> I have observed tendencies where society has been and seems to be moving, though now apparently more aggressively, towards a beta phase of sorts.


If assume that modern Western civilization was formed in 1945 (creating UN), then (according to Yakubovskaya) its next cycle should begin in 2017. But wich quadra... There is a tendency to centralization close to totalitarianism and neofascist imperialism, creating new aristocracy, etc. - looks like Beta, but I'm not sure completely.


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Delta is a possibility but I haven't quite seen it in the arts at all. The arts is definitely strikingly beta NF to me.


Ooohh, then I'm not the only one who's mind this thought has crossed!

If this is true, then I feel it's no wonder I dislike the majority of today's art... There are artists today whose work I admire and respect, but when I think of the term 'contemporary art', something about the overall atmosphere of it...makes me want to turn the other direction and RUN away from it really fast.

I study art. And I kind of feel bad about 'not appreciating' some of those artists/movies/etc. who are being praised the most...but I can't help the feeling which those artworks give me that freaks me out!


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

@_ephemereality_ ... On the other hand, I can't say that - in the art world - all I see is artwork that freaks me out. There are also many young artists whose works I love, ones who are focused not on drama and blood, but on something more positive instead.

I'm not saying that all art must be white and fluffy, no...I can appreciate more serious works, too. I just dislike to go to an exhibition and to see horrifying images and/or something that I look at, think "what is this...??!" and then see a wall of text I must read to understand the deep, philosophical idea of the artist... (the 2nd being somewhat Ni...am I right???)

This is just my opinion and I kind of believe that art can be a way to make people (the artist AND the viewer) happier. It may sound naive, but I really believe it. And I'm happy to see any young artists whose works seem to be of a somewhat similar feeling/thought to this idea of mine. 


P.S. Does anyone have any idea...could "Mouline Rouge" also be a beta-kind movie?


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

osina said:


> P.S. Does anyone have any idea...could "Mouline Rouge" also be a beta-kind movie?


Oh, I've actually seen that movie. I think you could say that is a Beta-movie, yeah. It's been a while, though, and I don't feel particularly driven to rewatch it, as I found it boring for the most part.

This scene is kind of nice, though, not gonna lie:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

osina said:


> P.S. Does anyone have any idea...could "Mouline Rouge" also be a beta-kind movie?


Based on my impression of it though I haven't seen it myself. The presentation is very beta though, to me. I think gamma is a bit more low-key in contrast. Less interested to leave a strong immediate impression in a sense. Beta seems to like to use strong colors, dramatic headlines etc, in order to catch the viewer's attention. I was watching the film Mr. Nobody the other day and what's striking of the film is that it completely failed at the box office despite having Jared Leto as its main actor and is in my opinion, a very thought-provoking and beautifully done film. It's definitely artsy and wants to get a message across, but it's less about the drama but more about understanding some fundamentally deep aspect of life itself or how to it put, how it resonates within in you. Very NiFi film and Leto's character seem to be an ILI himself, whose dream girl is an IEE. 

I am not surprised this film received very little attention despite this though. It's like films _must_ be dramatic in order to sell today. And it's not just film, but this seems to be prevalent in anime and other forms of art too. 

I would say this shift in the arts occurred around the same time as the post-minimalist movement by the way, though we've moved beyond it but beta art has if anything become more prevalent.


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> Oh, I've actually seen that movie. I think you could say that is a Beta-movie, yeah. It's been a while, though, and I don't feel particularly driven to rewatch it, as I found it boring for the most part.
> 
> This scene is kind of nice, though, not gonna lie:


Oh, the tango is beautiful, thanks for the video!  Lol, I have seen the movie once and didn't like it. Two of my friends can't believe I could dislike a piece of art like this, so I tried watching it again. Couldn't force myself to watch more than 20 minutes of it. I can see what other people like in it, just maybe it isn't for me.  But I guess tango is almost always good!


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Based on my impression of it though I haven't seen it myself. The presentation is very beta though, to me. I think gamma is a bit more low-key in contrast. Less interested to leave a strong immediate impression in a sense. Beta seems to like to use strong colors, dramatic headlines etc, in order to catch the viewer's attention. I was watching the film Mr. Nobody the other day and what's striking of the film is that it completely failed at the box office despite having Jared Leto as its main actor and is in my opinion, a very thought-provoking and beautifully done film. It's definitely artsy and wants to get a message across, but it's less about the drama but more about understanding some fundamentally deep aspect of life itself or how to it put, how it resonates within in you. Very NiFi film and Leto's character seem to be an ILI himself, whose dream girl is an IEE.


Thank you for reminding me of "Mr. Nobody". Some friends who saw it said I absolutely must see it. Still haven't done it, but what you said makes it sound even more interesting.  And yes, it seems that most movies that get popular have some well visible drama going on in them.  What do you think of "The Hangover"? I found the first two movies, despite being through and through stupid, just hilarious.

I don't know most of the popular movies (action, sci-fi, tragical dramas), I enjoy watching something...well, I guess, more romantic. Watched Jane Eyre (2011?version) yesterday, somehow really liked it despite the overall sad atmosphere. (Read somewhere that the main characters are EII and LSE. Don't know but it sounds kinda true...) Though I enjoy seeing a good psychological thriller now and then, and some detective movies, too 



ephemereality said:


> I am not surprised this film received very little attention despite this though. It's like films _must_ be dramatic in order to sell today. And it's not just film, but this seems to be prevalent in anime and other forms of art too.
> 
> I would say this shift in the arts occurred around the same time as the post-minimalist movement by the way, though we've moved beyond it but beta art has if anything become more prevalent.


Ehh, then I guess I, as a Delta artist, need to just live with it?  (beta art becoming more popular) ...no one can say what's happening for sure. I'm starting to feel that, as a wise person I know told me, I should just do my thing (whatever it may be, lol). There are people of all the quadras out there and I believe that all points of view will be appreciated by somebody.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

osina said:


> Oh, the tango is beautiful, thanks for the video!  Lol, I have seen the movie once and didn't like it. Two of my friends can't believe I could dislike a piece of art like this, so I tried watching it again. Couldn't force myself to watch more than 20 minutes of it. I can see what other people like in it, just maybe it isn't for me.  But I guess tango is almost always good!


I sat through the movie, but yeah, it didn't seem like anything special to me. The visuals can be interesting I guess, but the story and characters are bland. While I can enjoy some drama, it doesn't work if I don't have any emotional investment in the characters I don't get why some people like it so much either, but there's no accounting for taste I suppose. 

As for popular movies I like... well, I would probably enjoy Frozen, but I decided not to watch it for Reasons that I'm probably making too big a deal out of, but... meh. 

I can be such a whore for musicals, which was likely why I watched Moulin Rouge in the first place.


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> As for popular movies I like... well, I would probably enjoy Frozen, but I decided not to watch it for Reasons that I'm probably making too big a deal out of, but... meh.
> 
> I can be such a whore for musicals, which was likely why I watched Moulin Rouge in the first place.


What were the reasons because of which you decided not to watch "Frozen"?  Haven't seen it either but maybe I should try?  I just watched "Polar Express" because a family friend gave it to us as a Christmas gift. I found it really entertaining and the animation was excellent, I believe I can say so. 

Oh, and which are the best musicals in your opinion? I like to watch something like that once in a while, maybe you can suggest something good?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I don't find it that sad honestly. It's more like (self-)revealing? It's not a sad love story. It's more existential somehow though there's this slightly odd built-in sadness to Fi in general.
> 
> And I guess I suppose one could think of Se-Ni in general as more dramatic compared to Ne-Si, though I tend to think of it more as flashy. Se likes to flash using bright and vivid colors etc, really reveling in the object experience in a maximized way.


Yeah, flashy. But, not just that-- It seems quick and fluid, but it doesn't just skim the surface of impressions the way Ne-Si seems to. There's always a certain undercurrent associated with the Ni, but the Se can overpower it exponentially. 

I might not know what I'm talking about.

I think certain aspects of The Fifth Element seem strongly Se-Ni. Correct me if I'm wrong, but... Pretty much every scene with Chris Tucker. :laughing: 

Aw wait, maybe that's just some kind of crazy amalgamation of Se + Fe.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Heh, I like that part better now that I've watched it in context. It *is* pretty romantic. And romance alone doesn't tend to pull me in, so it helps that the romance is part of a sort of mind-screwy story.
> 
> But yeah, about Moulin Rouge. It certainly *does* feel Se/Ni (+Fe), but it's a fairly shallow movie imo so I don't think there are any interesting Ni-ish themes in the movie. :S
> 
> ...


lol, if you want to watch a sad Ni-Se movie watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That's a movie that only deals about how breaking up with people affects us and the value of relationships in general and what they mean. I think it kind of makes a little fun of Ti. Also very Fi in terms of message I suppose. 

More on the dramatic but tragic side is The Fall. It's more on the Se side than Ni though, as it has less of a message and more about the visual presentation to it. I actually don't find it as deep as Cell despite being made by the same director. 

And I'm not surprised Moulin Rouge has no real depth to it. I find that a lot of commercially successful beta movies don't. Well Se movies in general I suppose, but I can't point out something that strikes me as SEE. Take Quentin Tarantino for example. Very beta ST and all his movies reflect this including beta ST humor. I don't tend to VI or rely on VI typing but the man even looks like an LSI.



Word Dispenser said:


> Yeah, flashy. But, not just that-- It seems quick and fluid, but it doesn't just skim the surface of impressions the way Ne-Si seems to. There's always a certain undercurrent associated with the Ni, but the Se can overpower it exponentially.
> 
> I might not know what I'm talking about.
> 
> ...


Well, I kind of get what you mean. Something like this but applied to cinematography:






Like the way he moves etc. 

Uh, I don't remember that film but yes, I suppose the little I do remember. I found it so dumb and shallow I couldn't understand why it was produced even.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> lol, if you want to watch a sad Ni-Se movie watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That's a movie that only deals about how breaking up with people affects us and the value of relationships in general and what they mean. I think it kind of makes a little fun of Ti. Also very Fi in terms of message I suppose.


Oh, I've been planning to watch that movie, but I haven't gotten that far yet. 



> And I'm not surprised Moulin Rouge has no real depth to it.


That was my impression, anyway. Although


Word Dispenser said:


> Yeah, flashy. But, not just that-- It seems quick and fluid, but it doesn't just skim the surface of impressions the way Ne-Si seems to. There's always a certain undercurrent associated with the Ni, but the Se can overpower it exponentially.
> 
> But either way, I would say the plot is shallow.
> 
> I might not know what I'm talking about.


Hmm could be an interesting observation, though.

(Now I want to find a Beta movie or show with more depth, though. Well, I like Kaiji (which I think I mentioned earlier. The main character is some Beta-type, I think), but I don't know if I would call the show "deep". I just really like the main character, and it has some... interesting villains too.)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Oh, I've been planning to watch that movie, but I haven't gotten that far yet.
> 
> 
> That was my impression, anyway. Although
> ...


Deep beta (though I can't say beta movies seem to compel me much) would perhaps be something like Pi or The Machinist, both on the TiNi end of things. I can't say I'm overly drawn to beta as they seem to leave me cold. Neon Genesis Evangelion as an anime maybe? Has more of a thought to it and is fairly dramatic at its places, though I wouldn't say the Fe drama is what really drives it forward and ultimately I have no clue if it embraces or rejects the Fe message and theme it kept trying to bring home i.e. represented in the hedgehog's dilemma and the Human Instrumentality Project. The ending is kind of up for interpretation. I won't even try to describe that though. The show's messy as it is, but the tl;dr version is that people's egos being separated is a bad thing and that's pretty much as Fe as you'd get. It's a heavy rejection of Fi logic in my opinion. Shinji is usually typed as an IEI also. I could buy that. IEI 946 maybe.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Deep beta (though I can't say beta movies seem to compel me much) would perhaps be something like Pi or The Machinist, both on the TiNi end of things. I can't say I'm overly drawn to beta as they seem to leave me cold.


Hmm, I guess the Fe would be a little off-putting?



> Neon Genesis Evangelion as an anime maybe? Has more of a thought to it and is fairly dramatic at its places, though I wouldn't say the Fe drama is what really drives it forward and ultimately I have no clue if it embraces or rejects the Fe message and theme it kept trying to bring home i.e. represented in the hedgehog's dilemma and the Human Instrumentality Project. I won't even try to describe that though. The show's messy as it is, but the tl;dr version is that people's egos being separated is a bad thing and that's pretty much as Fe as you'd get. It's a heavy rejection of Fi logic in my opinion.


Yeah, I watched Evangelion and thought it was pretty interesting. (I hear a lot that it's pretentious, and I guess it IS, but... I don't think it's complete BS In hindsight I can see how the Human Instrumentality Project is basically taking Fe to extremes. Although in the end, though, Shinji did decide that wasn't what he wanted. The separatedness brought him pain, but in the end it was worth it. Maybe he's a Fe-type? I'm not sure, but it would make sense with the conflict between him and Asuka (well, there's also the fact that they are both messed up teenagers to begin with. So it doesn't all come down to socio-type).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Hmm, I guess the Fe would be a little off-putting?


No, it's the coldness of Ti more so than Fe. 



> Yeah, I watched Evangelion and thought it was pretty interesting. (I hear a lot that it's pretentious, and I guess it IS, but... I don't think it's complete BS In hindsight I can see how the Human Instrumentality Project is basically taking Fe to extremes. Although in the end, though, Shinji did decide that wasn't what he wanted. The separatedness brought him pain, but in the end it was worth it. Maybe he's a Fe-type? I'm not sure, but it would make sense with the conflict between him and Asuka (well, there's also the fact that they are both messed up teenagers to begin with. So it doesn't all come down to socio-type).


Well, I could see them as semi-duals perhaps, and yes, it is possible to interpret that Shinji rejected it if you go with the original ending, but if you go with the OVA it's not evident at all.


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Good question. Something that resembles what I see as art, I guess. Something that tries to be a bit more than simply mundane. Someone who has a vision, a conceptualization of reality and can present it in imaginative and original ways. Some of these videos I linked definitely fall in this area:
> 
> Cell, The Fall, Paranoia One Point O (I really like the atmosphere in that movie) though perhaps not as pretty in comparison, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, already mentioned Mr. Nobody. I would like to add Vanilla Sky in there too, the English version. I haven't seen the Spanish one. Pretty anime include Mononoke, Paprika etc.


Interesting opinion, thanks for explaining. I haven't seen any of your listed movies but definitely have heard of them. I believe two of my friends have praised the "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". I started watching it one time on TV not knowing what it was and turned to another movie because this one looked just...weird.  Then again, it was a long time ago and maybe I should try watching it again.

I haven't watched any animes for a while now, but lol, you and Nonsense listed so many, I might at least watch the first episode of each and see if I like them  I watched some anime when I was little...the first one I discovered was SailorMoon (in a language I didn't understand, but still I watched every episode I could ), and then came the other animes that were commercially popular for my generation - all the pokemon and digimon stuff... But that was really a long time ago. Later on I watched some Naruto, but eventually got bored by it. Heh, priorities, I guess! 



ephemereality said:


> In terms of pretentious, there's an anime called Angel's Egg. Maybe it's something for NeSi types, I'm not sure, but the art itself would perhaps point towards it more in how the art is presented, but I drew absolutely nothing of it. It was like random symbols thrown around regarding Christianity and maybe there was some overarching idea but it was surely lost in translation. Nevermind that the entire film was very ugly in my opinion.


I haven't seen Angel's Egg, but I know the artist Amano. Funny you mentioned it, because I know a girl who, in my opinion, is an EII, and who loves Amano's works.  (I must say I think they're beautiful, too) Maybe I will try watching the movie, too. 



ephemereality said:


> As for other forms of art outside the visual, I find it more difficult to quantify. I don't have any particular artist I like that I can think of from the top of my head aside Luis Royo. I think he's a gamma or possibly a beta, but I lean gamma. His art isn't so dramatic as much as it seems emotionally low-key in general, with characters rarely showing any facial expression:
> 
> https://www.google.se/search?q=luis...com%2Fluis-royo-art-pictures-hd.html;1024;768


When I looked at this artist, I thought: beautiful faces, overall - looks like there's a lot of work and some thought and symbols...but OWWW, that looks painful! ... I guess I can't understand why people like to do unpleasant things to their characters in artwork (or movies, or ...basically, anywhere). I guess that could be a Si thing..?



ephemereality said:


> As for delta, I don't think I'm overly drawn to it in general because it doesn't really tickle me fancy like something with Ni-Se content does. Fi alone doesn't seem sufficient to pull me in. It would possibly be all those things I would potentially have liked but still didn't end up liking but I suppose a lot of slice of life fall into this area? The only one I can think of is Chii's Sweet Home lol, but I am not sure that's exactly what you are asking for.
> 
> Maybe Chobits as an anime? Very Fi-driven message but more on the cutesy-side of things that I think is better suited for delta. Maybe Witch Hunter Robin? Also very Fi.


I believe that the EII person I wrote about earlier showed me "Chii's Sweet Home" as a manga she really liked. It seemed to be cute, I think!  And I know some art students who, I think, may be Fi types who all watched Chobits at some point in the past. (you're pretty precise with your idea then? ) Haven't heard of Witch Hunter Robin, though...thanks!




ephemereality said:


> Yeah, and I just found the idea itself boring lol. This kind of "simple" life thing being in focus.


Maybe. Though I read somewhere that the main characters (Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy) were typed to be SEE and ILI. But yeah, I guess if you like kind of movies you listed before, this is something veery different!


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> Anyway @_osina_
> maybe check out Revolutionary Girl Utena? The heroine of the show is likely an ENFP/IEE, anyway. And the show is fairly Si/Ne overall imo. And if you don't feel like watching a 39 episode anime, you could just watch Adolescence of Utena, the movie version.
> 
> Hmm, was The Last Unicorn mentioned? I haven't watched it but I think it fits the bill.


Thanks for your suggestions. Haven't seen any of these. I guess I will try to watch them sometime and see what I think about these!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

osina said:


> Interesting opinion, thanks for explaining. I haven't seen any of your listed movies but definitely have heard of them. I believe two of my friends have praised the "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". I started watching it one time on TV not knowing what it was and turned to another movie because this one looked just...weird.  Then again, it was a long time ago and maybe I should try watching it again.


Yeah, ESotSM is one of those films that got more of an indie reputation I guess? It's a good film and what I like about it despite being a romantic drama is that it presents romance in a very new and original angle to me. It's not just about man meets woman and they fall in love and get together against all odds. Instead it's the very opposite of. 

Another indie film I like is Donnie Darko. I think Donnie is an ILI and Gretchen a very unhealthy SEE. 



> I haven't watched any animes for a while now, but lol, you and Nonsense listed so many, I might at least watch the first episode of each and see if I like them  I watched some anime when I was little...the first one I discovered was SailorMoon (in a language I didn't understand, but still I watched every episode I could ), and then came the other animes that were commercially popular for my generation - all the pokemon and digimon stuff... But that was really a long time ago. Later on I watched some Naruto, but eventually got bored by it. Heh, priorities, I guess!


Yeah, I outgrew that stuff quickly. 



> I haven't seen Angel's Egg, but I know the artist Amano. Funny you mentioned it, because I know a girl who, in my opinion, is an EII, and who loves Amano's works.  (I must say I think they're beautiful, too) Maybe I will try watching the movie, too.


Could you explain what you find beautiful about the art? I find that Amano's art is mostly hit and miss for me. I like some of his later works for Final Fantasy (I especially like Cloud's design for Advent Children), but there's something about it that's much too detail-oriented and concrete. I think it's because of Si. Sometimes what's plain and simple is really that gives off the strongest impression but Si seems to shy away from that, for some reason. Everything must be so rich in physical detail. 



> When I looked at this artist, I thought: beautiful faces, overall - looks like there's a lot of work and some thought and symbols...but OWWW, that looks painful! ... I guess I can't understand why people like to do unpleasant things to their characters in artwork (or movies, or ...basically, anywhere). I guess that could be a Si thing..?


I don't like all the pieces, but I do like the style of direction. And I don't know if that's Se thing or not. I always thought some of the characters were depicted in quite an enneagram 4-like way, like this one:










I was thinking Royo's style is quite similar to Giger's but not as abstract:

https://www.google.se/search?q=gige...WI4ASF2oGIAQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=935



> I believe that the EII person I wrote about earlier showed me "Chii's Sweet Home" as a manga she really liked. It seemed to be cute, I think!  And I know some art students who, I think, may be Fi types who all watched Chobits at some point in the past. (you're pretty precise with your idea then? ) Haven't heard of Witch Hunter Robin, though...thanks!


Pretty precise with my idea? What do you mean?



> Maybe. Though I read somewhere that the main characters (Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy) were typed to be SEE and ILI. But yeah, I guess if you like kind of movies you listed before, this is something veery different!


I think the overall style of a show can be different from its main characters. Sometimes the main characters are from the same quadra as the style of the show, sometimes not. As an example, Ergo Proxy is a very gamma show and while the MC is an ILI, he's accompanied with an SLE and we start watching from her perspective. 

Another example is Mushishi that seems more delta NF, specifically IEI, but the main character Ginko is an ILI.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> No, it's the coldness of Ti more so than Fe.


Oh, right. I can see why Ti would be cold (then again ,wouldn't thinking in general be?).



> Well, I could see them as semi-duals perhaps, and yes, it is possible to interpret that Shinji rejected it if you go with the original ending, but if you go with the OVA it's not evident at all.


Well, I was thinking about End of Eva mostly. At least that's the impression I got while watching it, but it could have been because of Asuka's rejection than what he wanted.

Ah, semi-duals. I did like the love-hate they had going on (though it seemed mostly hate in the end). 



osina said:


> When I looked at this artist, I thought: beautiful faces, overall - looks like there's a lot of work and some thought and symbols...but OWWW, that looks painful! ... I guess I can't understand why people like to do unpleasant things to their characters in artwork (or movies, or ...basically, anywhere). I guess that could be a Si thing..?


Possibly. I get easily squicked out by stuff like that too. Makes it hard to watch Horror. =(



ephemereality said:


> Another indie film I like is Donnie Darko. I think Donnie is an ILI and Gretchen a very unhealthy SEE.


Ooh, Donnie Darko was an interesting movie. I was a little confused by it at the time, though. I think I asked my uncle about it, and he said the main character was probably on drugs or something. Not the most satisfactory answer to be honest. :/




> Could you explain what you find beautiful about the art? I find that Amano's art is mostly hit and miss for me. I like some of his later works for Final Fantasy (I especially like Cloud's design for Advent Children), but there's something about it that's much too detail-oriented and concrete. I think it's because of Si. Sometimes what's plain and simple is really that gives off the strongest impression but Si seems to shy away from that, for some reason. Everything must be so rich in physical detail.


I kind of like the art myself, although a huge amount of detail can be overwhelming. Looking at screencaps from Angel's Egg on GIS, at least, I find it mostly appealing, and I guess it is the concreteness. Like they have a certain tanglibleness to them instead of just looking like drawings... yeah, I'm not good at explaining what I mean.

Overall, though, I tend to prefer more simple artstyles. This for example, really appealed to me. (And my own artstyle tend to be kind of simple and cartooney, albeit not *that* stylistic.)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Oh, right. I can see why Ti would be cold (then again ,wouldn't thinking in general be?).


Yes, it is. Just like Te, especially from base types, can come across as overly detached and mechanical like the Architect in The Matrix. 



> Well, I was thinking about End of Eva mostly. At least that's the impression I got while watching it, but it could have been because of Asuka's rejection than what he wanted.


Well it makes more sense from Asuka's POV being Fi. 



> Ah, semi-duals. I did like the love-hate they had going on (though it seemed mostly hate in the end).


Well, their relationship seems complicated but yes, likely the repulsion that occurs due to unfilled HA on either side. 



> Ooh, Donnie Darko was an interesting movie. I was a little confused by it at the time, though. I think I asked my uncle about it, and he said the main character was probably on drugs or something. Not the most satisfactory answer to be honest. :/


lol! Your uncle isn't very intuitive? Watch the director's cut. It makes it the plot pretty explicit. 



> I kind of like the art myself, although a huge amount of detail can be overwhelming. Looking at screencaps from Angel's Egg on GIS, at least, I find it mostly appealing, and I guess it is the concreteness. Like they have a certain tanglibleness to them instead of just looking like drawings... yeah, I'm not good at explaining what I mean.
> 
> Overall, though, I tend to prefer more simple artstyles. This for example, really appealed to me. (And my own artstyle tend to be kind of simple and cartooney)


Seems more Ne?


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, it is. Just like Te, especially from base types, can come across as overly detached and mechanical like the Architect in The Matrix.


Ah, I never actually watched The Matrix.



> Well it makes more sense from Asuka's POV being Fi.


Yes, but I was thinking that Shinji decided to reject it, since he was in position of the power to bring about instrumentality. Then again, it was said that whoever had the will to live could come back so it was perhaps not all up to him.



> Well, their relationship seems complicated but yes, likely the repulsion that occurs due to unfilled HA on either side.


 It is complicated, but there seemed to be more animosity than love between them, though at the same time... yeah. 



> lol! Your uncle isn't very intuitive? Watch the director's cut. It makes it the plot pretty explicit.


I'm not sure what I would type him as, but probably not an intuitive type no. 

Hmm, I guess I will watch the director's cut... Actually, I'm not sure why I didn't watch it already (or maybe I did and forgot it...).



> Seems more Ne?


Makes sense. It reminds me of Samurai Jack, which was one of my favorite shows. =P


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Ah, I never actually watched The Matrix.









> Yes, but I was thinking that Shinji decided to reject it, since he was in position of the power to bring about instrumentality. Then again, it was said that whoever had the will to live could come back so it was perhaps not all up to him.


No idea. The problem is that it's so heavily intertwined with his own 9-ness but the instrumentality would be to give in to his own neurosis. 



> Hmm, I guess I will watch the director's cut... Actually, I'm not sure why I didn't watch it already (or maybe I did and forgot it...).


It makes a lot more sense than the theatrical because they removed all plot-explaining aspects from the theatrical version for some reason. 



> Makes sense. It reminds me of Samurai Jack, which was one of my favorite shows. =P


I vaguely remember that name.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


>


Hmm, I see.



> No idea. The problem is that it's so heavily intertwined with his own 9-ness but the instrumentality would be to give in to his own neurosis.


Probably doesn't help that EoE is kind of deliberately ambiguous, but I kind of like it when a show leaves some things up to interpretation. 

He is quite the unhealthy 9 isn't he. Sad thing is that he's kind of relatable, though I wouldn't want instrumentality. That seems creepy to me. 



> It makes a lot more sense than the theatrical because they removed all plot-explaining aspects from the theatrical version for some reason.


Tch, go figure. 



> I vaguely remember that name.


It was a cartoon on Cartoon Network about a Samurai who's sent into the future. Style is similar to the Powerpuff Girls, but the story was more serious for the most part. I think.

Here they make some use of the simplistic style too. =P


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Probably doesn't help that EoE is kind of deliberately ambiguous, but I kind of like it when a show leaves some things up to interpretation.
> 
> He is quite the unhealthy 9 isn't he. Sad thing is that he's kind of relatable, though I wouldn't want instrumentality. That seems creepy to me.


Well, a healthy 9 would figure out that in order to achieve what they want they need to assert their own identity. 


> It was a cartoon on Cartoon Network about a Samurai who's sent into the future. Style is similar to the Powerpuff Girls, but the story was more serious for the most part. I think.
> 
> Here they make some use of the simplistic style too. =P


Yeah, I was thinking if it wasn't from Cartoon Network. At some point I came to dislike every cartoon on it. I just outgrew cartoons in general.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Well, a healthy 9 would figure out that in order to achieve what they want they need to assert their own identity.


I'm not sure I'm that healthy. But yeah.



> Yeah, I was thinking if it wasn't from Cartoon Network. At some point I came to dislike every cartoon on it. I just outgrew cartoons in general.


Heh, I tend to be interested in animation in general, whether it's anime or western. It's all cartoons in the end. =P When I was a teen I preferred anime and would try to draw in an anime style, but then at some point I got tired of the style (well, "feel" might be a better word, since it's not like all anime is in the same style). Well, I got into it again, or at least there are some shows that interests me.

(Part of it was probably because people who knew me would associate me with anime, and I felt a bit "labeled" maybe.)


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

hornet said:


> If by other people you mean Gammas? Sure!
> Betas and Deltas, not so much. My INFP ex had a sickly longing for strict hierarchy.
> Only way they are Libertarians at core is that they want to sit free at the top of the hierarchy.
> Or lead the forces of whatever struggle they have gotten embroiled in.
> Aristocracy automatically leads to struggle, while democracy leads to cooperation.


Alpha on whole I would guess to be more Libertarian, but not really as it is practiced in America. Theoretically, Libertarianism is particularly anti-Te (anti bureaucracy), as are we. I can't really give more of a reason than that, but I personally am pretty libertarian. This said, I won't vote for any libertarians, until the party can put up candidates that don't sound vaguely Tea party.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Alpha on whole I would guess to be more Libertarian, but not really as it is practiced in America. Theoretically, Libertarianism is particularly anti-Te (anti bureaucracy), as are we. I can't really give more of a reason than that, but I personally am pretty libertarian. This said, I won't vote for any libertarians, until the party can put up candidates that don't sound vaguely Tea party.


You mean anti Te/Si?
Te by itself couldn't care much for bureaucracy.
That is a beta control mechanism in my mind.
We gammas are famous for cutting trough beta red-tape with our Se/Te combo.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

hornet said:


> You mean anti Te/Si?
> Te by itself couldn't care much for bureaucracy.
> That is a beta control mechanism in my mind.
> We gammas are famous for cutting trough beta red-tape with our Se/Te combo.


I think Ti Se (ISTj) to be the creator of bureaucracy. So I guess I was wrong when I posted that, but in my mind I'm still stuck thinking that the MBTI function Te is closely linked to bureaucracy.

Do ESTJs play a large role in bureaucracy?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Well personally, I only care about effective bureaucracy as I recognize a need for it, but usually I tend to see too much and especially as is applied in say, certain political areas in Sweden, as too limiting and I see it as taking away individual freedom of choice in favor of enforcing certain biased categories. I speak part from personal experience though I rather not go into detail.

And I think say, delta STs could uphold bureaucracy for their own personal reasons based on that's what worked for them and because of Ni PoLR, fearing those kinds of future changes that would change the system entirely. 

So I am not sure whether I think bureaucracy is an invention of LSI-think or not; but I don't think holding and maintaining such a system is unique to beta.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Bureaucracy is necessary lest the revolution comes about too easily, and people can do whatever they can without putting forth any effort into anything. It's just what people do mang, I think it's a pretty Te orientated thing, as I don't really see any particular reason as to why a Ti type would put faith into an outer system like that. In a Ti world without Te there would be little to know laws. As those are rather unnecessary.

Might as well make it a party for the Beta types if it's going to be their time to shine.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> I think Ti Se (ISTj) to be the creator of bureaucracy. So I guess I was wrong when I posted that, but in my mind I'm still stuck thinking that the MBTI function Te is closely linked to bureaucracy.
> 
> Do ESTJs play a large role in bureaucracy?


I can see how that would work.



ephemereality said:


> Well personally, I only care about effective bureaucracy as I recognize a need for it, but usually I tend to see too much and especially as is applied in say, certain political areas in Sweden, as too limiting and I see it as taking away individual freedom of choice in favor of enforcing certain biased categories. I speak part from personal experience though I rather not go into detail.
> 
> And I think say, delta STs could uphold bureaucracy for their own personal reasons based on that's what worked for them and because of Ni PoLR, fearing those kinds of future changes that would change the system entirely.
> 
> So I am not sure whether I think bureaucracy is an invention of LSI-think or not; but I don't think holding and maintaining such a system is unique to beta.


It is off course simplistic to pin it all on any one mindset.
I agree that fear of Ni drives it to a large part.

An episode with my ISFp mother today comes to mind.
She asked me if I could do her a big favour.
Then she asked me to go get something. (Fairly easy)
So I asked her what the* big* favour was.
She was dumbstruck, didn't know what hit her.
And my ESFj aunt was stunned too.
Only my ISTj father was half amused.


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I was watching the film Mr. Nobody the other day and what's striking of the film is that it completely failed at the box office despite having Jared Leto as its main actor and is in my opinion, a very thought-provoking and beautifully done film. It's definitely artsy and wants to get a message across, but it's less about the drama but more about understanding some fundamentally deep aspect of life itself or how to it put, how it resonates within in you. Very NiFi film and Leto's character seem to be an ILI himself, whose dream girl is an IEE.
> 
> I am not surprised this film received very little attention despite this though. It's like films _must_ be dramatic in order to sell today. And it's not just film, but this seems to be prevalent in anime and other forms of art too.


I just watched "Mr. Nobody". Thanks again for mentioning it here. I am not sure I understand what I just saw, but it definitely was an artistically great movie, beautiful frames, the dynamic and how the details helped develop the plot...really nice music, I believe I could also say that the actor work was good and...well, I don't know what to say about the story.  Many times through the movie I had 'wtf is this?!' moments, many 'awww, this is sweeet!' moments, some sad moments, etc... Sooo much information and emotion.

By the way, which of Nemo's girlfriends did you think was IEE type? Anna, yes? And maybe I could agree to Nemo being ILI type. Hmm...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

osina said:


> I just watched "Mr. Nobody". Thanks again for mentioning it here. I am not sure I understand what I just saw, but it definitely was an artistically great movie, beautiful frames, the dynamic and how the details helped develop the plot...really nice music, I believe I could also say that the actor work was good and...well, I don't know what to say about the story.  Many times through the movie I had 'wtf is this?!' moments, many 'awww, this is sweeet!' moments, some sad moments, etc... Sooo much information and emotion.
> 
> By the way, which of Nemo's girlfriends did you think was IEE type? Anna, yes? And maybe I could agree to Nemo being ILI type. Hmm...


Anna was. She didn't strike me as an SEE.


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Anna was. She didn't strike me as an SEE.


Hmm, ok. Might be, might be.  I somehow had the feeling that Elise could be a EIE. She reminded me a bit of a person I know who I believe could be EIE type. Also, the emotionality...

By the way, what do you think? Which types could be the best at public relations? Ethical ones, I believe..?

And, just a thought... I know there is an assumption that logical types tend to hide their emotions. But is it true? Could there be, say, an ILE who is very emotional (openly and with ease showing how he/she feels), and...an IEE who is bad at acting, telling lies, and who doesn't take much interest in manipulating people? (read somewhere that Fi types like manipulating peoples' relationships, etc.)

(I believe some of these questions come from me thinking in a little stereotypical way and maybe because of lack of credible typing examples/experience, lol...anyway, would be interesting to hear other people's opinions)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

osina said:


> Hmm, ok. Might be, might be.  I somehow had the feeling that Elise could be a EIE. She reminded me a bit of a person I know who I believe could be EIE type. Also, the emotionality...


She was Se-valuing but I don't think she can be typed based on her emotional expressions due to her being sick and all. It clearly skewed who she was. 



> By the way, what do you think? Which types could be the best at public relations? Ethical ones, I believe..?


The type that enjoys maintaining public relations. I think your question is too individual-based to be answered properly. People with ethics in super-id often engage in work or hobbies where they can express their ethics in a safe environment like my LII teacher being a teacher. 



> And, just a thought... I know there is an assumption that logical types tend to hide their emotions. But is it true? Could there be, say, an ILE who is very emotional (openly and with ease showing how he/she feels), and...an IEE who is bad at acting, telling lies, and who doesn't take much interest in manipulating people? (read somewhere that Fi types like manipulating peoples' relationships, etc.)


Not sure I understand your question. An ILE who is very emotional will display their emotion because of Fe for one, but do so in outbursts because they experience it as awkward, feeling they have poor control over them, though emotions themselves are not ethics or feeling. Well, I don't think they meant Fi types manipulate people directly like that. They manipulate the value of relationships etc perhaps, by adjusting the scale of it just like how Fe types adjust the emotional atmosphere, but telling lies etc, that's not what ethics does. Ethics would help in drawing a conclusion whether telling a lie is good or bad though. 



> (I believe some of these questions come from me thinking in a little stereotypical way and maybe because of lack of credible typing examples/experience, lol...anyway, would be interesting to hear other people's opinions)


Yeah, I think you're correct in thinking that.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Lol, I actually thought ... More delta pop-culture in the 80s, more alphas in the 90s, more gamma in the 00's. Does that make sense to anyone else?

This is a trend I've been seeing as fairly obvious. I don't really see Beta as much as the other three quadras. Maybe I'm looking at this from a rather shallow standpoint, 'cause I'm new to this stuff, but I find it interesting and wanna see why my theory is probably wrong.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Ooh, I'm watching Pacific Rim right now, so I'll be able to say what I think of that. For some reason I've seen it compared to Evangelion, though. So I'll be comparing it to that. =P Well, they are both about giant robots and... Beta, I guess.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Lol, I actually thought ... More delta pop-culture in the 80s, more alphas in the 90s, more gamma in the 00's. Does that make sense to anyone else?
> 
> This is a trend I've been seeing as fairly obvious. I don't really see Beta as much as the other three quadras. Maybe I'm looking at this from a rather shallow standpoint, 'cause I'm new to this stuff, but I find it interesting and wanna see why my theory is probably wrong.


So you essentially agree with the counter-clock mechanic I suggested as well so instead of alpha > beta > gamma > delta it's delta > gamma > beta > alpha?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> So you essentially agree with the counter-clock mechanic I suggested as well so instead of alpha > beta > gamma > delta it's delta > gamma > beta > alpha?


That sounds about right.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Finished watching Pacific Rim. Lol, my friend called it "robot porn", which sums it up pretty well. 


* *




I had wondered why it was being compared to Evangelion, and after having seen it I still don't see a lot of similarity. Although both have giant robots and this, uhm... merging-theme. The overall feel is rather different though. Actually I didn't think PR had much of a feel at all, so in that way I would compare it to the Rebuild movies. Lots of nice action, but lacking in atmosphere. Imo, of course. Granted, it could be because the low-budget animation of the original Eva series simply appeals to my Si more than the fancy effects does. =P

Ok, one thing that did strike me about PR was that the acting was kind of... cartooney? So I guess it does have sort of a cartooney feel to it, despite being live action. Which made me think of Enchanted of all things (but that movie was supposed to be an affectionate parody. I _think _PR was supposed to be more serious? Although it's not supposed to be a... heavy movie either.)




(Though Enchanted would be more Alpha. And it's a romantic comedy with some fairy tale stuff mixed in rather than a giant robot/action movie. Still. The two movies were more similar to me than PR and Eva. =P)

Anyway. Those are my thoughts on Pacific Rim, if anyone cares. I guess it's a good movie if you just want some action (though I found the action scenes kind of disorienting, for some reason). The characters weren't too engaging. When the black guy started on his speech I was like, k, bathroom break. And while I can appreciate movies that are simply meant to be entertainment I want to care about the characters at least. I only really cared about the kaiju-fanboy (who's a LII right? Go figure). Although he was a bit annoying, but better than boring.




Although with both Evangelion and Pacific Rim being Beta, it made some more sense to me that the two would be compared. Unless it's just that everything with giant robots has to be compared to Eva? Ah well.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Out of the scientists, I think fanboy was LII and maths guy ILI or SLI. Main lead SLE, his pretty gf IEI. There's a pretty funny (to me at least) Te-humor driven video on Youtube about PR:


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Out of the scientists, I think fanboy was LII and maths guy ILI or SLI. Main lead SLE, his pretty gf IEI.


Yeah, I kinda liked the scientist dudes. They had a more interesting relationship than the leads (not that that is saying much).



> There's a pretty funny (to me at least) Te-humor driven video on Youtube about PR:


Ah, I find stuff like this a bit hard to get into because then I have to pay attention to both the movie and the snark (and I get easily confused), but yeah that sounds about right. I think I might link it to some friends of mine (who are fans of the movie), because sharing is caring. =P


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

And I agree that Mako's backstory was more interesting than Raileigh's. (Or however his name is spelled.) Although I wasn't too interested in the character herself, I think it would at least be improved a little if they had put her backstory in the opening and then focused more on the character overall. Give her some proper character development and stuff. Lol, that would make it a bit more similar to Eva too, but she would still be a more proactive main character (than Shinji) since she actually wants to get in the robot. 

...Welp, now I'm looking for Pacific Rim fanfic.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> And I agree that Mako's backstory was more interesting than Raileigh's. (Or however his name is spelled.) Although I wasn't too interested in the character herself, I think it would at least be improved a little if they had put her backstory in the opening and then focused more on the character overall. Give her some proper character development and stuff. Lol, that would make it a bit more similar to Eva too, but she would still be a more proactive main character (than Shinji) since she actually wants to get in the robot.
> 
> ...Welp, now I'm looking for Pacific Rim fanfic.


I do think PR was inspired by Eva though, I mean suddenly they throw out a sword (or phase dagger) out of nowhere that is somehow super-effective but the other weapons are not? lol. Reminds me of the special AT-field weapons. Why didn't they do _that_?


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I do think PR was inspired by Eva though, I mean suddenly they throw out a sword (or phase dagger) out of nowhere that is somehow super-effective but the other weapons are not? lol. Reminds me of the special AT-field weapons. Why didn't they do _that_?


Ah, I forgot about that. Or I missed it... somehow. I think I mentioned already, but for some reason the action scenes were a bit confusing. Guess my attention wasn't entirely there, though.

One can only wonder. Although my friends thinks PR > Eva (of the ones that has seen both), so clearly PR's way of doing it works for some. It makes me a bit sad to think of how much more interesting PR could have been though (not that Eva is the best thing ever either, but I like it). 

Actually, now I'm thinking of that episode where Shinji and Asuka had to be in synch so they could defeat an angel by dancing. That was pretty awesome in its way. 




And I wouldn't mind seeing that in a live-action movie. >_>


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Ah, I forgot about that. Or I missed it... somehow. I think I mentioned already, but for some reason the action scenes were a bit confusing. Guess my attention wasn't entirely there, though.
> 
> One can only wonder. Although my friends thinks PR > Eva (of the ones that has seen both), so clearly PR's way of doing it works for some. It makes me a bit sad to think of how much more interesting PR could have been though (not that Eva is the best thing ever either, but I like it).
> 
> ...


Yeah, that too, and the whole need to be sync in general though first used in Eva it was also used in other mecha after it.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Yeah, that too, and the whole need to be sync in general though first used in Eva it was also used in other mecha after it.


Yes, the syncing was pretty similar to Eva. I wasn't sure if Eva was the first to do that sort of thing or not, though, since I haven't seen a lot of mecha shows (did try to watch Gundam Wing once, but I got bored, and I didn't feel driven to check out any other robot-shows). I'm not that inlove with giant robots so it needs something extra to pull me in. Like I watched some Star Driver because it was directed by the same guy who did Utena, I believe. Plus a friend talked about how it was good, but the ending sucked... so I wanted to check it out to see for myself. (But even though it had some interesting bits I didn't like it enough to watch it all on my own. :/) Uh but I digress.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Yes, the syncing was pretty similar to Eva. I wasn't sure if Eva was the first to do that sort of thing or not, though, since I haven't seen a lot of mecha shows (did try to watch Gundam Wing once, but I got bored, and I didn't feel driven to check out any other robot-shows). I'm not that inlove with giant robots so it needs something extra to pull me in. Like I watched some Star Driver because it was directed by the same guy who did Utena, I believe. Plus a friend talked about how it was good, but the ending sucked... so I wanted to check it out to see for myself. (But even though it had some interesting bits I didn't like it enough to watch it all on my own. :/) Uh but I digress.


Based on what I've seen ranging from early 90s and late 80s, I am fairly sure Eva must have been the first one to utilize that concept to such a degree, anyway. Not that I have seen a lot of mecha, but very early mecha shows were more like pilot rides gigantic robot weapon not much different to car stuff or whatever.


----------



## aniso (Aug 14, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> She was Se-valuing but I don't think she can be typed based on her emotional expressions due to her being sick and all. It clearly skewed who she was.


Yes, I guess one can't type her because she was sick and so behaving not normally. Well, but yeah, her interest object, the guy (forgot his name) who she said she still loved the years later, he seemed to be some Se type...



ephemereality said:


> The type that enjoys maintaining public relations. I think your question is too individual-based to be answered properly. People with ethics in super-id often engage in work or hobbies where they can express their ethics in a safe environment like my LII teacher being a teacher.


Hmm... I agree that my question was too vague. But it sounds like it could be true, the 'LII teacher being a teacher' idea.



ephemereality said:


> Not sure I understand your question. An ILE who is very emotional will display their emotion because of Fe for one, but do so in outbursts because they experience it as awkward, feeling they have poor control over them, though emotions themselves are not ethics or feeling. Well, I don't think they meant Fi types manipulate people directly like that. They manipulate the value of relationships etc perhaps, by adjusting the scale of it just like how Fe types adjust the emotional atmosphere, but telling lies etc, that's not what ethics does. Ethics would help in drawing a conclusion whether telling a lie is good or bad though.
> Yeah, I think you're correct in thinking that.


 thanks for your opinion. That was about what I was thinking of. And I understand that emotions themselves aren't ethics/feeling. Just - I have read in descriptions that the logical types tend to hide their emotions, so I thought: hmm, but what about ILEs..?  (not as random an idea as it sounds) So I guess what you said explained something I wanted to understand a bit better.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Fuck knows.

Too many variables for me to give anything near a meaningful and insightful comment.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Not sure I understand your question. An ILE who is very emotional will display their emotion because of Fe for one, but do so in outbursts because they experience it as awkward, feeling they have poor control over them, though emotions themselves are not ethics or feeling. Well, I don't think they meant Fi types manipulate people directly like that. They manipulate the value of relationships etc perhaps, by adjusting the scale of it just like how Fe types adjust the emotional atmosphere, but telling lies etc, that's not what ethics does. Ethics would help in drawing a conclusion whether telling a lie is good or bad though.


 @osina: _Expressed_ emotions are also external behaviours, rooted deeply in cognitive causation. Meaning that... After processing and judging in your own cognitive way, you may react emotionally, whether logical or ethical. It's the _cause _and motivation prior to action that should have an analytical focus.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

@ephemereality What you seem to have referred to as Nazi aristocracy, may be just preservation instinct of an ethnic group. 

Swedes are being steadily replaced by immigrants.
Putting people constantly in a position where they have to justify their need to survive and keep to their 'traditional' values will put them on defensive and make them aggressive - fight or flight, since they've got nowhere to run... They are being pushed to prove they're special and unique, which in excessive amounts in an individual may results in supremacy. One reaps what one sows after all.

Also term Nazi is used quite loosely nowadays, applied to anything from chauvinist to a patriot or a person who simply disagrees with the mainstream. It's like medieval church shouted Devil and heretic. So I'd avoid using it.


Also, I don't think WW2 is a monument to any period. People killed each other all the time. WW1 had been not long before. Many more wars before both. Most of them for the sake of domination. 


In this bland world of shallow o psychotic sentiments, it's refreshing to be touched deeply and sincerely by a story with something profound. I don't think psycho pass is so overwhelmingly emotional, just more based on ethical challenge rather than raw logic puzzle solving. Furthermore many are dissatisfied with values and life-style imposed on us (e.g. consumerism, gmo, environmental destruction), New values are being introduced, so there's also an ethical challenge IRL we ponder on by watching the 'drama' on tTV.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nightchill said:


> @ephemereality What you seem to have referred to as Nazi aristocracy, may be just preservation instinct of an ethnic group.
> 
> Swedes are being steadily replaced by immigrants.
> Putting people constantly in a position where they have to justify their need to survive and keep to their 'traditional' values will put them on defensive and make them aggressive - fight or flight, since they've got nowhere to run... They are being pushed to prove they're special and unique, which in excessive amounts in an individual may results in supremacy. One reaps what one sows after all.


Then you don't understand what I'm referring to. I'm referring to a specific mentality, a mindset or frame or mind, wherein people have a tendency to classify things a certain way. Aristocrats do it by classifying groups of people and that's what Nazism does and it seeks to make sense of groups based on commonly shared group features rather than individual features. It classifies whether someone is Aryan or Jew, and whether you are one or the other defines who you are as a person. This is the mentality of aristocracy. How one seeks to explain these sociological changes through other means is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. I have a background in the social sciences so I'm well aware of other ways of viewing the problem. 



> Also term Nazi is used quite loosely nowadays, applied to anything from chauvinist to a patriot or a person who simply disagrees with the mainstream. It's like medieval church shouted Devil and heretic. So I'd avoid using it.


But I think the context is fairly clear in which I'm referring to the word here, since I link it to Hitler and WW2. 



> Also, I don't think WW2 is a monument to any period. People killed each other all the time. WW1 had been not long before. Many more wars before both. Most of them for the sake of domination.


Again, it's about the mentalities that drove the politics in this direction I'm referring to, not whether WW2 in itself is representative of anything, which it's not. 



> In this bland world of shallow o psychotic sentiments, it's refreshing to be touched deeply and sincerely by a story with something profound. I don't think psycho pass is so overwhelmingly emotional,


That's not why it's Fe-driven or derived. It's more that the characters themselves are clearly Fe characters and the story is built around, in particular, beta attempts to create shock value and instigating emotional reactions more around how a specific act is seen in a collective over subjective sense. 



> just more based on ethical challenge rather than raw logic puzzle solving. Furthermore many are dissatisfied with values and life-style imposed on us (e.g. consumerism, gmo, environmental destruction), New values are being introduced, so there's also an ethical challenge IRL we ponder on by watching the 'drama' on tTV.


That's kind of irrelevant to the point I was making.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

Those things have always existed, it's just that they're manifesting themselves in different ways than before due to the changing structure of society..

I'll tell you one big change though- a change in consciousness. Collective consciousness is continuous in society, passing from one generation to the next through socialization with limited changes being able to be made by each passing generation.. However, we're getting to a stage where collective consciousness is beginning to regulate itself- i.e. it's able to look at itself and think "is the way we do things wrong?", although this is still very limited. What's exciting about this is that this collective consciousness which is becoming more and more significant in our generation is driven by the idea of benevolence.. Social media also increases the rate and power of these ideals, and their ability to progress and change. This is exampled by things such as the changing nature of celebrity- where benevolent ideas are increasingly becoming socially valuable, and celebrities are changing their tact and actions to reflect this.

In the past, collective consciousness has _only_ been to serve the society which exists, protecting and expanding the system in place, however the pace of change in consciousness is increasing, and what will be interesting will be to see whether this "divergence" will ever become strong enough to break societal forces (those being those representing Capitalism in this day and age), similarly to how they broke the feudal system in the 17th-19th centuries.

(yes.. I am ever so slightly a Marxist, although I don't necessarily believe that a Communist utopia is the next stage- I think there can be a stage where consciousness merely regulates the Capitalist system, and people's awareness is expanded to the point that people are intelligent enough to recognise how to do so- I'm a socialist, basically.)


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Then how does beta aristocracy differ? You don't experience that claiming that person X belongs to Y group because of A traits is exclusive?


Aristocracy/Democracy is better expressed as Collectivist/Individualist. Individualists have a hard time thinking about the collective, period. So, they're not likely to have a self-construal from which they readily describe themselves in terms of being a part of a group. “I am a father, a hard worker, pragmatic and loyal to a fault” are individualist self-construals. This can easily lead to in-group/out-group formations because individualists are just as likely to be exclusionary in their desire to set _themselves_ apart from _everyone else_.

Collectivists either identify with existing groups (self-reference, seeing information relevant to themselves with more mental acuity and interest than anything else), or think in terms of groupings that they are neither a part of, nor believe to be essential—meaning they can think theoretically as a sort of shorthand (heuristics). They don't necessarily _set their groupings apart_ from others in an attempt to individuate themselves. Individualists individuate as well, as a natural process of developing a self-schema that can eliminate as much cognitive dissonance as they can: Something coherent, meaningful, and cohesive that they feel is impenetrable or at least grounded enough to hold their confidence.

We all try to do that, with varying degrees and intricacies of neuroses getting in the way.

Individualist don't just _identify_ with existing groups (an example of self-reference), they're actually more likely to join-up with those groups. They'll still see themselves as individuals; yet, simply individuals with overlapping goals. The US is one of the most individualistic countries in the industrialized world, and Social Conflict Theory suggests that this is the root of many social problems because a lack of understanding group dynamics can lead to a very hyper-competitive unsympathetic populace.

Aristocracy is a terrible way to label that side of the dichotomy. Collectivists would simply have a self-construal of “I am a [insert surname], I work in the [blah blah] industry, I am [insert nationality here]”.

That's just the way they associate themselves with other people. It's not necessarily elitist or exlcusionary, and individualists, if prompted, hold the same ideas about themselves (familial affiliation, nationality, place of employment) but they're not so entrenched in their self-construal that they'd answer that way right off the bat. The reverse is true of collectivists.

Neither has more of a propensity to become oppressively exclusionary than the other. The groupings are simply...—Hmm.... Think of a diagram that is a bird's eye view of a cafeteria at an international university.

Individualists circle the cliques sitting at the same table (microscopic association). Collectivists would likely color code individual people based on their nationality (macroscopic association.

Cliques (collections of individualists bonding over similar traits that they see as central to the individual) aren't always exclusionary. Nations (collections of collectivists—in this example—either bonding over, or simply recognizing, different nationalities) aren't always exclusionary, either.

It depends on the attitude they have toward the “collections”, no matter if they're microscopic or macroscopic in orientation: A group of individualists could implicitly (as in, not having a name for themselves) hold themselves in higher regard than everyone else. A group of collectivists could explicitly hold themselves higher. But this attitude is neither inherent in, nor skewed toward, either.

The group of individualists would be unlikely to see another clique and think “We could work with them for this superordinate goal”... because they're not likely to place themselves in the role of the Other enough to scope out superordinate goals. And they'd only be likely to scope out individuals to team-up with and then disperse. After which, no construct is entrenched in the individualist of any nuance of complement. Simply temporary supplement (_math geek can tutor me_).

The group of collectivists would be _more_ likely to think in terms of how other groups could complement them in their own goals, simply by understanding the differences—but, moreso the similarities—between all the groups. Temporary (_we can join in on their multidisciplinary directive because the work they're doing and the work we're doing doesn't need to be redundant... we can do it together)_....

... Or it can be much less tenuous, like third-wave feminists joining in with LGBTQ+ activists. Actually, the whole intersectionalist schematic people are explicitly bringing awareness to (as far as social problems go) is extremely collectivist in action and in principle.

When voting on an important municipal ordinance, an individualist may say “I don't care. It doesn't affect me.” And if enough individualists feel the same way, they can bond over the reasons why they don't care, and why the effects it has on others doesn't faze them.

Collectivists would say “I voted on what was helpful to the people who needed it, because I need it, too. The struggle is real.”

Individualist and collectivist has no bearing on traditionalism vs. liberalism. Traditionalist collectivists would hearken back to the days when [insert their nationality here] were an honorable people. Traditionalist individualists would wax nostalgic over their own particular circumstances growing up: “You can make anything of yourself if you just put in the hard works. Kids need to understand that these days and quit whinging.”

I think in terms of existing groupings, and how the groupings can complement each other, or cease extant conflicts by recognizing superordinate goals. I don't even have to belong to any of these groupings, and can make up my own groups—or come up with a name for one that is essentially bonded but are working as individualists with no idea as to how they're perpetuating the same things. I can also imagine new groups that could be formed on different criteria, but I usually focus on the immediate groups in conflict and call them both out for their flaws in communication and rhetoric.

I'm the guy who won't take a side, but recognizing there are sides, that each side feels validated for a reason, but ultimately neither will get anything done through semantic pissing contests and hashtag battles.

Anyway, that's how I came to identify with the Aristocrat side of the dichotomy.

I thought adherents to Reinen (particularly ones that study it and contribute to the evolution of its utilization) were particularly looking to eliminate Aristocracy as one of the defining factors like Merry/Serious, Decisive/Judicious....?

I believe their reasoning was something along the lines of "it's too poorly hashed-out" and that anyone has the propensity to being collectivist or individualist.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Then how does beta aristocracy differ? You don't experience that claiming that person X belongs to Y group because of A traits is exclusive?


To greatly condense my last treatise...

X+A=Y, and X-A=(not-Y), is more differential than exclusive. It's just an expression of inductive reasoning. The premise for which inducted information is being gathered is ultimately arbitrary (the groupings themselves, or the perceived value of having those groupings constructed in the first place). Democratic (individualist in my paradigm here) reasoning can be inductive for the purposes of validating a lot of "They" (out-grouping) statements, and they often lack the macroscopic viewpoint to even see conflicting information.

If anything, “Aristocrats” are more likely to take a POV that even allows for contradictory information on Us's and They's to be found in the first place, even at the risk of shattering or remolding their pre-existing notions and criteria.

I believe that individualists (which seem to be what Reinin “Democrat” is attempting to delineate) are more likely to carry myopic views that remain unchallenged or are subjected to much more belief-conserving information, entrenching them further from those they differ from.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Kerik_S said:


> Aristocracy/Democracy is better expressed as Collectivist/Individualist. Individualists have a hard time thinking about the collective, period. So, they're not likely to have a self-construal from which they readily describe themselves in terms of being a part of a group. “I am a father, a hard worker, pragmatic and loyal to a fault” are individualist self-construals. This can easily lead to in-group/out-group formations because individualists are just as likely to be exclusionary in their desire to set _themselves_ apart from _everyone else_.
> 
> Collectivists either identify with existing groups (self-reference, seeing information relevant to themselves with more mental acuity and interest than anything else), or think in terms of groupings that they are neither a part of, nor believe to be essential—meaning they can think theoretically as a sort of shorthand (heuristics). They don't necessarily _set their groupings apart_ from others in an attempt to individuate themselves. Individualists individuate as well, as a natural process of developing a self-schema that can eliminate as much cognitive dissonance as they can: Something coherent, meaningful, and cohesive that they feel is impenetrable or at least grounded enough to hold their confidence.
> 
> ...


This Reinin has always been interesting to me because it's one of the few that has been independently described by mainstream academia. There's a mid-sized body of literature that describes what cultural anthropology calls the distinction between "shame" and "guilt" cultures, two supposedly contrasting approaches to public ethics. The most common example is the difference between Japanese and American culture, a comparison that originated with Ruth Benedict in the early days of anthropology. Here's how a more modern academic summarizes this subject.



> ...A guilt culture construes morality along the lines of a legal system, emphasizing ideas of authority, obligation and responsibility. Such cultures understand moral faults primarily as transgressions or failings of will. 'Shame cultures', in contrast, are supposed to be fundamentally concerned with the nature of an agent's entire character, assessed with respect to the social roles that he occupies. Ethical failing is seen primarily not as transgression but as inability to live up to the expectations of others. In this context the normal reaction to these failings is not blame or resentment, but such quasi-aesthetic responses as contempt, derision or pity. Unlike blame and resentment, these attitudes need not involve any sort of implicit demand or reproach addressed to the malefactor, or any insistence on acknowledgement or reform from him.
> 
> Shame cultures are often criticized for having a 'heteronomous' picture of moral agency in which agents uncritically identify with their social roles and the expectations that others have of them as inhabitants of those roles. In reply, guilt morality is faulted for putting more weight on notions of voluntariness, freedom and a uniquely moral necessity than these ideas can ultimately bear. Kantian morality is often offered as the ultimate _reductio ad absurdum_ of such an approach to ethical life...For Kant, moral worth is the one kind of value that it is always within our power to realize, and this being the case, our failure to realize it always counts as a presumptively culpable violation of duty.


David Sussman, _Shame and Punishment in Kant's "Doctrine of Right"_, The Philosophical Quarterly, 2008

If you were to look up Sussman's article and follow his citations, it becomes obvious what anthropologists call "shame cultures" are ones dominated by aristocratic values, while "guilt cultures" are heavily democratic. Guilt cultures fundamentally view people as equals. One person is the same as the next. Because of this, moral rules are universal, and any deviation from those rules reveals your own failing, your own "sin" because everybody has the same capacity for moral behavior. Democrats are considerably more severe in their criticism of social deviants than aristocrats. While aristocrats have a blind spot in glossing over individuality and have trouble seeing past "kinds", democrats have a blind spot that comes from difficulty in recognizing the influence of differing backgrounds and have trouble seeing past their own personal experiences.

There's an assumption aristocrats make that people are fundamentally _different_ from each other. Blocking their intuition with ethics, people are reduced to an "ethical archetype" or social role and seen as fitting into different categories depending on the role they are in. Because people are different, there are different expectations for those roles, and what is good for one person is not necessarily considered good for another. You see this mindset a lot in the modern center-left. One of the most frequent criticisms of the left's approach to Islam is its perceived reluctance to apply the same ethical standards it uses to criticize the Christian religious right to criticize Muslims. This perfectly valid observation is to a large degree the result of aristocracy's blind spot. Even in a modern society, Muslims are seen as the "other", while the religious right, enemies though they may be of the left, are cultural insiders. As a result, the rules of the aristocratic left aren't seen as applying to Muslims because they "have their own thing". To impose rules meant for one group onto an entirely different group is seen as unfair.

This video has been posted here before, but it's worth reposting because it highlights the difference between the two approaches to ethics. On one hand we have a beta aristocrat, Ben Affleck, and on the other a gamma democrat, Sam Harris, EIE and LIE respectively. Throughout this entire conversation the two men talk past each other because neither of them see the real point of disagreement, which is their conception of "group". Harris' conception of group is basically an average. Because he lacks the aristocratic concern for clearly marked groups, he feels comfortable generalizing about Muslims because implicit in an average is the possibility of outliers -- what he says about Muslims in the abstract isn't and shouldn't be taken as a statement that by necessity applies to each and every single Muslim. Affleck, on the other hand, strongly resents Harris's generalizations because he sees groups as something all-encompassing. In his eyes, a harsh statement about Muslims in the abstract is an accusation against _each and every Muslim_. Although Harris actually goes out of his way to point out that he doesn't believe his generalization applies to all Muslims, this particular way of thinking about groups is so deeply ingrained in Affleck's mind he misses that point, and they heatedly talk past each other.






Both sides have their uses, and both sides have their flaws.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Zamyatin what works of Benedict are you thinking of or referring to, here? While Benedict is definitely a major contributor to social anthropology and an important name in the field, she was also heavily criticized due to her shoddy methodologies such as poor use of participant observation. You may or may not be aware of this, since I'm unsure how much you studied anthropological history. Regardless, if you got any direct titles to cite, I'd be interested to look more into them. It could be that my particular faculty bias wasn't overly interested in this stuff, but we never really looked into shame/guilt cultures, for example. They had a strong hiccups concerning Lévi-Strauss and the French structuralist school and kinship maps, though, lol.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Entropic said:


> @Zamyatin what works of Benedict are you thinking of or referring to, here? While Benedict is definitely a major contributor to social anthropology and an important name in the field, she was also heavily criticized due to her shoddy methodologies such as poor use of participant observation. You may or may not be aware of this, since I'm unsure how much you studied anthropological history. Regardless, if you got any direct titles to cite, I'd be interested to look more into them. It could be that my particular faculty bias wasn't overly interested in this stuff, but we never really looked into shame/guilt cultures, for example. They had a strong hiccups concerning Lévi-Strauss and the French structuralist school and kinship maps, though, lol.


It's from The Crysthanamum and the Sword. Yeah, I'm aware her views on guilt/shame cultures were criticized, though there are a couple of persuasive arguments by later anthropologists defending her work in this area. Millie Creighton at the University of British Colombia is only name I have written down at the moment though.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Zamyatin said:


> This Reinin has always been interesting to me because it's one of the few that has been independently described by mainstream academia. There's a mid-sized body of literature that describes what cultural anthropology calls the distinction between "shame" and "guilt" cultures, two supposedly contrasting approaches to public ethics. The most common example is the difference between Japanese and American culture, a comparison that originated with Ruth Benedict in the early days of anthropology. Here's how a more modern academic summarizes this subject.
> 
> _{. . . clipped for brevity}_


I just brought up shame vs. guilt cultures out to dinner with a friend last week. I made the connection (and used America and Japan as examples), and made an internal sub-vocal connection (not put to words) between America=Individualist=Socionic-Democrat, and Japan=Collectivist=Socionic-Aristocrat; though, even adding in the America=Guilt, Japan=Shame, I didn't quite connect those dots explicitly.

It's very compelling. Your post highlighted and challenged some of the gripes I've had with “Aristocratic” being somehow fascism-Lite, and “Democratic” being somehow more reasonable and fair.

Democratic “equality” leaves much room for in-group/out-group separation, groupthink and sub-typing (having some people being the exception-to-the-rule of stereotypes: “How can you say racism is a thing when Oprah Winfrey is so rich?”).

Conversely, “Women are less powerful than men. She's strong, but she's probably like a lesbian or something.”

　

Democratic equality is fair. But it's not just. It can be easily abused and eschewed.

Aristocratic equality treats people where they're at, relatively. Equality _isn't fair_. But it _is just_.

The groups are already hashed-out in Aristocratic processing, so an outcast is just an outcast. A _hikkikomori_. And they're shamed, passively eating away at their esteem.

Democratic processing makes groups malleable and can lump outcasts together into sub-types that can be oppressed. Actively eating away at them through guilt.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> The groups are already hashed-out in Aristocratic processing, so an outcast is just an outcast. A _hikkikomori_. And they're shamed, passively eating away at their esteem.
> 
> Democratic processing makes groups malleable and can lump outcasts together into sub-types that can be oppressed. Actively eating away at them through guilt.


America has been, and continues to, remain extremely individualistic. In the social-conflict paradigm of Sociology, America is an example of “extreme individualism” which is tied to many social problems. Tumblr and “social justice warriors” might make it seem like we're seeing things in an Aristocratic light. But that's the Internet.

Look behind their words, and look at the ethics of the discourse. It's nothing but self-touting herd mentality. They're not hashtagging words like “racism” and “transphobia” to serve as any kind of corrective or ethical device—it's all empty rhetoric and miming other people, so they can get Likes and Reshares.

On the front-lines, where activism is actually taking place, you'll see it's not at all aristocratic. It's small groups with super-ordinate goals and no clear sense of direction. That's why Occupy was such a dismal failure.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

And any implication about the arts-culture in America serving as an indicator of aristocracy:

Our mass media serves one purpose: To make money. The artists are doing it because they love it.

Their work is vastly undermined. The biggest movement in American academia is explicitly to get more people on-board with pipelining their educations toward STEM careers (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Maths). There's no value placed in studies of actual humans. Social sciences aren't counted as part of STEM, and the same people that advocate for STEM say “We don't need anymore anthropology majors”.

The rhetoric is skewed clearly toward people maintaining their implicit views about what constitutes a group, unchallenged.

How can America be shifting toward collectivism when we're publicly discouraging the _study of people and their interactions_?


----------

