# Aristocracy in Beta and Delta



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

How do you think Beta and Delta differ in their Aristocratic views and methods?

A few observations: Deltas seem to divide people going by their inner personality traits such as generous, warm, considerate, forgiving, or inconsiderate selfish, mean. Betas characterize people according to their observable traits, so there are people who are quiet, loud, energetic, cowering, etc.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> How do you think Beta and Delta differ in their Aristocratic views and methods?
> 
> A few observations: Deltas seem to divide people going by their inner personality traits such as generous, warm, considerate, forgiving, or inconsiderate selfish, mean. Betas characterize people according to their observable traits, so there are people who are quiet, loud, energetic, cowering, etc.


I suppose this is correct and do you think it relates to Fi vs Fe accordingly? I tend to for example categorize people based on whether they are fun or pleasing to be around, annoying, people who piss me off and I can stereotype a whole bunch of people who appear to have similar traits and are pissing me off of essentially being the same person in a way. 

Wouldn't you say there's an overlap though? Couldn't annoying be seen both as an innate and personal trait as much as it can be seen as an observed behavior? Or maybe I am just thinking of that wrongly?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

In actuality, wouldn't it be a better way of saying that delta is more about how someone else makes you feel?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't think aristocracy or democracy are the slightest bit meaningful.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

I could see the premises as being an SiTe vs SeTi situation in a social setting but the conclusions are absurd. There is a time for judging people purely based on surface appearance and another where depth is needed looking at the dynamic perception signals that are being sent. 

Static Concrete Logic vs Dynamic Concrete Logic is the question here, @_Zero11_ @_LXPilot_ what do you think? The premises in this could also apply to Static Concrete Ethics against Dynamic Concrete Ethics, though the "aristocracy"/ "democracy" abstraction needs to be dropped since Logic or Ethic judgement can always observe a time to be aristocratic and democratic.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

> This page or section *needs work*.


This difference should be written in more detail :mellow: where is the Original Socionic-stuff in English?

Maybe there is more behind it than it seems to be.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Static Concrete Logic vs Dynamic Concrete Logic is the question here, @_Zero11_ @_LXPilot_ what do you think? The premises in this could also apply to Static Concrete Ethics against Dynamic Concrete Ethics, though the "aristocracy"/ "democracy" abstraction needs to be dropped since Logic or Ethic judgement can always observe a time to be aristocratic and democratic.


I think that's a lot of interconnection of theory. I'm not sure such connections really work.

I find that the Reinin and quadra stuff is much more specific than it appears, at least in terms of usage. Reinin is best used to "check one's own work" having typed someone, and the quadras are best for making sense of group dynamics once they already exist. I think they're more observational/pragmatic theories, and not really tuned-enough to be interwoven.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

I feel like Beta STs are more focused on hierarchy and more inclined to formulate opinions about other people. My ISTj friend is extreamly racist. all his claims are backed up by real life examples of encounters with actaul people but my idealism tells me we can't all be put into categories... unless those categories are personalty types 

My personal philosophy on people. Most of them are boring and uniteresting. I walk around in a world of boring people and rarely do i find exceptions to the rule. People are either boring, obnoxious, attractive or interesting.

I do have racist thoughts about people and I hate it in myself, but whatevs. we all have demons.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

GreenCoyote said:


> I feel like Beta STs are more focused on hierarchy and more inclined to formulate opinions about other people. My ISTj friend is extreamly racist. all his claims are backed up by real life examples of encounters with actaul people but my idealism tells me we can't all be put into categories... unless those categories are personalty types
> 
> My personal philosophy on people. Most of them are boring and uniteresting. I walk around in a world of boring people and rarely do i find exceptions to the rule. People are either boring, obnoxious, attractive or interesting.
> 
> I do have racist thoughts about people and I hate it in myself, but whatevs. we all have demons.


What's your sociotype? And I agree for pretty much the same reasons although I do think you can categorize people, but not based on such material traits. I tend to categorize people on whether I like them or not, if I share common interests or hobbies with them etc. My like bar also tends to go up if the person expresses traits that I identify with. Yeah, aristrocracy!


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

LeaT said:


> What's your sociotype? And I agree for pretty much the same reasons although I do think you can categorize people, but not based on such material traits. I tend to categorize people on whether I like them or not, if I share common interests or hobbies with them etc. My like bar also tends to go up if the person expresses traits that I identify with. Yeah, aristrocracy!


I am either a reserved EIE ENFj or an IEI INFp. thinking more along the lines of the former.

I categorize people like that too. of course any trait that they show me that I like I further glue myself to that person. I usually have some stereotype in my head and it goes away after I get to know the person.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

GreenCoyote said:


> I feel like Beta STs are more focused on hierarchy and more inclined to formulate opinions about other people. My ISTj friend is extreamly racist. all his claims are backed up by real life examples of encounters with actaul people but my idealism tells me we can't all be put into categories... unless those categories are personalty types
> 
> My personal philosophy on people. Most of them are boring and uniteresting. I walk around in a world of boring people and rarely do i find exceptions to the rule. People are either boring, obnoxious, attractive or interesting.
> 
> I do have racist thoughts about people and I hate it in myself, but whatevs. we all have demons.


The whole aristocracy dichotomy is inconsistent with logic, sure the premises was sound in theory; STs, sensing thinkers would have an soulless judgement impersonal judgement on concrete elements of reality, thus assumed to people too (but its a stretch from reality). To say that sensing ethicians/feelers aren't aristocratic is bullshit, ethics, value judgments aren't benign. ETHICS AREN'T BENIGN for pete's sake. With value judgement people could equally be grouped into either shitholes or nobles, it would be how somebody feels rationalizing it from a value's stand point. Its easy to justify hatred based on any metric a person can create to distinguish people.

The theoretical difference for the "aristocracy" in STs and SFs lies in the metrics is used to group people. The metrics are independent of their "feelings" like a law of some sort for concrete thinkers. Whilst instead concrete feelers have sentimental judgement, Fi and Fe are very similar to the point were dichotomies are useless in literal interpretation: everybody has personal sentimental values and an awareness of the "objective/external" situation's vales. The difference in aristocracy metrics is clear and simple, SFs don't have an impersonal judgement, there are always marred by *ethics/values/feeling*.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> The whole aristocracy dichotomy is inconsistent with logic, sure the premises was sound in theory; STs, sensing thinkers would have an soulless judgement impersonal judgement on concrete elements of reality, thus assumed to people too. However to say that sensing ethicians/feelers aren't aristocratic is bullshit, ethics, value judgements aren't benign. ETHICS AREN'T BENIGN for pete's sake. With value judgement people could equally be grouped into either shitholes or noble, it would be how somebody feels rationalizing it from a value's stand point. Its easy to justify hatred based on any metric a person can create to distinguish people.
> 
> However the theoretical different for the aristocracy in STs and SFs is that for concrete thinkers an arbitrary impersonal metric is used to group people; its independent of their "feelings" like a law of some sort. Whilst instead concrete feelers have sentiments, Fi and Fe are very similar to the point were dichotomies are useless: everybody has personal sentiments values and an awareness of the "objective/external" situation's vales. The difference aristocracy metrics is clear and simple, SFs don't have an impersonal judgement, there are always marred by *ethics/values/feeling*.



Are you saying that SF's are aristocratic by the nature of their functions?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

GreenCoyote said:


> Are you saying that SF's are aristocratic by the nature of their functions?


My dyslexia, inability to see the flaws in my writing, was strong in that previous post, otherwise in simple yes. Aristocracy can be observed in SFs, ethics can be rotten too being used as a means to group people. The abstractions in socionics seem more like a metaphor instead of concrete "scientifically" testable truths, its very difficult to describe the theoretical difference between the types when they are suppose to be matched to realityeople.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Any sociotype can be an elitist.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> My dyslexia, inability to see the flaws in my writing, was strong in that previous post, otherwise in simple yes. Aristocracy can be observed in SFs, ethics can be rotten too being used as a means to group people. The abstractions in socionics seem more like a metaphor instead of concrete "scientifically" testable truths, its very difficult to describe the theoretical difference between the types when they are suppose to be matched to realityeople.


NFs are much more likely than SFs to compound any given interaction with another person as an example of some all-encompassing rule or regularity. For example an INFj arguing with two other people on topic of ethics exclaims: "You people are so heartless!" She doesn't address those two individuals specifically. She doesn't say "John and Mary are so heartless!". For her this single instance is extrapolated to _all people. _You don't see this happening with Gamma SFs all too often (democratic types). If they are judging someone or picking on someone their evaluations are attributable only to that person.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

ENFj elitist, diva bitch here.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

as an ENFj, I categorize people based off of psychological characteristics (I couldn't care less about societal status or heredity)

- do they carry themselves with self respect?
- do they generally respect others (I'm not talking about any kind of socially hierarchical rules of how to talk to person X vs person Y, rather that they respect people's personal boundaries and aren't an ass when it isn't warranted) 
- do they any kind of principled center? (even if they're polar opposite from my own, any kind of principled center will make me respect someone more) 
- are they vulgar/grotesque?
- do they make an attempt to take good care of themselves? 
- do they except mediocrity or do they strive for higher quality?

in short, class to me is more of an ideology or frame of mind than it is anything external. though, I will say, people who have this frame of mind tend to become wealthier on average.


----------



## yanap (Dec 20, 2012)

I think Aristocracy/Democracy kinda makes sense, but it has a horrible name. There is definitely something that connects Alpha/Gamma and Beta/Delta. I would say that Alphas and Gammas expect people to do the right thing on their own. Alphas are very naive about this (imo at least), while Gammas do recognize there are assholes in this world, but they just don't associate with them. They don't have a compulsion to "rid the world of evil" so to speak, as both Betas and Deltas imo do. Alphas and Gammas just do their thing, while Betas and Deltas need to have some societal impact, they need to improve the world. NGOs and many political parties are usually full of Betas and Deltas, and Gammas who join them tend to be disappointed with them in the end. A good example is Jutta Ditfurth (ESI imo) who joined the German Green Party and quit out of protest against their collectivism.






(I can't know any English-speaking people right now as examples)

Gammas as well as Alphas tend to be against overdone status whoring too (that's one thing Ditfurth mentions, the whole urban green yuppie thing)


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yanap said:


> I think Aristocracy/Democracy kinda makes sense, but it has a horrible name. There is definitely something that connects Alpha/Gamma and Beta/Delta. I would say that Alphas and Gammas expect people to do the right thing on their own. Alphas are very naive about this (imo at least), while Gammas do recognize there are assholes in this world, but they just don't associate with them. They don't have a compulsion to "rid the world of evil" so to speak, as both Betas and Deltas imo do. Alphas and Gammas just do their thing, while Betas and Deltas need to have some societal impact, they need to improve the world. NGOs and many political parties are usually full of Betas and Deltas, and Gammas who join them tend to be disappointed with them in the end. A good example is Jutta Ditfurth (ESI imo) who joined the German Green Party and quit out of protest against their collectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At least you added *"IMO"*, otherwise sorry but this is one of the BS aristocracy/democracy difference that tries to say SFs are nice and STs cold. Ethic judgement has an ugly side and its inconsistent with any metric (unlike ST's consistent objectivity stemming from logic), well its "feeler" judgement. People are not expected to do the right thing on their own, but instead pay courtesy to the harmony or instead face retribution (even) violence anything. NTs are the same though at times when they are in "ego" mode they detach from reality, going to war on "abstract logic" (their SF reasoning is shutdown there in that world). STs just have mechanical standards to conduct otherwise they are neither harsher or softer but just different.


----------



## yanap (Dec 20, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> At least you added *"IMO"*, otherwise sorry but this is one of the BS aristocracy/democracy difference that tries to say SFs are nice and STs cold. Ethic judgement has an ugly side and its inconsistent with any metric (unlike ST's consistent objectivity stemming from logic), well its "feeler" judgement. People are not expected to do the right thing on their own, but instead pay courtesy to the harmony or instead face retribution (even) violence anything. NTs are the same though at times when they are in "ego" mode they detach from reality, going to war on "abstract logic" (their SF reasoning is shutdown there in that world). STs just have mechanical standards to conduct otherwise they are neither harsher or softer but just different.


That's not what I was saying; I actually have loads of Beta/Delta friends (more than Gammas), would I really like them if I thought they were asses? No, but I see a tendency in them to want to change society, while Alphas don't really care about it and Gammas consider it mostly wasted effort. SFs can be awfully judgemental, yeah, but we usually retaliate against individuals, not against society as a whole.

Also, Betas and Deltas are much more attentive to the circumstances of one's actions, while Alphas and Gammas look at the actions themselves more. Betas and Deltas often say someone turned to crime because of a bad upbringing, which is true and all, but in the end it's still his crimes that he committed, and therefore he should be held responsible in the eyes of Alphas and Gammas.

I don't actually take this all that seriously, and I don't use this dichotomy for typing, but I think it's an interesting phenomenon in that conflicting quadras actually seem to have something in common.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yanap said:


> That's not what I was saying; I actually have loads of Beta/Delta friends (more than Gammas), would I really like them if I thought they were asses? No, but I see a tendency in them to want to change society, while Alphas don't really care about it and Gammas consider it mostly wasted effort. SFs can be awfully judgemental, yeah, but we usually retaliate against individuals, not against society as a whole.
> 
> Also, Betas and Deltas are much more attentive to the circumstances of one's actions, while Alphas and Gammas look at the actions themselves more. Betas and Deltas often say someone turned to crime because of a bad upbringing, which is true and all, but in the end it's still his crimes that he committed, and therefore he should be held responsible in the eyes of Alphas and Gammas.
> 
> I don't actually take this all that seriously, and I don't use this dichotomy for typing, but I think it's an interesting phenomenon in that conflicting quadras actually seem to have something in common.


I thought you were part of the people advocating that the ST and SF dichotomies were cast in stone. I personally don't even take the function dichotomies that serious/rigidly instead preferring to go back to Jung when talking about the differences. An as INTp I can relate to the INTj functions too, making me seemingly torn since there is no perfect clear fit.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bumping this topic


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

LSI, guilty as charged.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> How do you think Beta and Delta differ in their Aristocratic views and methods?
> 
> A few observations: Deltas seem to divide people going by their inner personality traits such as generous, warm, considerate, forgiving, or inconsiderate selfish, mean. Betas characterize people according to their observable traits, so there are people who are quiet, loud, energetic, cowering, etc.


o.o ohh so that is how we are supposed to understand "Aristocratic"....?

100% delta then.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> Deltas seem to divide people going by their inner personality traits such as generous, warm, considerate, forgiving, or inconsiderate selfish, mean.





> SLIs knowledge of people comes from direct personal experience rather than detached study and comparison with others, and they are largely oblivious to people until they have interacted with them one-on-one. SLIs find it difficult to give accurate general descriptions of people's personalities that would ring true to other people, but they know what the person "feels like" in interaction.


I sense a slight contradiction between these two quotes. The quote from the SLI description is more accurate for me. I generally don't have much awareness of people's individual traits, but I have a nonverbal impression of their overall personality and speech patterns. I don't divide people by their traits, either inner or outer. Unless typing people counts, which I'm sure everyone on this forum does, whether aristocratic or democratic. And I very rarely compare people to other people, except perhaps for typing purposes.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> o.o ohh so that is how we are supposed to understand "Aristocratic"....?
> 
> 100% delta then.


no that's just Fi/Fe differences 

it would be applicable to how Alphas assess personalities vs how Gammas go about it -- Fe goes by external observable behavior while Fi goes for implicit cues and motivations -- there was a good discussion about this in the beta forum: IEI Extroverted Thinking Te Polr


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> no that's just Fi/Fe differences
> 
> it would be applicable to how Alphas assess personalities vs how Gammas go about it -- Fe goes by external observable behavior while Fi goes for implicit cues and motivations -- there was a good discussion about this in the beta forum: IEI Extroverted Thinking Te Polr


Yeah I have Fi-Te preference so that makes sense. I do the above mentioned thing naturally as soon as I meet someone and its rather quick.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> no that's just Fi/Fe differences
> 
> it would be applicable to how Alphas assess personalities vs how Gammas go about it -- Fe goes by external observable behavior while Fi goes for implicit cues and motivations -- there was a good discussion about this in the beta forum: IEI Extroverted Thinking Te Polr


Trying hard but something like they seem like a giving person (because they literally give people things) vs they are a nice person (because they give people things)?


----------

