# Aristocrats vs Democrats.



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> Ethics might have been a better word I suppose. Because they submit themselves to higher standards they expect to be treated differently.


You mean in the sense of being NF?


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Entropic said:


> You mean in the sense of being NF?


Yes exactly.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> Yes exactly.


How do you separate this from other forms of social elitism that I gave an example of in my initial post in this thread?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> As I understand it, Aristocrats in socionics are entitled because they feel morally higher, the connection between both doesn't seem as far fetch to me. For the Democrats I don't know, I haven't read about them so far.


Aristocracy and democracy are differently defined in Socionics. It's not talking about political systems or moral righteousness. It's talking about the perception of individual and group identity in a social setting.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Entropic said:


> How do you separate this from other forms of social elitism that I gave an example of in my initial post in this thread?


This is the contentious passage:

"I have begun to think that aristocracy and democracy is more about how to manage humans as a resource, because aristocracy ultimately puts people into a social hierarchy whether they like it or not. I think we see this the best reflected in various political models where countries such as Sweden is clearly democratic in how it wants to provide the same rights to the individual; there is no real internal hierarchy that separates them apart and bases their personal qualities and merits on that logic. Compare to actual aristocratic systems such as royalty and the like."

Aristocracy doesn't put people into a social hierarchy, aristocracy is how people are governed, it is about the highest form of authority. Aristotle tried to classify the different type of governance he encountered, and he defined 6 broad types. Aristocracy is based on merit, only the most experienced and competent people rise at the top. Democracy is when the people decide, but they are led astray, manipulated by demagogues, by their own fear and violent outbursts, there is nothing to cut the crap so to speak. 



Amaterasu said:


> Aristocracy and democracy are differently defined in Socionics. It's not talking about political systems or moral righteousness. It's talking about the perception of individual and group identity in a social setting.


Politics are about individual perception and group identity as well, and as little as I've read about socionics, it seemed to go in that direction too. For example EII are supposed to be the Strategist, because they can coerce others with their higher ethics. When you put INFPs from MBTI right next to it, they are portrayed in a radically different light, Healers, Idealists, etc...


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> Politics are about individual perception and group identity as well, and as little as I've read about socionics, it seemed to go in that direction too. For example EII are supposed to be the Strategist, because they can coerce others with their higher ethics. When you put INFPs from MBTI right next to it, they are portrayed in a radically different light, Healers, Idealists, etc...


So every EII is self-righteous lol? What do these labels even have to do with the reality of the type, I don't see _all_ EIIs running around coercing people because they think they're morally superior or more entitled. 

Honestly, I'm pretty self-righteous. I think I'm pretty solid at determining right and wrong. But I'm a Socionics democrat. According to your theory, how does that work? I should be an aristocrat, right?

Also, politics is fundamentally about how you run the country, not about "identity", even though identity can be a partial factor contributing to how people go about it. Aristocracy/democracy in Socionics isn't about running countries, unfortunately. It's about how we perceive people's identities and group affiliations.

Idk why Reinin decided to use "aristocracy" and "democracy" as the titles for this dichotomy, but just because he did, it doesn't mean you need to correlate political competence to Socionics to get a valid definition.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Amaterasu said:


> So every EII is self-righteous lol? What do these labels even have to do with the reality of the type, I don't see _all_ EIIs running around coercing people because they think they're morally superior or more entitled.
> 
> Honestly, I'm pretty self-righteous. I think I'm pretty solid at determining right and wrong. But I'm a Socionics democrat. According to your theory, how does that work? I should be an aristocrat, right?
> 
> ...


My posts are straightforward, and I never said that.

So he basically just picked names randomly right ?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Ixim said:


> No actually green tea with lemon. Nothing out of ordinary lol. I don't even drink CH3CH2COOH . Nasty habit that, wouldn't you agree?


Ah ok, I thought you were on a drunken rampage. But it is ridiculous you couldn't have that in the grocery store. I approve your pseudo-drunken rant.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> My posts are straightforward, and I never said that.


Well, you said aristocracy was about a moral high horse, so to speak, and you correlated that to political systems. So I wanted to show how that didn't hold up. 



> So he basically just picked names randomly right ?


I assume so. If that isn't the case then of course I will have to revise my opinion, but so far there is no data to the contrary.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Amaterasu said:


> Well, you said aristocracy was about a moral high horse, so to speak, and you correlated that to political systems. So I wanted to show how that didn't hold up.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume so. If that isn't the case then of course I will have to revise my opinion, but so far there is no data to the contrary.


You didn't show me anything, just basically told me I was wrong, end of story.

"I assume so. If that isn't the case then of course I will have to revise my opinion, but so far there is no data to the contrary."

I'll keep that somewhere, nobody ever dared to give me such a poor argument.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> You didn't show me anything, just basically told me I was wrong, end of story.
> 
> "I assume so. If that isn't the case then of course I will have to revise my opinion, but so far there is no data to the contrary."
> 
> I'll keep that somewhere, nobody ever dared to give me such a poor argument.


Lol what the actual fuck? I'm saying so far all that is known to us is that aristocracy and democracy is independent of politics. It isn't there in the definitions of the dichotomy. That is what all of us base our understanding on.

If, however, Reinin himself releases a statement in the future that he actually DID mean to be about politics and didn't mention it anywhere, then that will force us all to change our understanding. That is what I meant.

I'll keep this somewhere, nobody ever dared to jump to such a terrible conclusion.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Amaterasu said:


> Lol what the actual fuck? I'm saying so far all that is known to us is that aristocracy and democracy is independent of politics. It isn't there in the definitions of the dichotomy. That is what all of us base our understanding on.
> 
> If, however, Reinin himself releases a statement in the future that he actually DID mean to be about politics and didn't mention it anywhere, then that will force us all to change our understanding. That is what I meant.
> 
> I'll keep this somewhere, nobody ever dared to jump to such a terrible conclusion.


All that is known ? You have an incredible amount of knowledge then ! :tongue:

See, I can play that game too. Bickering until the weakest leave.

Get over it.

I call those hypothesis, not conclusions.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

I dont think that the socionics use of these terms has anything to do with Plato's(it wasnt Aristotle), just to chime in on this discussion. 

If it did it would have to take into account the broader context of all the systems Plato spoke of in _the Repupblic_even though its true that these poltical systems where meant to be an refeclection of the individual soul, I dont think Reinin wanted to go that far.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Kyusaku You aren't going to answer my question how you can distinguish between the social elitism caused by aristocracy compared to general notions of social elitism?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> All that is known ? You have an incredible amount of knowledge then ! :tongue:
> 
> See, I can play that game too. Bickering until the weakest leave.
> 
> ...


Don't make me laugh. Did you even attempt to read my post before smashing your keyboard?

Let's see, Mr. "as little I've read of Socionics", have you happened to chance across this article? 
Democratic and aristocratic - Wikisocion

Why don't you try and tell me that no, the people writing this are retards, and clearly the entirety of Socionics is flawed because it doesn't give the "conclusion" you're looking for -- that it's not related to politics? Listen carefully, it's the second time I'm telling you, "aristocracy" and "democracy" are not used in the same context as they are in political governance.

It's very simple -- typology is not empirical. You can draw an infinite amount of correlations (like the one you so beautifully drew), but since all functions and dichotomies are placeholders for subjective, cognitive phenomena, you can never really quantify these things and expect them to maintain accuracy. Actually, the entirety of typology is a subjective classification of certain mental phenomena. You can go as far as to say that none of typology is verifiable. We're all working on some principles a theory proposed.

It's called "common sense". Ever heard of that? What about "data"? No? That's sad.

Next time, do everyone a favor and get some of your research done before wasting people's time with your misinformation. I got no patience for your blathering.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Typhon said:


> I dont think that the socionics use of these terms has anything to do with Plato's(it wasnt Aristotle), just to chime in on this discussion.


I think he meant Aristotle Politics, which was about different political states / goverment systems.




Kyusaku said:


> Aristocracy doesn't put people into a social hierarchy, aristocracy is how people are governed, it is about the highest form of authority. Aristotle tried to classify the different type of governance he encountered, and he defined 6 broad types. Aristocracy is based on merit, only the most experienced and competent people rise at the top. Democracy is when the people decide, but they are led astray, manipulated by demagogues, by their own fear and violent outbursts, there is nothing to cut the crap so to speak.


As far as I remember, and it was a while since I read it, he said all types of governs might be "based of merit", just some are more likely to be that way (kind of probabilistic Te reasoning "most people are fools so it's more probable to find few good governors than expect whole society to govern properly" lol).




> Politics are about individual perception and group identity as well, and as little as I've read about socionics, it seemed to go in that direction too. For example EII are supposed to be the Strategist, because they can coerce others with their higher ethics. When you put INFPs from MBTI right next to it, they are portrayed in a radically different light, Healers, Idealists, etc...


It don't really have anything to do with "being the Strategist" though. INTJ is considered the most "strategic" type in MBTI, yet it is tactical type in Reinins. You have to read carefully the actuall definitions, as they do *not* mean the same as in everyday language. I consider myself to be a good strategist. 
Same story with democratic / aristocratic. These do not mean the same as they mean by Aristotle definition, or in everyday language etc. 

-
I relate to democratic dichotomy btw.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> Why would anyone drink propanoic acid? I wasn't aware it was available for popular consumption. Are you referring to CH3COOH (acetic acid/vinegar)?
> 
> Though honestly, why would anyone want to drink vinegar >_>


WOOOPS!

This happens when I act all smart and science like. It was supposed to be CH3CH2OH-in other words ethanol. God dam!

Nice one Ama! Just what I would expect out of Se dom :happy:


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Entropic said:


> @Kyusaku You aren't going to answer my question how you can distinguish between the social elitism caused by aristocracy compared to general notions of social elitism?


I answered your question, this is a new one entirely. Aristocracy has social elitism, but as soon as you have a form of leadership that's a given for any system. Not that it is impossible to see a system devoid of it, but it wasn't sustainable so far.



Amaterasu said:


> Don't make me laugh. Did you even attempt to read my post before smashing your keyboard?
> 
> Let's see, Mr. "as little I've read of Socionics", have you happened to chance across this article?
> Democratic and aristocratic - Wikisocion
> ...


Stop twisting my posts, answer them or don't, either way I don't care.



wolf12345 said:


> I think she meant Aristotle Politics, which was about different political states / goverment systems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand Socionics defines something else, but I see connections. I was a bit pedantic on those definitions, didn't make such a fuss for people to overreact though.

Well, EII still manage people, to me that's strategy, and politics need such skills too. ILI I haven't read so far.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

TwinAnthos said:


> So I've been told _very_ recently=). Hmmm.... So I'm an SLI Delta? Or am I a Beta LSI based on functions? I've heard socionic functions are different from jung's though.


It depends on how you've been typed. For example if you've done it according to MBTI dichotomies it can be eather SLI or LSI depending on how to approach judging/perceiving dichotomy, or it can be any other type as well. There's also a possibility of being mistyped in MBTI, so I can't really tell whether you are Beta or Delta.

Socionics is much closer to original Jung definitions of cognitive functions imo and if you've been typed according to Jung, the chances are that your type would be translated evenly across both MBTI and Socionics. Functions may seem different, but I think they try to reach and describe the very same phenomena. 

You can start with finding out what you use and value cognitively. @Amaterasu already posted links for quadras, so I'll add Model A, functions, and information elements as the milestones in journey of type discovery.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

Looking at these traits, I am quite Aristocratic. I can turn it off, though, when it gets in the way of me seeing a person as... a person. Take my dorm neighbor. She's in a campus group me ad my room mate so not approve of, and part of me, every time I see her, goes "Oh, there's Molly*, that girl who goes to Meatloaf Central*." Also, _of course_ I choose friends according to what cliques they belong to? That's going to influence how they see me, and if it's a clique that's higher in social status than the one I'm in I'm going to be hesitant to start a friendship with them because it's going to be very unbalanced. Another Aristocratic thing I do is take note of the girls from sororities; while some have been friendly, I recognize that they probably will keep to their own. I'll have a better chance making friends with a 'GDI'. Oh gosh, and I do the things where I group people subconsciously in cliques too. Of course these May or may not be cliques they're aware of, but I know who talks to who and which groups glare at which girls and... yeah, I assign them their own cliques. (Guys are harder to do this with, as they bicker with "even their own" and can act like they hate a guy one day to chat up a storm with him the next day. But then again, guys aren't as integral to me in figuring this out.)

It sounds really snobby of me, doesn't it? It's just funny that I think like his, because in truth I am very 'anti-clique'. I am egalitarian when it comes to friendships, and if am known for having friends that are 'outcasts'. In that way, I would be stereotypically 'Democratic'. 

To answer the questions:

- People don't know I judge them? I'm a sweet, innocent bunny like that. 

- I don't know how I feel about familiarities from people I don't know? I just go with it, and have a hard time determining what things I "like" and "don't like"... I think it annoys me because I know our connection is fake and realize that they treat everyone with that familiarity (which makes me feel uncomfortable), but other than that. 

But I also wouldn't hesitate to ask a homeless man for directions. If anything I would feel hesitant because I wouldn't want to use him to continue my high lifestyle, and that would make me feel so guilty... But if he was the only person on the street, he _is_ the only person and he is a person so I would end up talking to him without a problem.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

I'm a rational Delta aristocrat, still approaching the dichotomies but I can relate strongly to this:



Amaterasu said:


> I created an expression that helps me understand beta vs delta aristocracy: beta aristocracy perceives the group ("hierarchy") the individual is in, and determines the qualities of the individual on the basis of that. Delta aristocracy perceives the qualities ("potential") of the individual and then places them in the appropriate group.
> 
> Essentially they do the same thing, but in inverted directions.


I'm strongly against group think and mass categorization, even defining myself as an aristocrat sounds odd but I feel like it fits perfectly with both my sociontype EII and, even if it's a completely different system, me being a sexual 4. I think Delta aristocracy is the reverse of the canonical, stereotypical kind as it sees groups and labels with contempt and prefers to focus on the individual and personal qualities of someone, digging under the surface and defining their own 'labels' and 'groups' by simply valuing independent thinking and focusing on what defines a person rather than biting into commonly accepted social labels.

I consider Delta and especially Fi-dominant Aristocracy as counter aristocracy, to steal other systems' terms, as they aren't following the typical protocol but rather helping preserving individuality by noticing someone's potential first and foremost and only mentally labeling them when it comes to defining someone's peculiarities in order to understand them better and compare them to the self. This is usually my personal take in this kind of situation.


*Aristocrats, do you frequently use "Who are you to judge/lecture me?" thing on people? 
Do unwarranted familiarities grate on you?*
Yes and Yes.

Anyone knows me personally (or not) has heard that specific phrase a zillion times as I'm very aware and protective of my identity, although it was often swayed by trauma, mental illness and moods but still in a strongly personal way that resonated with me and myself only. I was never unreasonable but any objection had to make sense in a way that was congenial to my own views, values and feelings while structured and explained by a more deliberate objective description allowing me to apply to myself, rather than a generic "one size fits all" Fe-ish bogus stereotyped source.

This is why I can see myself as a Delta and an Aristocrat.

I reject unwanted assumptions and familiarity, I see individuals for who they are and only at a later time translate my understanding of them into orderly categories that don't trap the individual but rather enhance their own potential. Strong "me vs _them_" mindset too.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

*Democrats, is it true that you'll have no problem in choosing a shady homeless person over a respectable looking man as your source for directions on the street? Do you lean to undue familiarity?
*
Well, before I met my husfiend, definitely, but he is a bit paranoid about my open nature, which is completely understandable.

I once actually took a free taxi ride in the pouring rain, which was decidedly shady, or even stupid... Luckily, there _are _decent people out there, and I tended to run into them.

Even as young as 4 years old-- I was missing my parents at Walmart (They were actually tricking me to see what I'd do.) .. Well. I stood out on the sidewalk in front of walmart, searching the parking lot for my parents, and cried until a shady looking stranger walked up to me, offered his hand, and walked me into Walmart to take me to the front desk. My parents came running from the car in pursuit, snatched me quickly from the bum-looking man, and I got _quite _a lecture.

*Do you support the theory that Aristocracy is usually more pronounced in rational types and Democracy in irrational types?*

I suppose that could make sense. I'm uncertain.
*
Do you think that it's accurate to say that Aristocracy is more articulated in Beta while Democracy being a Gamma thing?*

Certainly not!


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

I guess I'm a democrat based on that comparison. 



To_august said:


> Democrats, is it true that you'll have no problem in choosing a shady homeless person over a respectable looking man as your source for directions on the street? Do you lean to undue familiarity?


I'm kinda shy about approaching anyone for directions, but I don't think I would be _particularly_ shy about approaching a homeless person. I don't necessarily find homeless people "shady".

I don't recall ever having problems arising from undue familiarity.



alittlebear said:


> Looking at these traits, I am quite Aristocratic. I can turn it off, though, when it gets in the way of me seeing a person as... a person. Take my dorm neighbor. She's in a campus group me ad my room mate so not approve of, and part of me, every time I see her, goes "Oh, there's Molly*, that girl who goes to Meatloaf Central*." Also, _of course_ I choose friends according to what cliques they belong to? That's going to influence how they see me, and if it's a clique that's higher in social status than the one I'm in I'm going to be hesitant to start a friendship with them because it's going to be very unbalanced.


I find this post fascinating because it's so different from my outlook. I've never picked friends based on what (if any) clique they happened to belong to. I have a hard time seeing cliques as all that relevant. I might have some vague awareness of their existence, but I don't read much into them--they just seem like uninteresting superficialities. I've never assumed a person's clique influenced how they saw me. Individuals of the same clique can all seem so different from one another that I assume each member sees me differently. By "higher social status" do you mean that based on wealth, or that based on popularity? I've always been oblivious to the former and, just not that concerned with the latter.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

I don't "choose friends based on cliques" in that I go out of my way to pick someone and put them in my clique... okay, I go that a little bit. And cliques are just a big part of how I see things, because they do have so many intangible impacts on relationships to others and I have no choice but to be very conscious of those things - in my mind, at least. And by "higher status" I do essentially mean "popularity," but there have been some instances where I mean by wealth. One example of this when I was very young (maybe eight) is when I went to Bring Your Child To Work Day. When all the children were put together to watch a (terrible) movie, I got to interact with them, and one girl was bossing around another girl because her dad was the boss of that girl's dad. While I just made sure not to mention my dad's position (he was nobody's boss at the time), I was also aware that there was some sort of boundary I could not penetrate into the relationships of these boss' children. 

But to me these things are just natural. I was always aware that not everyone was as conscious as me of cliques, but if didn't realize that some people were completely... unaffected by them. They seem so real and important in my world.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Some of the R questions are slightly inane on the Zwhatever site I took it on. This particular one was stated in such a way that made me think... "either they are asking if I am stuck up or if I am prejudice..."


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Fwiw, after some reflection on the topic, I identify with the democratic dichotomy.


----------



## Jimmers (Jan 13, 2013)

Irrational Gamma and Democratic. I often resist belonging to any one group and only in rare circumstances have I not talked to someone because of the group they belonged to. I've let go many friends who were fine being my friend when it was one on one, but not when they were in the presence of another group. It became clear to me that they were too good for me when they were around other friends. As far as I know, I haven't done that to anyone. 

I am opposed to groups that reward on anything less than merit.


----------



## Consolidated Potato (Feb 2, 2015)

Irrational, Aristocrat. Not Beta or Delta.

I do frequently think to myself, "Who the f**k are you to tell me what to think about people, you small-minded nimrod?" when being lectured on the "realities" of society.

Although would I try my hardest not to discriminate between a dirty-looking homeless person and a respectable looking man, I'm not stupid enough to think that makes a real difference. The dirty-looking homeless person may be honest, while the respectable looking man may be a thug/conman in a suit. I would place my trust by examining their face and their expression. Any sense of malice would lead me to immediately dismiss that person on the basis of being untrustworthy regardless of how they're dressed.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I could ask a homeless person for direction yes if I thought he had them 
and I didn't think he where a threat or inconvenience.
Sadly most people on the lower rungs of society has a energetic low that can be pretty draining.
They lack so much and have so poor patterns that if you stay too long in their precence
it will rub off on you too. Insecurity twist men into beasts that want to tear down everyone
and everything that reflects their own sad state of being.
I do lend a hand if I genuinely believe that I can make a difference, if I have to surplus to deal with them.
But alas I'm not strong enough to shoulder every broken life I cross paths with.
I don't think I'm better than anyone else, but I do recognize that I have a greater energetic surplus than many.
I can do things that they can't, they could too if their frequency of being wasn't so twisted towards darkness.
When the inner light runs out and hope is lost sight of, then man is naught better than a beast.

Gee wonder if I even answered the question... xD


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

OK, delta rational and supposed aristocrat here. I say supposed because I have some scepticisms, but maybe that's my misunderstanding and you can help.

I can relate to identifying myself as part of groups and categories, for example I'll say things like 'I'm a delta', 'I'm a PerC member'... and these things become part of my identity. But only groups I choose or agree to be placed in, I'm an individualist as well, but an individual who chooses to identify with groups.

I also _never_ feel a sense of group responsibility, if people make invalid generalisations on a group, even if true for some members, and I'm not going to apologise for any negative actions of the group if it doesn't apply to me. I feel very strongly about this.

I have respect for valid authority, for example I'll listen to someone who knows more than I do. But if it isn't a just authority then I'll be more inclined to want to defy it.

I see people as equally valuable but each with their own unique things they can offer. People as individuals are equal and deserve equal respect, but in groups there can be a justified hierarchy. That said, I aim to treat all people with an equally high level of respect regardless of their status, and get annoyed when others don't.

I would definitely support rule based on merit over mob rule, and while I think they're both important I see order in society (provided it's just) as more important than personal freedom.

I'll answer the questions:

*Aristocrats, do you frequently use "Who are you to judge/lecture me?" thing on people? Do unwarranted familiarities grate on you?*
Yes, I do if they're in no position to make those judgements. Unwarranted familiarities can appear false, and I tend to be polite and professional in my tone, especially at work when dealing with people I don't know well.

*Democrats, is it true that you'll have no problem in choosing a shady homeless person over a respectable looking man as your source for directions on the street? Do you lean to undue familiarity?*
You see I wouldn't judge a homeless person as being unrespectable given no other information. Homeless people have been failed by society, therefore I would judge that against people in authority for allowing that to happen, and have more respect for the homeless person if this respectable looking man looked like he was in a position of authority. That would be my instinctive judgement. I would then probably rationalise it even further and conclude that this initial judgement was an unfair generalisation on people in authority.

*Do you support the theory that Aristocracy is usually more pronounced in rational types and Democracy in irrational types?*
Not really, because I don't think it's that pronounced in me.

*Do you think that it's accurate to say that Aristocracy is more articulated in Beta while Democracy being a Gamma thing?*
Could be, I can definitely imagine aristocracy in betas more than deltas. Would that theory be based on Fe values and the need to form a unified group being more compatible with aristocracy?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> *Do you think that it's accurate to say that Aristocracy is more articulated in Beta while Democracy being a Gamma thing?*
> Could be, I can definitely imagine aristocracy in betas more than deltas. Would that theory be based on Fe values and the need to form a unified group being more compatible with aristocracy?


It is something I encountered on different sites and I think this train of thought can be connected with that Beta has valued Se and unvalued Fi. Because of this they tend to separate people on the basis of power dynamics. Us versus them turns into "You're either with us, or against us" and friend-or-foe sort of attitude. It leads to more strict group hierarchy and more visible aristocratic tendencies, in a conventional understanding of this term, within Beta groups and their worldview.

It's vise versa for Delta - Fi valued, Se unvalued. They also divide people into "us" and "them", but "us" are meant to be the people who share similar hopes, dreams and aspirations within a group, who are kindred spirits and congenial souls in a way. Those who don't share these qualities can be seen as the ruck or mouse people, but either way it lacks hierarchical and pushy aspects that Beta has, so may be not so obviously perceived as aristocratic.

...
I feel like I have to clarify one of my first questions, namely about a homeless person. The question is not about how one feels about homeless people or whether their state is the result of mistreatment they faced in life.
Think about them as if they are archetypes. They have no facial features, they are not individuals, there's nothing finite about them except their social status. Homeless person archetype to the right and an ordinary-looking man archetype to the left and you got lost looking for the road to the museum and need to ask for directions one of them. The choice is totally up to you and you have both options equally available and approachable.

It stems from preposition that Democrats do not pay attention to classes people belong to. They will easily choose a homeless person, because they don't see the difference between two options, or more precisely they see, but they don't think it bears any importance. Democrats understand groups and classes, identify them, but they don't deem them important. They tend to treat both people belonging to their inner circle and people whom they can refer to as members of "outside groups" equally. For example, if they are rude, they tend to be equally rude to everybody. Irrespective of whether their attitude is directed at people from their inner circle or at the "outsiders" it will not differ.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

To_august said:


> It is something I encountered on different sites and I think this train of thought can be connected with that Beta has valued Se and unvalued Fi. Because of this they tend to separate people on the basis of power dynamics. Us versus them turns into "You're either with us, or against us" and friend-or-foe sort of attitude. It leads to more strict group hierarchy and more visible aristocratic tendencies, in a conventional understanding of this term, within Beta groups and their worldview.
> 
> It's vise versa for Delta - Fi valued, Se unvalued. They also divide people into "us" and "them", but "us" are meant to be the people who share similar hopes, dreams and aspirations within a group, who are kindred spirits and congenial souls in a way. Those who don't share these qualities can be seen as the ruck or mouse people, but either way it lacks hierarchical and pushy aspects that Beta has, so may be not so obviously perceived as aristocratic.


Maybe it's the way the descriptions are worded, and people's perceptions of what an aristocrat is fits in more with people's perceptions of beta... the trait could be just as strong with delta but manifest differently.



> I feel like I have to clarify one of my first questions, namely about a homeless person. The question is not about how one feels about homeless people or whether their state is the result of mistreatment they faced in life.
> Think about them as if they are archetypes. They have no facial features, they are not individuals, there's nothing finite about them except their social status. Homeless person archetype to the right and an ordinary-looking man archetype to the left and you got lost looking for the road to the museum and need to ask for directions one of them. The choice is totally up to you and you have both options equally available and approachable.
> 
> It stems from preposition that Democrats do not pay attention to classes people belong to. They will easily choose a homeless person, because they don't see the difference between two options, or more precisely they see, but they don't think it bears any importance. Democrats understand groups and classes, identify them, but they don't deem them important. They tend to treat both people belonging to their inner circle and people whom they can refer to as members of "outside groups" equally. For example, if they are rude, they tend to be equally rude to everybody. Irrespective of whether their attitude is directed at people from their inner circle or at the "outsiders" it will not differ.


You see I would find it hard to make a decision like that without making it in to some sort of ethical choice... it might even come down to that I'd ask the person I like least because I don't want to trouble the person I like. So it's difficult to answer explaining my reasoning without factoring that kind of thing in.

I guess I'm finding it most hard to reconcile aristocracy with Fi. Just to quote wikisocion, Fi themes: _"like/dislike, decency and niceness, morals, good/bad, etiquette, humanism, attraction/repulsion, empathy, compassion, attitude towards other human beings, how others are treated, think about other's humanity "let's hear his side," judgements determined by people doing things"_ - so I would expect my judgements to come from Fi rather than the person's status. And if you consider EII's as having Fi+ it's more difficult to judge people harshly, seeing people's good rather than coming up with reasons of why you'd want to exclude them.

Now if you changed the question slightly in to being one person who shares (quoting your post) "similar hopes, dreams and aspirations within a group, who are kindred spirits and congenial souls in a way", vs someone who doesn't... then yes I would value the person who does more, but who wouldn't? Or would democrats really not care?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> You see I would find it hard to make a decision like that without making it in to some sort of ethical choice... it might even come down to that I'd ask the person I like least because I don't want to trouble the person I like. So it's difficult to answer explaining my reasoning without factoring that kind of thing in.
> 
> I guess I'm finding it most hard to reconcile aristocracy with Fi. Just to quote wikisocion, Fi themes: _"like/dislike, decency and niceness, morals, good/bad, etiquette, humanism, attraction/repulsion, empathy, compassion, attitude towards other human beings, how others are treated, think about other's humanity "let's hear his side," judgements determined by people doing things"_ - so I would expect my judgements to come from Fi rather than the person's status. And if you consider EII's as having Fi+ it's more difficult to judge people harshly, seeing people's good rather than coming up with reasons of why you'd want to exclude them.


I see how this should be primarily an ethical choice for Fi. In that case, does person's status don't prod you in any particular direction in case you have to make a choice but you don't know anything about the person in question, can't tell whether you share something in common with them or not and have no other information to rely on? Have to admit that I would more likely to choose an ordinary-looking man in that situation, simply because "homeless person" archetype is linked with different murky and/or uncertain connotations, while generic ordinary man is neutral and hence is a safer choice. This of course bearing in mind that I don't know anything about those individuals in terms of their personal background and I don't have opportunity to base my choice on something more substantial such as their looks or attitude.



> Now if you changed the question slightly in to being one person who shares (quoting your post) "similar hopes, dreams and aspirations within a group, who are kindred spirits and congenial souls in a way", vs someone who doesn't... then yes I would value the person who does more, but who wouldn't? Or would democrats really not care?


I'm also curious to hear opinion on that from democrats, as it seems like a general human thing to me, but I can be biased.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

To_august said:


> Aristocracy/Democracy is arguably one of the most misunderstood Reinin dichotomies, so it would be interesting to hear opinions as to how people relate to it.


I agree! I've never even heard of the dichotomy until you posted about it.

I find it hard to choose which of these I more closely fit.

My gut reaction was "democrat" because I very much think that individuals are independent of the groups they subscribe to (sometimes they don't even subscribe by choice).

But I don't act like a democrat a lot of the time. To answer your question about the homeless person, I had to give lots of aristocratic explanations. Which made me think, _WAIT A MINUTE_, maybe I'm an aristocrat.

I will answer both of them, okay? And maybe you can decide--you probably know them a lot better than I do (cuz as I said, I know nothing about them)



> Aristocrats, do you frequently use "Who are you to judge/lecture me?" thing on people? Do unwarranted familiarities grate on you?


I don't think I've ever said that even 1 single time in my entire life.

What's an unwarranted familiarity? Like when someone hugs you when they meet you for the first time? Yes, that does grate on me.

I think that's what you meant because the dichotomy is very much a "should people retain their separateness or should they try to blend into one cohesion?" and the "unwarranted" familiarties falls under the cohesion bit. Which I'm not sure how I feel about. Maybe I'm ambivalent.

(I guess it's a very Te vs Fe dichotomy? Then again, maybe it's Pi vs Pe)

ALTHOUGH, I dislike it when people call me "sir" or Mr. + LastName. If I could go by a first-name basis with everyone (and vise versa), I would greatly prefer that. I find arbitrary formalities very stupid.



> Democrats, is it true that you'll have no problem in choosing a shady homeless person over a respectable looking man as your source for directions on the street? Do you lean to undue familiarity?


I would think both would be very bad choices for whom to ask for directions.

I would assume the homeless person was 
1) too mentally ill to give directions
2) high/drunk out of his/her mind

I would assume the "respectable looking man" was 
1) not a native of whatever area I was in (so can't give directions)
2) would prefer I didn't bother him for directions 

So, it's a bit of a bad example question (if you're an Aristocrat, I suppose--I wonder how a democrat would answer it).



> Do you support the theory that Aristocracy is usually more pronounced in rational types and Democracy in irrational types?


So I'm an irrational type and *strongly *favor democratic _governments_. But I think I naturally think like an Aristocrat when judging others at first.

Secondarily I will think about how they are independent from my generalizations about them. I will definitely do this step, just not first. I don't _immediately _think of people as individuals. And actually, if I don't like someone, I may purposefully ignore this step so that I can prevent myself from finding reasons to hate them less. (Aren't I awful?) I think it's very much a low-order Fi thing. Someone who was Fi > Te (instead of Te > Fi) would probably do the reverse--think of people as individuals and loathe defining them into the boxes that I so gladly confine people to.



> Do you think that it's accurate to say that Aristocracy is more articulated in Beta while Democracy being a Gamma thing?


Don't know enough about the quadras to answer this.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

emberfly said:


> What's an unwarranted familiarity? Like when someone hugs you when they meet you for the first time? Yes, that does grate on me.
> 
> I think that's what you meant because the dichotomy is very much a "should people retain their separateness or should they try to blend into one cohesion?" and the "unwarranted" familiarties falls under the cohesion bit. Which I'm not sure how I feel about. Maybe I'm ambivalent.
> 
> ...


Unwarranted familiarity is meant in a sense of... random person approach you saying: "Hey, you, what times is it?" It shouldn't be necessarily demonstrated in a physical sense, like hugging or touching, though it definitely can be part of it, but can be shown through speech and addressing you like they are an old friend of yours.

The theoretical background for this dichotomy is that Democrats have ethical and sensing elements blocked together. For example, ESI has FiSe in the Ego and FeSi in the Id; ILI has FiSe in the Super-id block and SeFi in the Super-ego (their ethics is always blocked with sensing and logic is always blocked with intuition).
Aristocrats, on the contrary, have logical and sensing elements blocked together. For example, LSI has TiSe in the ego and TeSi in the Id (their logic is always blocked with sensing and ethics is always blocked with intuition).
Below is how this positioning is usually interpreted:


> Aristocrats have the *logical* and *sensing* IM elements in the same blocks of Model A.
> Here is a possible interpretation of this:
> _Material assets are systematized and automated. Systems and production have a material expression. Ideas exist for people and societal relationships. People and relationships are valued for their personality and potential._
> 
> ...






emberfly said:


> So, it's a bit of a bad example question (if you're an Aristocrat, I suppose--I wonder how a democrat would answer it).


 Yep, the question is contradictory. That's why I've been asking 
In several articles I came across it is a commonly used assumption that hence democrats do not put people in the boxes, they wouldn't treat anybody on the basis of any preconceived categories and don't give a damn about who's in front of them in terms of their social status.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

To_august said:


> In that case, does person's status don't prod you in any particular direction in case you have to make a choice but you don't know anything about the person in question, can't tell whether you share something in common with them or not and have no other information to rely on?


I was thinking about this today and I think, possibly, it might initially before I'd analysed it and it could give the starting point, or if I was being lazy and going with my gut instinct. This is something I can see might have influenced me more when I was a lot younger, before I'd fully developed my ethical views on everyone being valuable despite their differences.

Or maybe this is me trying to make it fit because I want it to fit.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

To_august said:


> Aristocracy/Democracy is arguably one of the most misunderstood Reinin dichotomies, so it would be interesting to hear opinions as to how people relate to it.
> 
> Recently I've read a bunch of articles on this dichotomy, which contained too much speculations and whatnot, so as to unburden my mind:
> 
> ...


I believe I relate more to the democrat side of things. To me people are just people. I don't care what club they belong to, if they are in a higher social position or if they are a celebrity. They are still just people and I'll treat them how I'd like to be treated. So what if I met the CEO of a successful company, I'm not going to treat them any different because of that. As I got to know them I would probably identify the guy based on how he comes across to me. A hard worker, or a nice guy, or not my kind of person.

What's interesting is when people try to lable me as belonging to a group, I reject it haha. My sister likes to proclaim I'm a hippie, I reject it because this then attaches to me other individual aspects of the group and connotations associated to the word itself that does not describe me. It can paint an inaccurate picture of who I am. I am someone who is concious of their effect on the environment and wants to live a healthy and balanced life...I do not associate with the hippie group. The individual aspects we may share are accidental.

Another one, my partner says because I'm the older sibling in my family I'm supposed to act like one. That is take on responsibility, set a good example, tell off my younger siblings when they do the wrong thing. I reject I should do these things because I'm the eldest (hey I didn't choose to be born first so why do I have to conform to these rules?). What I do is based on my merit. I take responsibility when I beleive it is my responsibility. I don't care about setting a good example, I don't live the way I do for others, or because I'm the 'older sibling'. I live life by what I think is important and this may coincidently look like I'm setting a good example. I neither care to tell my siblings off for doing the wrong thing. They are free to make their choices (just as I want to be free to make mine), I will however offer advice or try to help them understand how their actions come across to others. I will make them aware of the consequences because I care, not because I'm the older sister.


With your homeless person vs the respectable looking man. Well probably neither, If I can look up directions myself I will. If I must choose it won't be because of one is homeless the other respectable looking. It would be who I feel most comfortable talking to, that is who seems the most frendly. This is an individual thing as either person could appear friendly and easy to approach. If it's the homeless person, then I'll ask them, if it's the respectable guy I'll ask him.

I'm not sure what you mean by leaning to undue familiarity.



The aristocrat question, yeah I've thought that. Really if I have made a decision then it's my decision, and my consequences I am to live with. Unless someone is offering helpful advice (which I'll take because I don't know everything) then it isn't their place to be making my decisions. 
I think this question was more intended for people considered of lower rank judging someone of a higher rank? For me it's just anyone who is not me haha.


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

I didn't want to relate to the aristocractic traits, but the more I think about it the more I realise I actually do. >_<



To_august said:


> I see how this should be primarily an ethical choice for Fi. In that case, does person's status don't prod you in any particular direction in case you have to make a choice but you don't know anything about the person in question, can't tell whether you share something in common with them or not and have no other information to rely on? Have to admit that I would more likely to choose an ordinary-looking man in that situation, simply because "homeless person" archetype is linked with different murky and/or uncertain connotations, while generic ordinary man is neutral and hence is a safer choice. This of course bearing in mind that I don't know anything about those individuals in terms of their personal background and I don't have opportunity to base my choice on something more substantial such as their looks or attitude.


If there's not some ethical dilemma going on inside my mind, it would probably come down to a gut feeling of who is most "like me". I don't know. To be honest I tend to avoid these kinds of situations.... I'd rather buy a map and figure it out myself. XD

To answer the original questions:

Yes I'm sure I have thought, "who are you to lecture me?" Not because of any kind of social standing, but I guess some kind of personal classification according to whether I think they make good decisions or not. Someone who has in the past shown little inclination for deeper thought and/or has made unwise decisions, who then turns around and starts preaching about how they know better than me, is not someone I want to be hearing from.

Unwarranted familiarity, well, I don't know, I kind of just want people to stay away in general, although how much of that is social anxiety I'm not quite sure. 



emberfly said:


> Someone who was Fi > Te (instead of Te > Fi) would probably do the reverse--think of people as individuals and loathe defining them into the boxes that I so gladly confine people to.


I wouldn't say I'm 100% opposed to labels. I do see people as individuals first, but then I have my own labels that I use to very loosely categorise them. Which isn't to say that I start seeing them merely as those labels, but it's more like, "that's Person A, she's [personality trait] and believes in [blah blah blah]".


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

ElliCat said:


> I didn't want to relate to the aristocractic traits, but the more I think about it the more I realise I actually do. >_<


This is becoming more and more my take on it as well, now I'm consciously thinking about it as a result of this thread. It's as if I Fi-judge aristocratic traits to be wrong, but I can see it in myself especially if I look at how I am as opposed to how I think I should be.

These aristocratic judgements happen very quickly and on almost a subconscious level, before I analyse the situation more deeply and think "no, you shouldn't really judge people like that". It's not really an ethical dilemma though, because with leading Fi I'm usually very confident about my ethical judgements, I'll know I'll come to the right conclusion eventually.


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

ALongTime said:


> This is becoming more and more my take on it as well, now I'm consciously thinking about it as a result of this thread. *It's as if I Fi-judge aristocratic traits to be wrong, but I can see it in myself especially if I look at how I am as opposed to how I think I should be.*
> 
> *These aristocratic judgements happen very quickly and on almost a subconscious level,* before I analyse the situation more deeply and think "no, you shouldn't really judge people like that". It's not really an ethical dilemma though, because with leading Fi I'm usually very confident about my ethical judgements, I'll know I'll come to the right conclusion eventually.


DING DING DING! Ten points to the man in pink and yellow!

As an aside, this is probably why I get so annoyed with people who deny that racism, sexism, etc is a problem, and claim that putting it down to "unconscious biases" is a cop-out. I'm fully aware that I have all sorts of horrible subconscious biases. To me the important thing is what you do with them. I'd rather become conscious of them and try to work against them, rather than live in my own fantasy world where I am perfect and beyond all societal conditioning. But maybe I should stop before I drag this too far off-topic...


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I tend to be rather uncaring as to what a person's background is, yet I will use that background as a weapon against them in order to insult or mock them. Like someone who is a meme-spouting racist, I'd tell them to go back to reddit, and that they shouldn't really belong there. Yet I don't really have a problem with redditors in themselves. Considering that I'm more culturally influenced by Something Awful, and 4chan, I tend to insult goons and chantards less from where they come from. Even if I don't really visit those sites very often anymore. Maybe I just tend to see people who I don't like, as people who belong in the "bad' group, and those who I like are mostly involved with me personally. As such if I want to reject someone, then I'd simply relegate them to a group that I don't like, and then banish their image to that group. With them being little more than a backdrop in the background of some disgusting wash-out blank of disgusting garbage, that have a distasteful opinion of.

I have no idea what exactly does this mean. But does the fact that I tend to see people I like, as being more individually driven, and people who I don't like, as being corrupt? It's apparently a pretty common phenomenon in psychology.

Also I don't get out much. That's why I use the internet as an example.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

I will say that this likely the dichotomy that causes the most confusion and mistyping. (Mostly aristocratic types mistyping as democratic). Just looking at the words themselves, democratic just sounds more desirable. The description seems to focus on democratic types recognizing others as unique individuals and artistocratic types as part of some larger group. Perhaps people want to identify with democratic more- as aristocratic could be misconstrued as elitist, racist, etc. I could have been prone to making that error myself too. 

At first, I identified as a strong democratic type. Then it was suggested I was more aristocratic. The more I think about it, the more sense aristocratic makes. I do perceive people through their personal qualities like 'nice', 'interesting', 'quiet', etc. (consistent with democratic) but those qualities I seem to put in a larger context. I seem to create groups based on these qualities- I can't help myself. Nice vs. not so nice. Open minded vs. closed minded. Imaginative vs. practical. You get the idea. People can be on one side or another. I tend to categorize people. It may not be on things typically associated with aristocratic like their racial group, occupation, or country but its still categorization and grouping people. 

Why do I categorize? I think it gives me a sense of structure and security in dealing with people. By categorizing them into a recognizable 'type'- I have a blueprint I can work with - makes it easier to know how to best interact with this person. (Again, this could just be my Ti at work here and not dichotomy related).

I'm not proud of it but I can be guilty of stereotyping. For example I notice that a couple of ILI's seem overly skeptical of certain theories and just seem to dismiss it straight away without any desire to explore it further. Then I get wary of discussing certain things with someone who appears to be ILI for fear they might do the same.


----------



## NurseCat (Jan 20, 2015)

Why not Aristo_cats_?


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

This thread, including the accompanying poll, is basically a gospel of WTF TL;DR.

Had to be said!


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Cat Enthusiast said:


> Why not Aristo_cats_?



Kansas City Pet Project in KCMO The Great Debate • Kansas City Pet Project in KCMO


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

I know he's banned and all; I just felt like responding.



Entropic said:


> I can be so socially elitist I used to think I was an aristocrat as a result; I can easily shit talk an entire group of people without considering the individuals in it eg white trash and the like. I do however, when it comes down to it, always judge the individual based on their own merits. I don't care about your previous associations or your history in relation to others, but I am not sure if this is related to the social instinct in socionics or if it's to democracy.


As do I? I always do my best to see an individual for the person they are and what they've done. I don't really bring the groups they belong to and such into it; or so I think. 



> I have begun to think that aristocracy and democracy is more about how to manage humans as a resource, because aristocracy ultimately puts people into a social hierarchy whether they like it or not. I think we see this the best reflected in various political models where countries such as Sweden is clearly democratic in how it wants to provide the same rights to the individual; there is no real internal hierarchy that separates them apart and bases their personal qualities and merits on that logic. Compare to actual aristocratic systems such as royalty and the like.
> 
> It's a pretty shitty dichotomy though, because of how easy it is to misunderstand it.


I'm an aristocrat and highly support Sweden/Finland and equal rights for individuals?

I don't think it's a philosophy thing, truly. They way I view it is that certain people are better at certain things, thus we should put them where they're the best. I don't trust the masses and neither did many early philosophers on democracy.

Perhaps democrats see individuals as all holding the same potential for success where aristocrats only see individuals for their merits and such in the world. Sure, certain people might be equal--but does it matter? There are certain people that are taking advantage of their resources better--dont those people get a higher say?



Sixty Nein said:


> I tend to be rather uncaring as to what a person's background is, yet I will use that background as a weapon against them in order to insult or mock them. Like someone who is a meme-spouting racist, I'd tell them to go back to reddit, and that they shouldn't really belong there. Yet I don't really have a problem with redditors in themselves. Considering that I'm more culturally influenced by Something Awful, and 4chan, I tend to insult goons and chantards less from where they come from. Even if I don't really visit those sites very often anymore. Maybe I just tend to see people who I don't like, as people who belong in the "bad' group, and those who I like are mostly involved with me personally. As such if I want to reject someone, then I'd simply relegate them to a group that I don't like, and then banish their image to that group. With them being little more than a backdrop in the background of some disgusting wash-out blank of disgusting garbage, that have a distasteful opinion of.
> 
> I have no idea what exactly does this mean. But does the fact that I tend to see people I like, as being more individually driven, and people who I don't like, as being corrupt? It's apparently a pretty common phenomenon in psychology.
> 
> Also I don't get out much. That's why I use the internet as an example.


This, absolutely, sounds like beta aristocracy. I would never use someones background against them (in a real argument). It detracts from the main point and only serves to make me look like I'm distracting and losing the argument. (tbh, seems Fe/Ti)


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Raawx said:


> This, absolutely, sounds like beta aristocracy. I would never use someones background against them (in a real argument). It detracts from the main point and only serves to make me look like I'm distracting and losing the argument. (tbh, seems Fe/Ti)


Welp. I don't really think renin dichotomies are even really important at all, and just state what is rather obvious from the combination of quadra values.

I tend to think that arguing without someone is pointless, and I'd rather just rant at someone about how they are wrong anyways. People only really change whenever they are forced by the circumstances. That's just human nature.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I think it is important to recognize that the democrat view him or herself like a democrat do. And the aristocrat view him or herself like an aristocrat do. And also everyone around him or her. Maybe that is why I found some of these things democrats say about aristocrat so alien? 

I fail to see how an aristocrat leader would be unfair and a democrat leader to see everyone equal. Quite the opposite. For an aristocrat leader there would be no personal bias towards people. Like the sport coach that just try to get the team in a holistic strong position where the democrat sport coach pick favorites because they have the same interests or compassions outside of the game, not based on performance. The aristocratic leader would in this aspect be more objective and fair to the game and also to each individual. Everyone play one the same premises.


----------



## Indiana Jones Fan (Jan 24, 2017)

I know that this is an old thread, but I have a quick (and kinda pointless) question about Democracy/Aristocracy. Is it an example of Aristocracy when an American who wasn't alive in 1941 says "*We* entered World War II in 1941" or "*We* were attacked at Pearl Harbor in 1941"? It's sort of a minor pet-peeve of mine when people talk like this. Is it more Democratic for an American who wasn't alive in 1941 to say "The United States entered World War II in 1941" or "The United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor in 1941"?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Indiana Jones Fan said:


> I know that this is an old thread, but I have a quick (and kinda pointless) question about Democracy/Aristocracy. Is it an example of Aristocracy when an American who wasn't alive in 1941 says "*We* entered World War II in 1941" or "*We* were attacked at Pearl Harbor in 1941"? It's sort of a minor pet-peeve of mine when people talk like this. Is it more Democratic for an American who wasn't alive in 1941 to say "The United States entered World War II in 1941" or "The United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor in 1941"?


I don't think it's strictly correlated, but I understand what you mean. "We" gives emphatic stress to the phrase, which serves eather to emphasize the difference between groups of people ("_we _did all the job, and _you/they_ were just hanging around waiting to gain profit") or to let people feel unity and belonging to the larger group. For example, most politicians use "we" in their speeches to produce a sense of unity, get people together and make them feel part of the historical processes the nation goes through, or to set their sense of belonging against someone else's. 

Seems like some Se-Ni interplay is involved in this. But same person may use both interchangeably, depending on the situation, and, imo, people tend to pick up those phrasings, which they used to hear more frequently.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

I think Stratiyevskaya's definitions from the Quadra Complexes are better (which by the way, is a must read):

*"Aristocratic" trait* (rational aspects are evolutionary, with a plus sign; irrational aspects are involutionary, with a minus sign: +Fe, +Ti, -Se, -Ni)

In accordance with this trait, every person has the right 1) to create a hierarchy, establishing relations of subordination, to subordinate those below him and to comply with those above him 2) to support already established within the hierarchy traditions and rituals and monitor their observance 3) to put claims to the dominant positions within the system and to fight for one's right to occupy them 4) to fight for positional advantages in accumulation of rights, privileges, and opportunities 5) to establish one's own order within the system, consolidating power in one's own hands, to interact with others from position of power 6) to suppress by own authority, by authority of personal opinion 7) to control and critique the statements of lower ranking members of the hierarchy, limiting their right to expression on any (or on forbidden) subjects 8) to authoritatively impose one's own point of view, decisions, power, and will.

*"Democratic" trait* (rational aspects are involutionary, with a minus sign; irrational aspects are evolutionary, with a plus sign: -Fe, -Ti, +Ne, +Si)

In accordance with this trait, every person has the right 1) to interact with others as an equal 2) to have equal rights and opportunities 3) to fight and contend for equal rights and opportunities 4) to freely express on any topic 5) to freely defend their point of view 6) to strive to defend their rights and opportunities by any means.

Alpha Quadra: The Complex of Closed Mouth by Stratiyevskaya - Wikisocion
Beta Quadra: The Complex of Subservience by Stratiyevskaya - Wikisocion
Gamma Quadra: The Complex of Tied Hands by Stratiyevskaya - Wikisocion
Delta Quadra: The Complex of Clipped Wings by Stratiyevskaya - Wikisocion


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

The method of control for Delta is often Fi, and the method of control for Beta is often Ti.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

IME Betas and Deltas are more likely to "judge" people and their actions based on circumstances beyond that person's control (their upbringing, wealth and status, morals they were raised with, personal life story) than Alphas and Gammas.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

The interesting thing about the Reinin dichotomies is that they are not necessarily set in anyone individual.
It constantly depends on the situation culture and other factors.
So when it comes to it, I can see how I could become aristocratic in certain ways.
However my congitive functions would be quick to point out the flaws of the division.
Like an INFP I know who seperate people into smart and dumb people.
Everytime I have a conflict with a person he considers smart he is like.
But you do know that X is _*smart?!!
*_Like "Let all us smart guys unite!" or something...
I can see his argument and wouldn't have a problem with supporting such a scheme to a degree.
But then when I meet people he considers not smart, I can't really bring myself to keep thinking like that.
I have the ability to keep that divide, but I don't find it natural.
I would guess that such a thing would go the other way too.
As there sure are valid qualities that can be brought to attention in both views.
Smart people do often have a lot in common, and can create more stimulating conversation on average.
And if you belong to a group in the Fe sense of it, you probably have integrated certain superego traits normatively.
So it makes sense to keep that aspect in mind.
Even if it is pretty unnatural to divide it like that in my mind.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

I think Aristocracy has mostly to do with creating hierarchies, which are subjective I guess.

So naturally, Betas and Deltas want to be on the top of the pecking order, while Alphas and Gammas fear that their freedom and the right to be treated as an equal will be infringed.

Betas are authoritarian, Deltas are elitist and condescending.

Alphas are pro-democracy (free speech, etc), Gammas are anti-authority.

Interestingly, Gammas will create another kind of rival authority by accumulating wealth.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

ShuttleRun said:


> I think Aristocracy has mostly to do with creating hierarchies, which are subjective I guess.
> 
> So naturally, Betas and Deltas want to be on the top of the pecking order, while Alphas and Gammas fear that their freedom and the right to be treated as an equal will be infringed.












^^ looks like I was delta afterall. Natural higherarchies are everything but subjective tho.

Even in league of legends, bronze players know their place. You either have skill or you don't, life is competition & hierarchy of merits. May the best survive.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

Well most IEIs are democratic I think, but I know some are not. Still, they have the Beta quadra complex, so they would rather come out on "top" than fight for their own freedom and the right to be treated as an equal like the Democratic quadras. However, they would fight for the others' freedom.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

LibertyPrime said:


> ^^ looks like I was delta afterall. Natural higherarchies are everything but subjective tho.
> 
> Even in league of legends, bronze players know their place. You either have skill or you don't, life is competition & hierarchy of merits. May the best survive.


So if someone reads this, tracks you down, and stabs you painfully to death in an alley with a dagger 
and gets away with it!
Then that would be okay, cause may the best survive!!!

Also, about your quote.
If the inferior outmanouver the superior by imposing democracy on them.
Isn't that an indication that the so called superior is inferior overall?
After all the only reason that someone is superior in that sense,
is because you hold other traits up high than the one that in the end won the day.
Sort of like in the game of rock, paper, scissors.
Rock may bitch all day about it's natural superiority of hardness, but paper beats it everytime,
regardless of it not being hard at all.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Strontphite said:


> So if someone reads this, tracks you down, and stabs you painfully to death in an alley with a dagger
> and gets away with it!
> Then that would be okay, cause may the best survive!!!


Well, he certainly has a knack for stalking and murder then. Murder however is wrong even if you don't belive in absolute morality. On a societal level other ppl have a lets say negative attitude towards a individual who uses such means, as it is detrimental to society as a whole, therefore they will expend resources to aprehend and dispose of said individual in order to preserve themselves. Thus you have laws, even if not perfect. Left to itself society naturally tends towards the removal of aspects which are detrimental to the survival of the species. This includes individuals, groups and ideas. Even if you overload society with weak or criminally inclined individuals, systems based on bad ideas, the collapse of the support structure is assured based on the agregate of individuals being contrary to it's stability, ie it implodes. The chaos then ensures a rebirth, which can only happen through the elimination of those elements which were harmful. (natural reballancing) 



> Also, about your quote.
> If the inferior outmanouver the superior by imposing democracy on them.
> Isn't that an indication that the so called superior is inferior overall?


I wouldn't call it outmanuvering, ppl wo simply can are not really stopped by democracy. It mucks up merotocracy, as far as government goes, but unless you impose true democracy aka communism and enforce it at a cultural level, no. I am still king of my property and I can freely engage in the market to a certain extent, ofc it is to be resented that larger organizations, such a corporations would use government in order to gain an advantage over smaller businesses and individuals, which is why government is part of the problem, tho group competitive advantage is nothing to snease at either. Even under a theoretically ideal system, such as comunism ppl will try to game the system, those in charge will inevitably do so and have done so in the past (which is why these things never work out). If nobody is in charge, then there is a power vacuum to be filled eventually by someone... and so it will be filled.



> After all the only reason that someone is superior in that sense,
> is because you hold other traits up high than the one that in the end won the day.
> Sort of like in the game of rock, paper, scissors.
> Rock may bitch all day about it's natural superiority of hardness, but paper beats it everytime,
> regardless of it not being hard at all.


Demand creates supply, supply creates competition, competition creates excelence and plenty. Traits we find valuable are so, because they are in demand. People who can supply them have an advantage.

Intelliegence for example is such a trait. It is highly prized (great demand) and anyonene who can supply it has an advantage over others, therefore is superior.

IQ 180 > IQ 120, especially if the individual can put it to use and create value for society.

*You can make a good argument however in favor of sharing some of the created value in order to prevent forcing other indiciduals into having to stalk and murder ppl. Generosity can be a trait which is advantagious, even if you don't believe in deontological ethics. Parasitic behaviour however is detrimental to this and it is a trait which cannot be valued, hence it being very low on the higherarchy of valued traits.*

Non arbitrary higherarchy is how nature functions. Humans have empathy, altruism, language, lower physical strength but higher IQ, capacity for reason etc, because these have been found valuable by a process of evolution, given the environment the species lives in.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

LibertyPrime said:


> Well, he certainly has a knack for stalking and murder then. Murder however is wrong even if you don't belive in absolute morality. On a societal level other ppl have a lets say negative attitude towards a individual who uses such means, as it is detrimental to society as a whole, therefore they will expend resources to aprehend and dispose of said individual in order to preserve themselves. Thus you have laws, even if not perfect. Left to itself society naturally tends towards the removal of aspects which are detrimental to the survival of the species. This includes individuals, groups and ideas. Even if you overload society with weak or criminally inclined individuals, systems based on bad ideas, the collapse of the support structure is assured based on the agregate of individuals being contrary to it's stability, ie it implodes. The chaos then ensures a rebirth, which can only happen through the elimination of those elements which were harmful. (natural reballancing)


Interesting how you view that process.
To me it is just Alphas that game Deltas until it is Betas turn to harvest them,
from the ruins of Beta, Gamma can build something new until Deltas come in and forbid everything again.
So that the only ones who are able to get anything done are the Alphas who again game Deltas.



> I wouldn't call it outmanuvering, ppl wo simply can are not really stopped by democracy. It mucks up merotocracy, as far as government goes, but unless you impose true democracy aka communism and enforce it at a cultural level, no. I am still king of my property and I can freely engage in the market to a certain extent, ofc it is to be resented that larger organizations, such a corporations would use government in order to gain an advantage over smaller businesses and individuals, which is why government is part of the problem, tho group competitive advantage is nothing to snease at either. Even under a theoretically ideal system, such as comunism ppl will try to game the system, those in charge will inevitably do so and have done so in the past (which is why these things never work out). If nobody is in charge, then there is a power vacuum to be filled eventually by someone... and so it will be filled.
> 
> Demand creates supply, supply creates competition, competition creates excelence and plenty. Traits we find valuable are so, because they are in demand. People who can supply them have an advantage.
> 
> ...


Yeah interesting arguments, one can make many of those.
Having seen what path yours take I don't really care to finish the debate off.
It is a predictable stalemate due to a cognitive disconnect that either ends in mutual frustration and contempt,
or some respectable agreement to disagree.
I'm too sleepy for that, so I'll just pretend that whatever my Ni saw as the end has already happened,
and that it was a good end for me.

Good night :witch:


----------



## Exquisitor (Sep 15, 2015)

I feel bad piling onto a revived topic, but it is an interesting dichotomy to discuss. And yeah, pretty confusingly named.

When I first heard that they were called "aristocrats" and "democrats" I thought I'd identify with the aristocrats more, because I hold the belief that there are objective differences in the value that individuals have to each other, and society can be understand in terms of a functional, if flexible hierarchy. That seemed like a fundamental axiom that might be considered less "democratic" according to the way that term is used. It was just a naive guess at what the dichotomy meant, though.

I think I understand why I get assigned a democrat type (INTj), now that I've read about what the dichotomy means. The aristocrat type seems like the natural choice for identity politicians, people who think your first judgement about someone should be based on statistical clues from their group membership. "This person is one of those." It's funny that I can think of so many people who profess the strongest form of democratic ideals, but who would type as aristocrats because their first reference point for "how should I feel about this person?" has to do with the status of their group, i.e., belonging to a "marginalised race" or an "oppressive class", and _then_ they adjust for individuality. As I understand it, the aristocrat tendency need not be this extreme, but it does reflect a sequence of thinking that goes, "this is how I can group the individual, and this is what I know about the specific individual" rather than vice-versa.

One of my fundamental rules for dealing with others is to recognise their individuality, and separate specific judgements of individuals from general judgements of groups. Once I know things about an individual, I can _then_ tentatively but usefully place them in my own pragmatic categories, depending on the situation: "this is someone who uses primarily emotional reasoning", or "who judges things according to this particular value" or "who has this belief/attitude/preoccupation/aptitude". And I place the most emphasis on things which people have control over and/or which make a clear meaningful difference, i.e., the way they speak or behave rather than their background.

I think either sequence (relate group to individual, relate individual to group) can make sense and ultimately arrive at fair conclusions about an individual's characteristics and how they fit into a wider social schema, and either sequence of reasoning can go wrong. But this is how I understand my preference for the "democrat" mindset.

If someone with a better understanding of Socionics can point out that this is a complete misreading of the proposed dichotomy, do correct me.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Exquisitor said:


> I think I understand why I get assigned a democrat type (INTj), now that I've read about what the dichotomy means. The aristocrat type seems like the natural choice for identity politicians, people who think your first judgement about someone should be based on statistical clues from their group membership. "This person is one of those." It's funny that I can think of so many people who profess the strongest form of democratic ideals, but who would type as aristocrats because their first reference point for "how should I feel about this person?" has to do with the status of their group, i.e., belonging to a "marginalised race" or an "oppressive class", and _then_ they adjust for individuality. As I understand it, the aristocrat tendency need not be this extreme, but it does reflect a sequence of thinking that goes, "this is how I can group the individual, and this is what I know about the specific individual" rather than vice-versa.


Yep, sounds about right. More specifically from my perspective as an aristocratic type:

When I'm meeting someone, I like to figure out what groups and values we both share so that I can find common ground to relate to them on. Comic book fan with a Batman angle? Let's talk Batman stories! Seems more of an indie guy? Okay, I know you might not be a superhero fan, but you've _got_ to hear me out about Astro City... 

I don't like leaving people in my head without a category, some sort of label. Feels weird. I get a much more vivid sense of the personality by slotting them down a bunch of different tunnels in my head and adding the results. As the number of categories approaches infinity, you get an increasingly accurate summation of the person. Stereotypes are a very intellectually engaging concept for me and I enjoy exploring them. 

And since this seems to come up a lot, I don't tend to use political categories as one of my primary lenses unless that's all I know about a person. Peoples' political beliefs typically reveal overarching attitudes about life and _philosophical_ outlook, but on a day-to-day basis it's kinda non-indicative. 

-----

I seem to clash on the democratic/aristocratic divide with Gammas the most:

*Me:* "Hey man, we're a great working team and you're fun to chat with, how about we hang out sometime?"

*Gamma:* "Why"

*Me:* "Right, sorry, how about [place] at [time] for [purpose]? I should know you well enough to know that you're the type of person who likes specifics, haha. I get ya, I'm like that too, there has to be an objective." 

*Gamma (skeptically):* "Why are you categorizing me?"

*Me:* "Oh that's not your thing?"

*Gamma:* "My _thing_?"

*Me:* "...I'll just show myself out"

There's an idea with democratic types that putting a category or a label on something makes it less special... I tend to think the reverse! If I'm trying to think of ways to organize you, it's because I like you and am trying to conceptualize you better. 

----

What I'm curious about is how aristocracy works for Deltas since they're Fi-valuing. It just seems to go hand-in-hand with Fe in my mind.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

Wouldn't most people not like being labeled/categorized? I feel like this is quite misunderstood. Democratic types stereotype and categorize into groups as well.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Stellafera said:


> *Me:* "Right, sorry, how about [place] at [time] for [purpose]? I should know you well enough to know that you're the type of person who likes specifics, haha. I get ya, I'm like that too, there has to be an objective."


Isn't this also part of how Fe works, though? But from what I've seen in beta STs in particular, they project their feelings onto you, so when they are talking they are really talking about themselves e.g. you're such and such person, you do XYZ things and personally you're just like ??? because it has absolutely no relation to what you actually are like. So they are really just talking about themselves.


----------



## FoggyEyes (Jan 14, 2017)

ShuttleRun said:


> Wouldn't most people not like being labeled/categorized? I feel like this is quite misunderstood. Democratic types stereotype and categorize into groups as well.


Type 4 side effects "we don't like to be "like others". Aristocrats categorize "more" than democrats from my observation.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

Aristocrats are much more comfortable with "making examples" out of people- either by being particularly harsh or particularly lenient towards certain people to prove a point.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Isn't this also part of how Fe works, though? But from what I've seen in beta STs in particular, they project their feelings onto you, so when they are talking they are really talking about themselves


We generally know we're crap at empathy, but damn do you make our attempts sound bad.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Isn't this also part of how Fe works, though? But from what I've seen in beta STs in particular, they project their feelings onto you, so when they are talking they are really talking about themselves e.g. you're such and such person, you do XYZ things and personally you're just like ??? because it has absolutely no relation to what you actually are like. So they are really just talking about themselves.


Yeah, I definitely think my view of social interactions is very Fe-flavored. My ideas about aristocracy are very camaraderie-Fe focused, but that's obviously not the source of the dichotomy since it straddles Fe/Fi lines. 

Makes sense what you say about Beta ST's since they like Fe but aren't necessarily very adept with it.


----------



## Myris1 (Aug 15, 2020)

Now on the forums you rarely come across worthy topics, I sincerely rejoice when I find something like that. I want to talk about the arictocracy that comes from Aristotle, he is my inspiration. He is an ancient Greek philosopher and scientist who has been nicknamed "the father of Western philosophy." Aristotle was also a Macedonian mentor and founder of his own school in Athens, called the Lyceum. Aristotle is best known as the founder of formal logic, writing about ethics and the importance of strong character. You can talk about it for a very long time, but it is better to read the article 8 Of The Best Inspiring Quotes From Aristotle - Karen Salmansohn, which will not leave you indifferent. Here are the 10 best inspirational Aristotle Quotes to help you live a good and moderate life. Most of all I like the expression "The sign of an educated mind is to be able to perceive a thought without accepting it." What quote do you remember and become your favorite?


----------

