# xNFP vs. xNFJ Aristocracy



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> Well, this would make me Delta.... but the bias against Betas makes it hard to see it as a fair comparison. Who would identify with a Beta from these examples?


If you go to the sex and relationships forum you will see plenty of betas actually identifying with the example I provided concerning gender, so yes, betas do identify with this and see it as ideal and preferable. Many for example state the importance of masculine and feminine energy and how it's important to retain these as discreet categories. You will also see betas often emphasizing the importance of gender roles and gendered interactions even if they recognize people's rights and they are arbitrary. It creates to them, a more easy to navigate social space. More of a give and take. This is especially emphasized in beta rationals. Irrationals of both quadras are less bound by rules and possess greater flexibility so aristocracy mostly speaks to rationals, not irrationals.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I also want to add that I think delta and beta aristocracy oppose one another because *beta wants to limit individuals to the group they are perceived to belong to and retain them as discreet categories* e.g. man and woman, but delta wants to make sure an individual can live up to their fullest potential and thus also overcome the limitations of the discreet categories laid out by beta, because beta aristocracy _inhibits_ (-Se?), but delta seeks to encourage one to overcome such limitations (-Ne?).


I wanted to clarify the Beta part.
I think the difference is pro vs con "collectivism". For me, I want people to find their "true group", a place where they can be themselves and completely loved for it. And once they find that group, they should stay within that wonderful, amazing community. 

Maybe a Delta aristocrat takes this idea for granted and wants everyone to grow past groups anyway. Get to a place where you are yourself and completely loved by yourself for it. Who needs others?
For Betas, that's 2nd place. It's better than being around "frenemies" or other unhappy situations, but still not as good as finding that one group that just _gets_ you.

Edit: Also regarding the gender roles and other things mentioned,
Betas do have a strong need to be identified by a "label". Not to say they can't outgrow it or change, it's just a shortcut way to explain your identity, know where to align yourself.

But there is a strong emphasis on clearly defining what that means (Ti). So what is female? What is male? Most Betas will have well-formed opinion on what "feminine" and "masculine" means.

I'm not saying Betas will not accept people who are not either or. It's basically a label to understand better. Like what am I? So if this is feminine and this other thing is masculine, where am I on this scale exactly?


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Schweeeeks said:


> Betas do have a strong need to be identified by a "label".


Interesting. I would attribute that to Fe's emphasis on word choice. The words are the "action", the data, the information that is analyzed (Je), as opposed to the intention (which I find most Fi users focus on).

--

This is interesting, I think. Perhaps a good way to spot out a delta is the whole..."they don't get us mentality." Allow me to explain: 

I belong to a minority group. And at times, this minority has meetings to support our causes. Sometimes, the people that attend these meetings are not apart of my ethnic group (and clearly so). And simply because they're not apart of this group I feel...upset and confused. Confused at my irrational frustration. I like that they support our cause, but at the same time, they're not _one_ _of us_. They don't have the perspective and cultural understanding that we do. This might just be a generalization--perhaps they grew up there and have a similar perspective and understanding--but merely the fact that they are different yet "pretending to be a part of OUR group" just makes me uneasy. This is why I believe societies should be divided on the basis of nation-states. It just...makes sense to me.

If any of you have read Michael Walzer's Morality of States, or at least, understand the theory, it can easily be seen that Walzer is a Delta type and has an understanding that logically derives from delta philosophy. In essence, the theory states that individuals are self-determining, and these individuals create communities subscribe to an unspoken social contract by allowing the existence of the current community they live in. These communities, then, are allowed to become self-determining. After establishing this philosophy on government, Walzer then goes on to say that intervention should not be allowed unless under three conditions (Extreme injustices, Balance of Power in existing conflict, and Secession of a Community). There is such a bias against intervention mainly because intervention interferes with the right to self-determination--intervention ruins the ability for countries to choose their own path. (Think about how different Africa would be had there not been any intervention from European countries, for instance) Citizens in these countries understand, better than any outsiders, their country and their history. Thus, any form of external intervention is looked upon with disdain. Plus, most interventions, as Walzer argues, don't have positive outcomes. Just look at American policy in the Middle-East, for instance.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Raawx said:


> Interesting. I would attribute that to Fe's emphasis on word choice. The words are the "action", the data, the information that is analyzed (Je), as opposed to the intention (which I find most Fi users focus on).
> 
> --
> 
> ...


Sociology, this is why I like you. But yes, this is a very Fi point of view, with Ne imo. I relate to some of this but I cannot agree with the idea of nation-state being meaningful, for example. I think the notion of nation-state is extremely moot, because to me, identity is even more personal than the group you identify with. I can feel the whole "not one of us" but the "one of us" is more "like me" than "everyone else I identify to be like me". I want the right to decide who I am based on how I *currently *perceive myself, which changeable since my view of myself isn't static. Being categorized by other criteria is offensive to me, since it overrides my own sense identity in the present moment. 

Which is why I think socionics overlooks the time aspect of Si. Ne, being static and perceiving objects, would not have that dynamic perception of people's origin.


----------



## disguise (Jan 17, 2014)

Hmm... A lot of theory tossing going on in this thread. I don't feel the need to contribute to the consistencies and inconsistencies of these differing speculative perspectives of what each dichotomy is composed of. Instead perhaps it is helpful to hear a personal account of groups and groupings from a (potential) IEI:

I tend to think in terms of individual potential as @Entropic mentioned in regards to Delta NFs. I despise groupings that restrict personal growth of an individual through societal expectations or other forms of group inflicted pressure. The interesting part is that I truly do believe that groups have power over individuals in this way. Some don't. In contrast, I've found that these "others" imagine themselves being some sort of free butterflies without any restrictions caused by external pressure. I however think that it is not possible to escape group pressure just due to the fact that we are human beings, social animals, and always inherently a part of some community whether we want it or not. If the pressure is not conscious, it is subconscious, and it secretly molds our thinking, restricting us from reaching the greatest measures of our true capabilities.

From this type of sentiment (which is admittedly coming from an emotional basis and rationalized only after) is born a hatred towards oppressive group stereotypes such as those pertaining to gender and race. If someone mocks a group I belong to, they are also mocking me, no matter how little of the stereotypical characteristics of that group really apply to me. If someone mocks and degrades a group I perceive as having potential, they are foolish in my eyes and I will come forth and correct them. I suppose I'm a bit of a social warrior in regards to potential. I believe in groups, but I also believe in the potential of individuals within those groups. They need to be able to flourish in their own right (and thus show what their group is truly about).

So to recap what I think about groups:
- They exist and no individual can avoid their influence 
- I am my group, no matter how little of its common characteristics apply to me. Insult my group (hobby, interest, general social grouping) = insult me. A victory of a representative of my group is my victory too.
- Groups have individuals with different potential. Groups' definitions need to be changed to accommodate the expanding potential of the individuals contained within the group.

This being said, I do see beyond groups as well. What I have outlined above is a natural sentiment for me to hold and I have to go to greater lengths in order to avoid thinking within these frames and to see the faults of my arguments that spin around this way of thinking.

----

What @Merry blues said is also somewhat true for me. My groups are not always universally recognized social groups. They might be my own specialities. Characteristics A, B, C and D make up my special grouping X. When I find someone clearly showing traits A and C, I immediately associate it with the group I have created and predict them to also have characteristics B and D. If they do not, I might expand the definition of group X or exclude these people from it completely as to keep the group definition consistent. Maybe this is just an amusement of a normal pattern-seeking mind?

Previously I've thought that this is what makes up the Aristocratics (in addition to some other thinking predispositions), while Democratics are less likely to create such groups and look at individuals more free-mindedly, in a sense that they are not automatically scanning for a possible - whether it be universal or subjectively created - group to fit a person in. That's why I find it curious that @Cellar Door doesn't find this to be an accurate descriptor of the two sides of the dichotomy. 

I don't agree that Aristocratic-Democratic has directly to do with racism/sexism/[put another oppressive -ism here]. It's more about how a person would derive at a racist or sexist view. Is it through being quick to categorize ("I hate people who act like pigs. All men are pigs. Thus I hate men."; category -> generalized trait -> universal hatred of group) or is it just hatred of characteristic Z ("I hate the whole idea of a man, thus I hate men"; trait is bad -> always hate the trait)? It then would be indirect vs direct hatred. 

Hmm... If this was the distinction between Aristocratic and Democratic negative -isms, it does sound like Aristocratics would be more traditional kings and queens of socially oppressive thought. It seems unlikely though that only Aristocratics would fall pray for this, since the _whole_ damn human race generalizes all the time, both in social context and beyond it (see how I'm generalizing to illustrate the point ).

(I don't even understand how I can write this much... Help! I'm drowning in my own wor... *dies*)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@disguise skimming through, but how sure are you of being an IEI? I could see a reasonable argument for ILI based on what you wrote, especially seeing how you essentially seem to identify with Fi logic, and I also see preference for that in your reasoning here. You definitely don't come across or strike me as an IEI. I mean to be honest, I wonder if you aren't confusing some kind of social instinct dominance with Fe here. The social instinct would identify with the group the way you describe; Fe isn't so much about group identification as much as Fe is about recognizing collectively held values and rules, similar to how Te understands collective standards and facts. Specifically, Fe recognizes values, emotions etc. as objects in themselves e.g. love. Love isn't just something that you feel, but love is an object that affects you. You yourself do not intrinsically possess the feeling of love as much as love is something that is collectively felt in this way. This is how Fe reasons. If I'd say "people's hearts are filled with greed", it's an Fe (beta NF) sentiment but if I say, "money makes people greedy" It's a Te (gamma NT) sentiment. The difference may be subtle but it's important.


----------



## disguise (Jan 17, 2014)

Entropic said:


> @disguise skimming through, but how sure are you of being an IEI? I could see a reasonable argument for ILI based on what you wrote, especially seeing how you essentially seem to identify with Fi logic, and I also see preference for that in your reasoning here. You definitely don't come across or strike me as an IEI.


Honestly, damn uncertain. Reinin aligns though. I've been bouncing a ball between several types, trying to see what people think. (I can see too many facets to myself. When I settle on a conclusion after thorough self-examination, someone disputes my identification with relatively reasonable arguments. Lol.) Types are too fuzzy and yet they don't have enough space to move in.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

disguise said:


> Honestly, damn uncertain. Reinin aligns though. I've been bouncing a ball between several types, trying to see what people think. (I can see too many facets to myself. When I settle on a conclusion after thorough self-examination, someone disputes my identification with relatively reasonable arguments. Lol.) Types are too fuzzy and yet they don't have enough space to move in.


Except you just expressed a preference for the serious Reinin dichotomy in this thread, lol. So clearly it doesn't align with IEI anyway.


----------



## disguise (Jan 17, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Except you just expressed a preference for the serious Reinin dichotomy in this thread, lol. So clearly it doesn't align with IEI anyway.


Surprising. And sure, I could be confusing Fe for a social instinct. I though am rather good with emotions. I tend to read emotional vibes, for example (could just be something related to high levels of empathy). Cognition wise I cannot say for certain how I adhere to objective values, feelings etc. vs collective standards and facets. If Fe vs Fi has anything to do with showing emotions, though, I am more of a smiley person and emotive (with positive emotions) than serious and composed. What you say here is also ironic considering what you concluded from my 80q ("IEI-Fe because so much Fe").


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

disguise said:


> Surprising. And sure, I could be confusing Fe for a social instinct. I though am rather good with emotions. I tend to read emotional vibes, for example (could just be something related to high levels of empathy). Cognition wise I cannot say for certain how I adhere to objective values, feelings etc. vs collective standards and facets. If Fe vs Fi has anything to do with showing emotions, though, I am more of a smiley person and emotive (with positive emotions) than serious and composed. What you say here is also ironic considering what you concluded from my 80q ("IEI-Fe because so much Fe").


Oh, lol, though qs in themselves only show so much. I had a vague memory I typed you as an IEI based on it.

Experiencing feelings or being emotionally aware isn't necessarily related to cognition though. As for being smiely and emotive vs serious and composed, it depends on why you are being smiley and emotive over serious and composed.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

@disguise

The reason I don't agree with your description is because it's indistinguishable from the ability to recognize patterns. Racism, sexism, and any -ism based on groups is by definition aristocratic, and I don't think an argument against that is possible. With having said that, just because you're aristocratic doesn't mean that you're prejudiced and just because you're democratic doesn't mean you're not. All it means to be aristocratic is that you impose group perceived characteristics on the members of a group. I have pretty strong democratic preferences, I don't think race actually exists, I don't think gender exists, and I probably don't think any of the groups you think you're a part of actually exist. Rather they're man-made constructions to impose agenda and create social alliances. I think people are who they are and they are part of groups whether they like it or not because others have created them, and some are actually proud to be part of their groups (for some reason), but ultimately everyone is an individual. I recognize and acknowledge that I'm on a team like I acknowledge that other people are on teams, but I think the entire thing is stupid and meaningless.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Cellar Door said:


> All it means to be aristocratic is that you impose group perceived characteristics on the members of a group. I have pretty strong democratic preferences, I don't think race actually exists, I don't think gender exists, and I probably don't think any of the groups you think you're a part of actually exist. Rather they're man-made constructions to impose agenda and create social alliances.


I don't think race exists either and that everyone is an individual with their own life path, and my type is ones of the "Aristocratic" ones. "Aristocrats" don't actually think of individuals in terms of groups. I don't go out and think "Is this girl sitting next to me on a bus a Repulican or a Democrate? A Southener or a Northener? A Latin American or a Caucasian?" That would be a stupid and clumsy way to orient myself socially. I consider that this is one of the wrongly attributed things in socionics small groups. The group orientation is better described by the social instinct, which is equally spread among "Aristocratic" and "Democratic" quadra.
*

Social (aka "Adaptive") Instinct*
Enneagram Monthly Article on the Instinctual Variants
Social: This subtype is focused on their interactions with other people and with the sense of value or esteem they derive from their participation in collective activities. These include work, family, hobbies, clubs—basically any arena in which Social types can interact with others for some shared purpose. The instinct underlying this behavior was an important one in human survival. Human beings on their own are rather weak, vulnerable creatures, and easily fall prey to a frequently hostile environment. By learning to live and work together, our ancestors created the safety necessary for human beings not only to survive, but to thrive. Within that social instinct, however, are many other implicit imperatives, and primary among them is the understanding of "place" within a hierarchical social structure. This is as true for dogs and gorillas as it is for human beings. Thus, the desire for attention, recognition, honor, success, fame, leadership, appreciation, and the safety of belonging can all be seen as manifestations of the Social instinct. Social types like to know what is going on around them, and want to make some kind of contribution to the human enterprise. There is often an interest in the events and activities of one's own culture, or sometimes, of another culture. In general, Social types enjoy interacting with people, but they avoid intimacy. In their imbalanced, unhealthy forms, these types can become profoundly antisocial, detesting people and resenting their society, or having poorly developed social skills. In a nutshell, Social types are focused on interacting with people in ways that will build their personal value, their sense of accomplishment, and their security of "place" with others.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> I don't think race exists either and that everyone is an individual with their own life path, and my type is ones of the "Aristocratic" ones. "Aristocrats" don't actually think of individuals in terms of groups. I don't go out and think "Is this girl sitting next to me on a bus a Repulican or a Democrate? A Southener or a Northener? A Latin American or a Caucasian?" That would be a stupid and clumsy way to orient myself socially. I consider that this is one of the wrongly attributed things in socionics small groups. The group orientation is better described by the social instinct, which is equally spread among "Aristocratic" and "Democratic" quadra.
> *
> 
> Social (aka "Adaptive") Instinct*
> ...


Then what does it mean to be an aristocratic type? What about the description on wikisocion?

Democrats

Democrat perceives and distinguishes himself primarily through personal qualities. Perceiving other people, their personal qualities are likewise primary for him (how close, interesting, pleasant or unpleasant this individual is to him personally; their intelligence, ideas, appearance, tastes, etc.). Because of this, individualism is inherent to the democrat: "I am I".
Democrat forms his attitude toward a specific person based on their personal characteristics (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.). The democrat recognizes superiority of certain individuals drawing from their personal qualities. The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, as well as on their relations to the representatives of these groups.
Democratic types are not inclined to perceive people with whom they associate as representatives of a certain "circle of contacts", which possesses special characteristics, inherent precisely to the members of this circle.
Democrat is not inclined to use expressions that generalize "group features" of certain individuals (for example, "a typical representative").
Aristocrats

*The aristocrat frequently perceives and defines himself an other people through group associations (division into groups can occur based on almost any criteria: professional or theoretical, by age or nationality, by place of residence or which floor the persons live on, etc.), for example: "I'm a representative of..." "This person is from such and such...". Collectivism is more inherent to the aristocrat.*
Their attitude toward another person forms under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To the aristocrat, it is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time: "You are either with us, or with them and against us".
Aristocrat distinguished his "circle of contacts" by certain traits, realizes its certain "specialty".
In speech aristocrat frequently use expressions like "group", "typical representative of", "our", "all of them are like that", etc.

Democratic and aristocratic - Wikisocion


----------

