# Quadra vs. Aristocratic/Democratic Preference



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> But Ti can only ascribe logical value, not ethical. I stressed this point already but you apparently missed it. It's an important distinction to make again. How can Fe again make ethical evaluations if not based on value? What makes it dynamic is that it's context-generated. It shifts based on social context. If in a group of people who value a particular behavior, Fe picks up on this, and if in another group they will pick up on that. Value is not measured by internal standards and that is the only difference here. But it still picks up on values, just like how Te picks up on external facts.


I wrote that Ti ascribe value logically. I did not miss that, you missed what I wrote quite clearly.

Fe does not need to make ethical judgments, Beta NF have good access to a strong Fi with the only difference being that it takes the backseat compared to Fe. The same thing can be said for Gamma NT having very good access to Ti.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_Flatlander_ @_ephemereality_

So it's kind of a variation on the subtype theory (maybe?), the latter of which is more about increasing potential towards (butchering terminology) "functions without attitudes", whereas here we're focusing on the very specific valued elements of the 8. 

Like an EIE-creative-wing (as opposed to EIE-creative-subtype) can go towards the other quadra valuing Fe, even though the creative subtype would acquire in general more intuitive and thinking potential.
Unless you meant an EIE could also be say, delta-wing.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @_Flatlander_ @_ephemereality_
> 
> So it's kind of a variation on the subtype theory (maybe?), the latter of which is more about increasing potential towards (butchering terminology) "functions without attitudes", whereas here we're focusing on the very specific valued elements of the 8.
> 
> ...


The only point in "wings" here would be that your subtype IM is shared with one of the two neighboring quadras. For example EIE-Fe has a subtype with an IM that is valued in Alpha and Beta, and EIE-Ni then has a subtype that is valued in Beta and Gamma. Do not read too much into this.

But if you want to get more extensive you could always take a peek at DCNH subtypes. I actually think that there is a surprising amount of value in that. Like recently I got to get to know an SEE. At first I thought that she was ESE, but it didn't really seem right. But then getting to know her more I figured out that she was SEE because of a lot of things, but anyway, I would classify her as SEE-D (strengthened Fe) due to her more formal behaviour seems very Fe. Just an idea though.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_Inguz_ 

DCNH confuses me nowadays because I'm unsure what they mean by "strengthening of so and so IE" -- for instance how is it conceptually different from the aims of the usual inert/contact theory's concept of "increased potential towards certain IE"?

The technical difference is DCNH tends to say something along the lines of "strengthened Je~D, Ji~N, Pe~C or Pi~H" but then it appears correspondingly, the descriptions of what effects happen along such strengthening seem to not correspond quite to merely something in the realm of information elements -- they seem to be more specific somehow (and this has to do with what for instance the letters stand for..H = harmonizing, N=normalizing for instance, mean the "strengthening of Pi and Ji" have specific meanings within this framework..and I have only a vague satisfaction with my understanding of these meanings).




Going back to aristo/democratic, it seems like the wikisocion article is slightly hesitant to (in their "theoretical perspectives" section) get into this dichotomy from the angle of the dynamic information elements. Instead, they're fine to characterize gamma v. beta as based on Fi v. Ti blocked with Se, but when they get to delta, they want to instead focus on what their Ji IE is blocked with. I find that strange. I'd expect there to be a more parallel explanation sticking within the S+T and S+F realms if that's what they begin their section by saying characterizes the difference between the two. 

If someone finds the involved vs abstract dichotomy illuminating, I think one way to pursue this topic could also be that the democrats separate their blocks into abstract and involved, whereas the aristocrats don't. 

This kind of suggests to me that the two ways for an aristocrat of engaging the data of a person (themselves or another) are ethically, or sensationally, each blocked with some abstract IE, thus there's always a tendency to ascribe this kind of information to the individual. 

E.g. for betas, it might come in the form of the individual fitting into certain philosophical ideologies they are into, because an individual is essentially there to set those ideologies in action, whereas for the gamma their Ji+Se when dealing with the individual may just come down to static character judgments as particular to their relation to the individual. 
For alpha, the individual's function is usually related to comfort (emotional ease of expression, sensory) in some fashion, whereas philosophical ideologies are contemplated with regards to their potential as ideologies at best, with no individual required to set anything whatsoever in action. Whereas to delta, individuals fit a role in terms of productivity/function.

I'm sure there are many ways of looking at this.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> Hmm...
> 
> intuition --> patterns/big picture + feeling --> people focus = patterns of people = aristocratic?
> And sensing --> present concrete + feeling --> people focus = seeing people individually as they are = democratic
> ...


Beta quadra is described as being aristocratic because of Se+Ti handling observations with people in a systematic manner. While Gamma quadra uses Se+Fi to judge people on a case by case basis. But perhaps you're onto something.

I lean aristocrat which definitely fits my quadra.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> You're looking at it the wrong way round. Aristocratic-democratic is essentially whether or not sensing is blocked with thinking or feeling. Intuition doesn't have anything to do with this dichotomy


It does. Explained by intuition in the same wikisocion article:

Another way of explaining this for Delta might be through the  +  block; on the basis that the realization of someone's potential () is realized via connections with others (), and that one of Delta's characteristics is the formation of groups towards worthy and productive goals.

It would make sense also because then it has the right symmetry. IMO.

Not that the whole aristocrat/democrat dichotomy is something that I really understand or can apply to myself at all.

And btw that example in the article about Se+Ti grouping people from one department based on some people's behaviour, I find that extremely silly  There's nothing logical in that kind of "reasoning"  I see it as emotions based reasoning instead.




Flatlander said:


> That's part of why I asked - I see its logic and utility but wanted to see if people would own it. Glad you do.


I don't. I don't really lean either way with this dichotomy so I didn't vote. 




Inguz said:


> What is there to own up to? If I expressed such thoughts to demonstrate it, then I would be stepping on a lot of toes.


Do express your thoughts!  Let's have fun! 


Btw I think you did a lot of missing-the-point type nitpicking when responding to ephemereality but I only want to ask about this one:




> Just like Te is dynamic and does not ascribe value, Fe is exactly the same way.


What? Fe is all about value, just not the same as Fi. Maybe you're confusing specific Fi type judgement with the overall meaning of the word "value"?? Why can't a dynamic element focus on values? Just in a dynamic way.

Copied from wikisocion:

_EIEs often hold strong views about governance and social custom, though their beliefs stem from the interests of their close emotional relationships_ => oh yeah values!!

And don't try to explain it with Fi ignoring 


Btw yeah aristocrat dichotomy is kind of racist in my eyes*. So yes Betas would be racist.  and deltas too. 

*: as far as I understand it




bearotter said:


> Like an EIE-creative-wing (as opposed to EIE-creative-subtype) can go towards the other quadra valuing Fe, even though the creative subtype would acquire in general more intuitive and thinking potential.


Maybe it's supervision rings... (I'm totally skeptical about those rings btw)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

At the most basic, the difference between logic and ethics is that logic cannot deal with emotional value. Logic can tell us the definition of things for example, but it cannot tell us the importance of it. To do that we need ethics. Fe would measure value based on group. How do others value this? Fi measures value based on internal standards. Do I find this valuable? 

In contrast logic would operate more akin to does this make sense to others or does this make sense to me?

Regarding whether aristocracy is kind of racist or not, I see it placing value on groups and group belonging. I have for example often been asked or suggested to join this social group about x subject. Latest invitation was for transgender. I cannot socialize this way. It's oddly arbitrary to hang out with people only because you see them being like yourself and placing value on such belonging. Doesn't make sense to me. I think if one is going to go beyond the stereotype view, this is aristocracy. Political groups, social groups, hobby communities etc. To identify with and place oneself in such groups is typical of aristocracy to me. They can be both good and bad.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

I'm going off of @bearotter's suggestion of using elemental dichotomies. For now we're only going to deal with the sensing + rational IE combinations and look at this from the perspective of the internal/external dichotomy. 

The external IEs deal with that which is explicitly or directly sensible from reality, while the internal ones deal with indirectly or implicitly perceived content from reality. External information elements are probably more inclined to view social interaction "as is" rather than looking for implicit implications of something, so when blocked with another external information element, aristocratic values come into play. This is probably why Betas and Deltas alike seem very systematic in their methods of interaction. If an external information element is blocked with an internal one, then the individual considers not only explicit messages from social interaction but implicit ones, hence making them democratic because they are more inclined to consider other factors beyond what is conveyed to them directly. 

Alpha Quadra: Si (external) + Fe (internal) = Democratic
Beta Quadra: Se (external) + Ti (external) = Aristocratic
Gamma Quadra: Se (external) + Fi (internal) = Democratic
Delta Quadra: Si (external) + Te (external) = Aristocratic


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Delta is more sorting people into social roles. Think the industrialization era with factory mass production or heck, even the original purpose behind the MBTI of sorting people into specific production roles based on their type. That's delta aristocracy. If every person who scores INTP just end up doing science-y stuff, the society will run much better, and this is regardless of whether these people actually care for science etc. Maybe they have a passion for the arts. In a strict delta world, this individual freedom doesn't exist because then it's wasted personal potential.


I have realized I tend to think this way and I had never tied it to aristocratic vs. democratic... but it makes sense the way you explained it. 

I was speaking to someone the other day about applying for jobs and said to them they should do what they enjoy. Later I realized how that was actually a bit hypocritical and inconsistent on my part - I don't believe that, not completely. In my ideal world, yes I suppose people would end up doing what is most effective given their innate "talents" but removing individual freedom won't ever work... after all, no matter how good someone may be, if they hate what they are doing, they are more likely to mess it up; and enjoying something, while being mediocre at it, can add a lot more room for growth.

But as for myself... if it turned out I would be a great -x-, I would probably follow that path because I believe I would be living up to my potential and contributing as much as I could to society (assuming I actually believe -x- is worthwhile at all). Whether or not I like it wouldn't be as important.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zinnia said:


> I have realized I tend to think this way and I had never tied it to aristocratic vs. democratic... but it makes sense the way you explained it.
> 
> I was speaking to someone the other day about applying for jobs and said to them they should do what they enjoy. Later I realized how that was actually a bit hypocritical and inconsistent on my part - I don't believe that, not completely. In my ideal world, yes I suppose people would end up doing what is most effective given their innate "talents" but removing individual freedom won't ever work... after all, no matter how good someone may be, if they hate what they are doing, they are more likely to mess it up; and enjoying something, while being mediocre at it, can add a lot more room for growth.
> 
> But as for myself... if it turned out I would be a great -x-, I would probably follow that path because I believe I would be living up to my potential and contributing as much as I could to society (assuming I actually believe -x- is worthwhile at all). Whether or not I like it wouldn't be as important.


Yes. And I think this probably more stressed in the delta STs too who have weaker Fi so they will naturally focus more on production than the NF types who are more flexible in their ethical judgements of what people should be. In a strict Te logic sense, individual freedom does only exist as long as it caters to the logical system, for the same reason that in the Fe base, individual logic does only exist as long as it caters to the external ethical system. In this sense, both Je base types can be quite pushovers.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> that Hitler embracing eugenics, who is commonly typed as a beta NF by the way


 let's be quite clear, however, that "eugenics" isn't anything to do with categorising people into groups.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> let's be quite clear, however, that "eugenics" isn't anything to do with categorising people into groups.


But socially that was the result.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> But socially that was the result.


 What, of eugenics? Certainly not. Even Sweden practiced eugenics well into the 70s, I'm sure you know that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> What, of eugenics? Certainly not. Even Sweden practiced eugenics well into the 70s, I'm sure you know that.


I do, and you cannot say the people who were seen as test subjects were categorized based on generalized group traits e.g. living at asylums. It happened exactly because they, as a group of people, were seen as having lesser worth. Discrimination did not occur based on race, but it did occur based on other physical and/or socio-economic aspects. 

Or to take another extreme example, the British occupation of India. Even Franz Boas who studied the native Americans as a part of his anthropological studies took inspiration from eugenics and began classifying people as possessing cultural differences based on their ethnic belonging, a logic that is still heavily prevalent in today's modern discourse of racism though many people deny this as racism. 

Eugenics definitely led to the belief where value was ascribed onto different groups of people, which just goes to show how science and politics are definitely not separate. One could even further argue and look at the historical development of eugenics that has its roots in Western colonialism, which too was built upon an idea where one group is superior for the same superficial reasons.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> I do, and you cannot say the people who were seen as test subjects were categorized based on generalized group traits e.g. living at asylums. Or to take another extreme example, the British occupation of India. Even Franz Boas who studied the native Americans as a part of his anthropological studies took inspiration from eugenics and began classifying people as possessing cultural differences based on their ethnic belonging, a logic that is still heavily prevalent in today's modern discourse of racism though many people deny this as racism.
> 
> Eugenics definitely led to the belief where value was ascribed onto different groups of people, which just goes to show how science and politics are definitely not separate. One could even further argue and look at the historical development of eugenics that has its roots in Western colonialism, which too was built upon an idea where one group is superior for the same superficial reasons.


 Any policy that involves more than one person is going to have to distinguish between different types of people, that's how government functions. 

I don't think it's true that value was ascribed to different groups of people. Value was ascribed to _traits._ Anyone can have traits.

People DO possess traits based on their ethnicity. As a matter of actuality, that is just biological science. Traits are heritable. Why do Asians have epicanthic folds, milk intolerance etc? That traits should transmit through ethnicity shouldn't surprise anyone. They are a mixture of heritability and environment: environment has been localised for all of human history except the past 150 years.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Any policy that involves more than one person is going to have to distinguish between different types of people, that's how government functions.
> 
> I don't think it's true that value was ascribed to different groups of people. Value was ascribed to _traits._ Anyone can have traits.


But how do we identify groups from another if not based on traits, then? The very idea of difference is based on that I am not like you, but then we get into traits. Women are not like men because they have a vagina, or they are not like men because they are caring etc. Therein we also get into discussions about power since the group seen as having less worth is always the one that is identified being different i.e. they are not like me. Thus comes hegemonic power. 



> People DO possess traits based on their ethnicity. As a matter of actuality, that is just biological science. Traits are heritable. Why do Asians have epicanthic folds, milk intolerance etc? That traits should transmit through ethnicity shouldn't surprise anyone. They are a mixture of heritability and environment: environment has been localised for all of human history except the past 150 years.


Yes, they do, but on what degree should they dictate how we group and classify people? The traits inherited are superficial such as skin- eye- or hair color. What I am talking about here are entirely different kinds of traits that we ascribe to personality and intelligence, for example. People who lived in mental asylums were for instance seen as having lesser worth for being seen as mentally insane regardless if they in fact were so. Many of them were just socially ostracized from their communities and it was easier to shuffle them into mental asylums. Once being located in one, they were all classified as a group of people being mentally insane. A group definition was ascribed to them regardless of whether they agree with such an identification or not.

This is still prevalent today. Note that I am strictly talking about sociological views such as black people are seen as being dumb, or Asians more intelligent (and one can also argue what kind of idea people have of the Asian here, since it is a very large and broad category of people), which is not the same as black people being black. Well, duh. That is not ascribing social value since it's a biological fact. My argument is that eugenics did not exist as a scientific bubble unrelated to social thought, and that in this case, Hitler was inspired by eugenics (as were many others) to mix science with the political resulting with the Nazi party, and I think it would be difficult for you to not admit that it was of social nature and that it ascribed value onto people classifying them into groups. The categorization may be based on ethnicity, but it doesn't reduce its actual social implications in the least. The logic is ultimately no different compared to when the aristocrats during the Roman era thought themselves better than the plebs.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> But how do we identify groups from another if not based on traits, then? The very idea of difference is based on that I am not like you, but then we get into traits. Women are not like men because they have a vagina, or they are not like men because they are caring etc. Therein we also get into discussions about power since the group seen as having less worth is always the one that is identified being different i.e. they are not like me. Thus comes hegemonic power.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I'm normally quite keen to put differences aside and say 'ah, this is just a difference in thought process' - but this time I think you are actually wrong. 

1 - I understand you are talking bout sociological things. As matter of fact, sociological traits (as in, personality traits) are also heritable. Some traits are highly heritable (such as intelligence) others are not very heritable (such as creativity) but none of them are absolutely non-heritable. What part of them that is not heritable is environmental (including conscious self-training.) Both heredity and environment are basically important for ethnicity (you would not be same person if brought up in Sri Lankan slum, even if we allow all heritability to be the same) and for 199 800 out of 200 000 years of humanity ethnicity has been a broadly similar thing, changing gradually over geographically rather than absolutely (there are some anomalies, h/e.) So yea, the two factors that are very definite about who we are can be different based on ethnicity. 

And that should not be controversial at all, unless you think that cultural environment doesn't impact how we think and behave. Even language impacts how we think and behave. 

2 - I think this is wrong just on the facts. If you accept that placing a normative judgment on the quality of an individual is ok (surely you do, unless you are some kind of total nihilist) then where is the logical fault in placing a normative judgment on a group for the reason that they all possess the same quality? There's no difference.

Epistemologically there may be a fault. All British people do not love tea. All Arabs are not terrorists. And that's where most people have a problem with what you are hinting at about racism and classism and stuff because they think that it's an epistemological flaw to group everyone together in a blase way. Not that there would be a problem doing it if it was true. 

If you don't like X because X is rude, and if X Y Z are all rude, what is the problem in saying "the last three letters of the alphabet are all rude?" On matter of facts, you may be wrong, and that is where very broad judgments of groups of people fall flat (except in emergencies). But ethically, there's no difference in judging 1 person for X trait and 10 or 10 000 people for X trait ... assuming they have it.

3 - you are, of course, absolutely right that socio-political thought influences science. That is more prevalent now, of course, than it has ever actually been, and it is directly related to this topic.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I'm normally quite keen to put differences aside and say 'ah, this is just a difference in thought process' - but this time I think you are actually wrong.


Funny, because skimming through your post I see that the biggest difference in our POV here is that we approach the subject very differently and I feel our focus is different wherein it seems you part seem to misunderstand my position as I am not entirely against or denying what you suggesting. I just emphasize it differently:



> 1 - I understand you are talking bout sociological things. As matter of fact, sociological traits (as in, personality traits) are also heritable. Some traits are highly heritable (such as intelligence) others are not very heritable (such as creativity) but none of them are absolutely non-heritable. What part of them that is not heritable is environmental (including conscious self-training.) Both heredity and environment are basically important for ethnicity (you would not be same person if brought up in Sri Lankan slum, even if we allow all heritability to be the same) and for 199 800 out of 200 000 years of humanity ethnicity has been a broadly similar thing, changing gradually over geographically rather than absolutely (there are some anomalies, h/e.) So yea, the two factors that are very definite about who we are can be different based on ethnicity.


I do not deny this to a large extent... but! I again already mentioned this in my previous post. Of course there are biological differences, some are inheritable and some are not, but to what degree can you exclude it from socio-environmental factors then? If you live in a poverty-stricken country without access to good education, clearly this will have an impact on your and your coming children's intelligence quota. Personality traits are not static but dynamic. IQ is not a definite number but a variable suggesting potential at best, which may even differ in an individual during the day, during their life and be highly dependent on lifestyle. Recent research has even shown that the very human body itself is variable in this manner, being able to adapt itself on a genetic level against stress, disease and other external stress factors we experience as we go through life. And by this I don't just mean immunity, but that changes actually occur at a genetic level.

So is this then a matter of your race (biological)/ethnicity (cultural) or something else (social, other environmental factors)? I honestly and frankly see it not particularly relevant or linked towards the former as much as I think it is a matter of the latter. A perfect example is in fact myself. I'm adopted from Korea with biological Korean parents. The reason for my adoption was that my biological parents could not afford to raise me as I was born with a particular birth defect that would require me to undergo several extremely expensive surgeries. Since the Korean economy is based on private funding and insurance, my biological parents had no way to ensure I ever received proper healthcare treatment. Sweden is different so I was adopted to Sweden where I got free healthcare and free schooling at a high quality. I know for a fact that I'm above average intelligence.

Now, the trick question is, especially not knowing my biological parents' intelligence but I do know the IQ of my father's roughly (guesstimate), and I do know that Sweden has scored and still scores well internationally when it comes to student performance, do you think my IQ would be the same if I had stayed in Korea? I can't tell my biological parents' intelligence as I have never met them but I know my father is of around average (my adoptive, not biological), but chances are, my biological parents being working class and poor sods, it's likely not that great. Knowing I'd be raised in such an environment where I'd likely also have to go to a public school as opposed to a private where the quality is very different as well in Korea, I might not end up as an above average intelligent person regardless if it is in my biological potential to do so. There is for example a very strong correlation between education and how well people score on IQ tests, suggesting that education itself is capable of raising people's IQ and why not, since you are forced to engage in various forms of abstract thinking on a daily basis when studying. 

When it comes to children and the development of IQ, and in particular, their ability how to abstract information, there is a strong correlation between class and intelligence. Middle class children and above are taught a different way to abstract information at an early age because parents tend to read book etc instead to their children, so their ability to abstract information is itself more abstract so to speak, as opposed to many working class children who end up playing with more physical and concrete objects. Their ability to abstract thus becomes emphasized within the concrete. This is a result that we can be studied in school performance as well, when we see how working class children fall off in school performance as the information becomes increasingly abstract relying more on books and theory than it does physically concrete objects. Thus class difference is reinforced in the very schooling system we endorse since without good grades in the later portions of school, you will not end up with jobs of more abstract nature either. 



> And that should not be controversial at all, unless you think that cultural environment doesn't impact how we think and behave. Even language impacts how we think and behave.


And how far are you understanding this here? 



> 2 - I think this is wrong just on the facts. If you accept that placing a normative judgment on the quality of an individual is ok (surely you do, unless you are some kind of total nihilist) then where is the logical fault in placing a normative judgment on a group for the reason that they all possess the same quality? There's no difference.


It depends on the nature of the judgement itself and how that impacts one's social relationships in society. That should be pretty obvious. You should know by know that I'm an adherent of social discourse theory. 



> Epistemologically there may be a fault. All British people do not love tea. All Arabs are not terrorists. And that's where most people have a problem with what you are hinting at about racism and classism and stuff because they think that it's an epistemological flaw to group everyone together in a blase way. Not that there would be a problem doing it if it was true.


So you say this kind of logic is not at all inherent when it comes to aristocracy? Then how do you understand what aristocracy is, how would you define it? 



> If you don't like X because X is rude, and if X Y Z are all rude, what is the problem in saying "the last three letters of the alphabet are all rude?" On matter of facts, you may be wrong, and that is where very broad judgments of groups of people fall flat (except in emergencies). But ethically, there's no difference in judging 1 person for X trait and 10 or 10 000 people for X trait ... assuming they have it.


Again, it depends on the value judgements that are being made and their social implications in my opinion. 



> 3 - you are, of course, absolutely right that socio-political thought influences science. That is more prevalent now, of course, than it has ever actually been, and it is directly related to this topic.


Yes, which is why I am arguing that over biology which I think you and I are both as aware is a moot point when it comes to this because biology, while not wholly separate from the social in that biological thought affects social thought and vice versa, deals with a different nature of what it means being human that neither of us contest as false. I am not denying biological differences as much as I am arguing how we understand and classify them in terms of the social. I for example find it problematic when we still discuss sexual hormones as male-female, for example, or reproductive organs, because it has very clear social implications in how we conceptualize reality to link back to how you mentioned the use of language having power over our worldviews.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> I do not deny this to a large extent... but! I again already mentioned this in my previous post. Of course there are biological differences, some are inheritable and some are not, but to what degree can you exclude it from socio-environmental factors then? If you live in a poverty-stricken country without access to good education, clearly this will have an impact on your and your coming children's intelligence quota. Personality traits are not static but dynamic. IQ is not a definite number but a variable suggesting potential at best, which may even differ in an individual during the day, during their life and be highly dependent on lifestyle. Recent research has even shown that the very human body itself is variable in this manner, being able to adapt itself on a genetic level against stress, disease and other external stress factors we experience as we go through life. And by this I don't just mean immunity, but that changes actually occur at a genetic level.
> 
> So is this then a matter of your race (biological)/ethnicity (cultural) or something else (social, other environmental factors)? I honestly and frankly see it not particularly relevant or linked towards the former as much as I think it is a matter of the latter. A perfect example is in fact myself. I'm adopted from Korea with biological Korean parents. The reason for my adoption was that my biological parents could not afford to raise me as I was born with a particular birth defect that would require me to undergo several extremely expensive surgeries. Since the Korean economy is based on private funding and insurance, my biological parents had no way to ensure I ever received proper healthcare treatment. Sweden is different so I was adopted to Sweden where I got free healthcare and free schooling at a high quality. I know for a fact that I'm above average intelligence.
> 
> ...


Well. 

Firstly, the heritability of IQ is not completely known. Estimates range between .5 and .8. Intuitively I am inclined to believe the latter. However, I would suggest that the difference made up by environment would be incremental. As a matter of fact, I think that you are wrong - the North Asian countries _are_ the anomaly when it comes to IQ and GDP. The average IQ of a Chinese is the same of a Briton or a Swede despite the latter two countries being three times wealthier per capita. The same is true of Koreans. WHY this is, I do not know. 

There is a difference between ability to rationalise and knowledge of things to rationalise. I'm sure you would be vastly different if you had grown up in Korea (and this is what I am saying about how personality traits are basically not conscious) but I don't think your ability to abstract information would be very much different. But consider - what would you know to abstract and what environment would you be able to do it in, yea, that is a different matter. Humans have not become several times more intelligent since the 1700s. We have just become several times more knowledgeable. That is what I don't like about the education system of most capitalist countries. It's a factory farm test for knowledge rather than actual intelligence. I actually think standardised testing should be replaced with an improved IQ test: the concepts of which I think can be explained to a standardised level very quickly. But as it is, standardised testing in the west favours work ethic over intelligence (h/e I think it's a bit different in America, but I'm sure you know what I mean in Europe.) 

Let me ask you a question - how intelligent do you think you would have been if you would have been born 300 years ago? Would you have been instantly intelligent enough to tell everyone about germ theory? I think not. And if you were born 300 years future, how decisively intelligent would you have been over yourself now? Not very much: a little, maybe. Do you think you are vastly more intelligent than Gustavus Adolphus or Kublai Khan? Intelligence is nothing more than making complex conclusions from equally complex premises. The more complex you can make, the more intelligent you are. I agree that is a a practice that can be trained, but not very much. Car can go more efficiently in various gears, but won't go anywhere without wheels or engine. 

I have no doubt that environment at some point plays into intelligence development. But the prevailing view amongst Westerners is that it is the dominant factor, when the science does not suggest that at all. And like you mention later about biology and politics and discourse - my answer is so what? Politics does not affect facts. The body of human research strongly suggests that intelligence and general outcomes, are more linked to genetics than they are to environment. What you want to do with that, what kind of discourse that creates, I guess that's up for debate - but certainly the fact of it is not. 



ephemereality said:


> It depends on the nature of the judgement itself and how that impacts one's social relationships in society. That should be pretty obvious. You should know by know that I'm an adherent of social discourse theory.
> 
> So you say this kind of logic is not at all inherent when it comes to aristocracy? Then how do you understand what aristocracy is, how would you define it?
> 
> Again, it depends on the value judgements that are being made and their social implications in my opinion.


 Yes but this basically reads as: "value judgments I don't like are bad, value judgments I like are good." Well yes, that's sort of the point, but that in itself is normative. What I mean is that if you are going to open up the board to normative discussion you are going to have to face normative opponents. I put the second part in this quote too because: aristocracy is just categorisation by group, it's not about applying some value. That sometimes comes later. 

But let's take a stereotype, let's say "all black men have large penises." So an aristocrat might find that amusing and reply: "how is that racist? It's a positive quality..." whereas the fact of categorising penile size & race is usually inherently offensive to democratic type thinkers. And there you are. All the categorisations are producing a 'discourse' and as you say, the discourse effects how we think. But again my reply is: so? And I think maybe that's where the typological difference would come in, because I just don't care. I don't like the social discourse theory (or really, any type of continental philosophy) at all. This is perhaps something for another time, but I will say - it is usually premised on an unchallengeable normative premise, which I don't like at all: and in fact I can see that type of thinking in your post too. 

The canon explanation for aristocracy is useful enough for me, but I would like to suggest that aristocrat sees people (inc himself) as means to a given end, whereas democrat doesn't see means at all - and sure, that can be very bad. Both, however, are capable of great cruelty - but let's be frank here, every social programme that you might yourself have benefited from, and even the social programmes I have benefited from, were instituted by aristocrats. If you want to define these very strictly, I will confidently say that humanity itself has progressed and regressed on the actions of aristocratic modes of thinking, a process in which democracy has been essentially negligible. 



ephemereality said:


> Yes, which is why I am arguing that over biology which I think you and I are both as aware is a moot point when it comes to this because biology, while not wholly separate from the social in that biological thought affects social thought and vice versa, deals with a different nature of what it means being human that neither of us contest as false. I am not denying biological differences as much as I am arguing how we understand and classify them in terms of the social. I for example find it problematic when we still discuss sexual hormones as male-female, for example, or reproductive organs, because it has very clear social implications in how we conceptualize reality to link back to how you mentioned the use of language having power over our worldviews.


 Well, right, but some things are actually empirical - the point is not what is discovered, since those things are basically neutral - it is what is published and to what extent and what do the people publishing stand to gain or lose. A fact alone has no relational power itself. Power belongs alone to humans.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > I have a lot of Alpha-Beta values and I tend to do both to some extent. I start off being aristocratic and will remain that way unless/until I get to know the individual on a deeper level; than I switch to democratic.
> ...


Well, for example; some of my humour is clearly Alpha but I also find some of it, I find overly silly; _this_, I found absolutely hysterical:






I have stated numerous times in different posts that I dislike intense emotional expression or even thinking about my feelings. I prefer thinking to feeling as far as my own mental processes go but I do know that ethics are very important to me. I judge everything based both on what makes sense and according to societal value. While I didn't consciously choose my friends based on their socio-political beliefs; I don't exactly think it a coincidence that ALL of them tend to be left-leaning liberals, for example. So, while I do judge people by the groups that they belong to; I prefer to view people as individuals first. When I don't know someone; placing within the context of a group helps give me some guidelines on how to communicate with them, for example. But in terms of social policy, it is necessary to view people in terms of groups: socially disadvantaged, mentally ill, aging, etc. Anyway, just for the hell of it; I voted Alpha.



Flatlander said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > I feel fairly confident that I am correctly typed as a IEI-Ni but some people see me as an LII/ILI/EII. Can I be an interquadra type? half Alpha, half Beta?
> ...


I am very strong in both T and F, which is probably why I score T in half of all JCF type test and F on the others. The same is true of a lesser extent for P and J. I finally believe that I have a really strong grasp on what Ni is and I am convinced that is my base functions. I am obsessed with meaning, knowing everything, finding patterns and understanding things in depth. 

If I wasn't sure I was an introvert, I would even consider ILE as a possibility since like IEI, it also has Ti-Fe. So, being an introvert with a Ni base with preference for Ti-Fe has amongst other reasons, led me to IEI-Ni as my sociotype; since IEI-Ni values thinking more than IEI-Fe does. Also, the description of IEI overall and IM-wise fits me better than any other type. I could say more but you specifically asked that I don't use Socionic terms.



Flatlander said:


> Looking at what, for instance, Intuition and Thinking vs. Intuition and Feeling are like as blocked functions, may help you on this front.


Do you have a link that _specifically_ explains the differences between intuition and thinking vs. intuition and feeling is Socionics?



Flatlander said:


> Also examining the roles of Ni and Ne, Fi and Fe and so on in your mentality, what you are seeking from the world as input to round out your perspective, etc.


I see value as having the most good for the greatest number of people; so while individual freedom is important to me; I believe that it should never be trumped by the good of society as a whole. I know that I find Ti based statements the easiest to follow and understand; too many facts can overwhelm and confuse me. I prefer to concentrate most of my mental processes on the theory and analyzing and logically evaluating it as a whole. I believe that I am a Ni base because I live to understand meaning and to look at different concepts from multiple angles and synthesizing them. What I seek from the world is to understand things deeply at a holistic level.



Flatlander said:


> Socionics has the concept of 'wing', so you can be, for instance, 'Beta with Alpha wing', which is where you would probably be found. I am not sure what my wing is, though I think I lean Delta.


Does that necessarily entail IEI-Fe over IEI-Ni; since I am pretty evenly split between Ti and Fe? Or, is are you just suggesting that I can still be an IEI-Ni but a Beta-Alpha?

I have stated in various posts for example that I found the MBTI INFP forum, "too wet". the INTP forum, "too dry" and the INFJ forum, to be a good balance between them. I think that I am too warm to be either an EII or an ILI.


----------

