# Aristocratic and democratic quadras.



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> I actually find the argument between Jon Snow and Ygritte very attractive for some reason, even though it has nothing to do with me personally. It speaks to me at a very deep level though, while I can't pinpoint why.


Well it represent the balancing of the opposite that you yourself is living.
That is what you yourself deep down want to experience, some ESFp comming in and basically rocking your world.
Telling you that all your high ideals are silly and why not Se it differently. 

About the ISTj and ENFj duality fight.
This is a good example. =D
[video=dailymotion;xsagxp]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsagxp_star-wars-episode-v-deleted-scenes-han-and-leia-extended-echo-base_shortfilms[/video]


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> EDIT
> As for Fe not seeking clarifying answers, I have the perfect example of that conflict today. So I was supposed to meet my SLE cousin around 16.30. She said she would be home at 16.30 so I interpreted it as that I can come anytime after 16.30 so I did. I arrived around 17.00. She got pissed and mentioned a snide comment where she had to cancel an appointment with the hair dresser and managed to imply it was my fault because I was in her world, late.
> 
> I don't understand why she got pissed off. In my perception of what happened she only said she would be home at 16.30 but she didn't say I would be at her place 16.30 sharp which to me is a great difference to make. If she had said the former I would have done so and not arrived at 17.00. My impression was that she would arrive 16.30ish at her place so logically speaking I don't want to be there outside her door exactly 16.30 (though this is something my stepmom would nag about too, ugh) in case she's not even there. How do I know?
> ...


While I agree that Fe has a role in the situation above, I believe it's more of an Se issue, or rather Se + Fe than just Fe. 

For example, often my ILI friend messages me online asking if I'd like to play a session of Gears of War 3. I agree to playing and immediately hop on my Xbox and fire the game up. He doesn't get online until twenty to thirty minutes later, which normally results in me criticizing him for "taking your sweet ass time". Most of the time he responds with some kind of excuse. After reading the above quote however, it makes me wonder if he was even aware that he's inconveniencing me by making me wait (until after the fact), since he never actually specified a time for when he wanted to play. Here is what I mean by Se (+Fe). He asked me if I wanted to play, without specifying a time for when, so I just took that to mean right now, because in my eyes, it's common social etiquette to establish a time for activity and if no time is specified when asked to do something, then that either means "right now" or that "they're figuring out a time". Obviously there are exceptions but I think you get my point. Se has a habit of applying things to the present moment.

In the situation you described with your cousin, I think it's kind of the same thing. When she told you she would be home at 16:30, that means that that is the earliest time you can meet her (so logically speaking, you weren't wrong in assuming you could come anytime after 16:30) but here's the thing - the best time for (Se + Fe) is ASAP. Which was 16:30. 

Also, not sure how the conversation between you two went but if I made a call like this:

"Hey, want to hang out"
"Yeah, sure. When?"
"Well, I'll be home at 16:30"
"Ok. Sounds good."

Then I would expect them to be there sometime around 16:30. What's key here is the choice, presence, and absence of words. I didn't say "Well, I'll be home at 16:30, _so anytime after that" _I said "Well, I'll be home at 16:30". Since that was all I said, the implication would be that that is the time we should hang out. Otherwise, I would say more. I suppose Ti can also contribute to what you consider the vagueness of Fe.

Just to be clear however, I'm not in any way disagreeing with your interpretation of what she said, in fact, if it were not for the fact that I am Se-base, it probably would've happened to me too.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> Well it represent the balancing of the opposite that you yourself is living.
> That is what you yourself deep down want to experience, some ESFp comming in and basically rocking your world.
> Telling you that all your high ideals are silly and why not Se it differently.
> 
> ...


Actually, that is a surprisingly good example. 

And yes of course, it does speak to me cognitively, but I was trying to think of it deeper than that. Why it speaks to me existentially. Cognition is not my entire ego.



CasuallyBelligerent said:


> While I agree that Fe has a role in the situation above, I believe it's more of an Se issue, or rather Se + Fe than just Fe.
> 
> For example, often my ILI friend messages me online asking if I'd like to play a session of Gears of War 3. I agree to playing and immediately hop on my Xbox and fire the game up. He doesn't get online until twenty to thirty minutes later, which normally results in me criticizing him for "taking your sweet ass time". Most of the time he responds with some kind of excuse. After reading the above quote however, it makes me wonder if he was even aware that he's inconveniencing me by making me wait (until after the fact), since he never actually specified a time for when he wanted to play. Here is what I mean by Se (+Fe). He asked me if I wanted to play, without specifying a time for when, so I just took that to mean right now, because in my eyes, it's common social etiquette to establish a time for activity and if no time is specified when asked to do something, then that either means "right now" or that "they're figuring out a time". Obviously there are exceptions but I think you get my point. Se has a habit of applying things to the present moment.


Yes, I get your point and yes, you are correct Se was likely also involved in that. I think the difference here which was discussed later with my SEE friend is that she sees it differently which is why I used this example for Fe. She being an ethical ego type and an asker as opposed to declarer makes her interested to know when and she will ask that. More of an open negotiation. 



> In the situation you described with your cousin, I think it's kind of the same thing. When she told you she would be home at 16:30, that means that that is the earliest time you can meet her (so logically speaking, you weren't wrong in assuming you could come anytime after 16:30) but here's the thing - the best time for (Se + Fe) is ASAP. Which was 16:30.
> 
> Also, not sure how the conversation between you two went but if I made a call like this:
> 
> ...


Yes, you are understanding the situation correctly and that is what happened. I think the key difference between SLE and SEE here is aside what I already mentioned is that SEE isn't results-oriented _and_ stratetic that the SLE is. I think the issue is also part caused by that. 

For example, my SEE friend asked if I wanted to watch a movie with her the other day but we haven't gotten to see it yet because other things happened, one of them being that she got so caught up in some socialization that it just took over most of her time. She was having a good time so the movie could wait. She was also obliged to do other things, but being process-oriented, she is more concerned about current happenings and to experience it rather than getting it over with so we can move on to next thing in the way strategic/result pans out. 

She'll just nudge and remind me to do things as I'll do her, instead of doing it exactly NOW. I can find that almost a little surprisingly intimidating from the SLE because it seems, for the lack of a better word, impersonal and cold. It's like they only care about the action (which is true in several senses), rather than enjoying the process of it. So when something happens isn't as important as it is that it happens. It's that we'll get there eventually rather than it happening exactly now. And by this I don't mean SEEs can't be pushy. It's just a very different kind of pushing around. I see as instigating emotional motivation more than simple brute force that I see in the SLE. The Se is fine in itself, it's just the rest that comes with it when it is particularly expressed in extremes that I am less fond of.

So if I were in your friend's shoes, I wouldn't expect it to happen right now because that's the most convenient. I ask more as a form to show interest in you or if you'd ask me, it shows interest. It's based on Fi evaluation, interest to perform actions together links to personal value and says something about our relationship and how it's being valued by each party.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Actually, that is a surprisingly good example.
> 
> And yes of course, it does speak to me cognitively, but I was trying to think of it deeper than that. Why it speaks to me existentially. Cognition is not my entire ego.


Ah ILI's whenever you think you have caught up, 
you find that they are on their way even deeper into the rabbit hole. xD
They just put a little arrow downward where you expected to find them.

Hmm...
Well I don't even know how to start on that one.
Good night. :frustrating:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> Ah ILI's whenever you think you have caught up,
> you find that they are on their way even deeper into the rabbit hole. xD
> They just put a little arrow downward where you expected to find them.
> 
> ...


If it helps I don't either though it's an interesting thing to muse over. Or at least, me being so compelled to always understand myself, I find it interesting because it is an aspect I haven't fully explored yet as I don't feel I understand that part of myself, only now learning to actually realize what Se is cognitively and to integrate it somewhat.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Err, just wanted to inject here but meaning is definitely _not_ static, or a word's connotation could not change over time to imply something else. Modern dumb example: gay. Another dumb example: ***. Meaning is even changable depending on context and what is being implied. Sarcastically saying "she's the greatest person to ever live" and saying "she's the greatest person to ever live" clearly do not connote the same meaning either.


 It won't surprise you to know that I am one of the people who doesn't think they are homophobic but uses gay, *** etc all the time. But they have wide connotations. I agree that language can take on connotative meaning (that is not the same thing as meaning being fluid, btw. These things become very static.) There's no better example than ***. Historically ****** were bundles of sticks. I do not know the etymology of how it came to mean homosexual (tho ironically the bundle of sticks known as the *****, or the fasces, came to be the resembling symbol of fascism) but it means a host of other things too: in Britain it means both an informal slang term for a cigarette and also as the process of bullying in prestigious public schools (*******.) It seems unlikely in the future for any of these meanings to adopt a significantly different one but they've all been around for quite a while.

That does NOT mean that anyone can change any word to mean whatever they want at a given time. A language has to have fixed meanings because it's just a way to give communication labels to abstract or concrete ideas or things. When you start saying that the labels can mean anything the language loses all utility (this is like descriptivism in g

Sarcasm is intonation, which is different.



ephemereality said:


> Perhaps meaning is static in that very context it was uttered is static and cannot change once being uttered as we can beyond this point only utter more static sentences to add to the previous (oh static thinker you), but whether meaning actually _is _static when it comes to language I am definitely inclined to say no. This is because while each sentence itself has a static nature to it, each new sentence where the word is used again is that, a new sentence within a new context. To say that this sentence with this particular word is therefore of the same nature as it was when it was used previously is a logically flawed conclusion to make.
> 
> Does that suffice as good enough nitpicking for you?


 I think that is patently false. If I say "I am taking the car to the dump" and "I am taking the car to town" the meaning of the sentence is vastly different but the contextual meanings of every word are still the same. It's getting off topic, though. You can't say "Ah X is Y" to someone in a public forum on a public discussion board on a topic about which anyone can read and reply and then turn around and say "oh no I didnt mean that at all!!" what would be the result if I had a conversation with a racist person and said "oh yeah well not all ******* are bad!!" do you think I could escape being labelled as racist? Or you think "I'm contextually adjusting the meaning to provide a frame of reference"?

This is why: I am in favour of people saying what they mean to say.

No actually, it doesn't. (I still haven't replied to you on the other thread, but that will take some more time.)



ephemereality said:


> Anyway, regarding the word "frivolous" itself, I can see why it could superficially apply to Fe with Pe. Whether it is a factually correct statement to make is another issue however.


 Yes, in the way "uptight cunt" can superficially apply to Ni with Fi (i.e we can exaggerate the known characteristics of anything to make it sound like something negative), that doesn't mean that I have the prerogative to go around this forum hinting that every gamma is an uptight cunt and then say that I was providing a frame of reference for alphas to understand and it's none of your business. As I said, cake and eat it too.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> It won't surprise you to know that I am one of the people who doesn't think they are homophobic but uses gay, *** etc all the time. But they have wide connotations. I agree that language can take on connotative meaning (that is not the same thing as meaning being fluid, btw. These things become very static.)


Then what is meaning? Clearly we understand it differently. 



> There's no better example than ***. Historically ****** were bundles of sticks. I do not know the etymology of how it came to mean homosexual (tho ironically the bundle of sticks known as the *****, or the fasces, came to be the resembling symbol of fascism) but it means a host of other things too: in Britain it means both an informal slang term for a cigarette and also as the process of bullying in prestigious public schools (*******.) It seems unlikely in the future for any of these meanings to adopt a significantly different one but they've all been around for quite a while.


But isn't that exactly the point? They have such meanings now but it will change in the future just like everything ultimately changes. 



> That does NOT mean that anyone can change any word to mean whatever they want at a given time. A language has to have fixed meanings because it's just a way to give communication labels to abstract or concrete ideas or things. When you start saying that the labels can mean anything the language loses all utility (this is like descriptivism in g


But we do that all the time like in science. Sometimes it is necessary to change the meaning of a word or define it differently. 



> Sarcasm is intonation, which is different.


Why is it different? There is still an intended meaning in how it is meant to be understood. The sentence conveys something differently though it utilizes exactly the same syntax and words. 



> I think that is patently false. If I say "I am taking the car to the dump" and "I am taking the car to town" the meaning of the sentence is vastly different but the contextual meanings of every word are still the same.


I frankly don't understand this example to begin with. They are different because the words and thus the intended meaning behind what is being said is different? Unless you intend to suggest one of them is a slang intending the same meaning?



> It's getting off topic, though.


It is, but when was the last time mods cared about that? And we already have a thread about aristocracy and democracy, so if one is going to be really anal about it, this thread should have been merged with that one long time ago. 



> You can't say "Ah X is Y" to someone in a public forum on a public discussion board on a topic about which anyone can read and reply and then turn around and say "oh no I didnt mean that at all!!"


Of course you can. hornet just did. Whether the other conversationalist finds that acceptable is a different matter. 



> what would be the result if I had a conversation with a racist person and said "oh yeah well not all ******* are bad!!" do you think I could escape being labelled as racist?


But now I feel you are grasping at different things compared to what you suggested in the above. Now suddenly you are suggesting about intended meaning which is what I've been getting at all along. 



> Or you think "I'm contextually adjusting the meaning to provide a frame of reference"?


Clearly you can. Humor for example. Self-distance. Sarcasm. If someone said they were being sarcastic which can be difficult to interpret on the internet, and the context actually suggests that after all, it could have been a sarcastic statement after further clarification of the speaker's intent, then why should the person be held guilty for racism if the speaker did not intend such an intention in the communication process? 



> This is why: I am in favour of people saying what they mean to say.


Which is?



> No actually, it doesn't. (I still haven't replied to you on the other thread, but that will take some more time.)


Well, I have honestly forgotten about it. 



> Yes, in the way "uptight cunt" can superficially apply to Ni with Fi (i.e we can exaggerate the known characteristics of anything to make it sound like something negative), that doesn't mean that I have the prerogative to go around this forum hinting that every gamma is an uptight cunt and then say that I was providing a frame of reference for alphas to understand and it's none of your business. As I said, cake and eat it too.


Well, if you'd said that honestly in some situation seriously though, why not? At least it's your honest opinion which I sometimes rather prefer over the equally sometimes over-corteous nature of Fe where I can't sometimes tell whether people genuinely think something about something else like if they think that joke was honestly funny or not for example. And that annoys me to no end.


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> If I say "I am taking the car to the dump" and "I am taking the car to town" the meaning of the sentence is vastly different but the contextual meanings of every word are still the same.





ephemereality said:


> I frankly don't understand this example to begin with. They are different because the words and thus the intended meaning behind what is being said is different? Unless you intend to suggest one of them is a slang intending the same meaning?


He's saying that the meaning of each individual word remains the same but when read in a (multiple) sentence(s), creating context, the context then produces new meaning. Which is not the same as saying the words themselves suddenly take on new meaning. They merely create contextual meaning.



Diphenhydramine said:


> A language has to have fixed meanings because it's just a way to give communication labels to abstract or concrete ideas or things.


Correction: Words have to have fixed meanings, not the language overall. That doesn't necessarily mean that the meanings behind words are truly fixed either. They just remain static for the most part because if suddenly the word "the" changed its meaning, the English language would fail. The same principle can be applied to practically any complex system. If every part of a system were dynamic, it would be utterly chaotic and incapable of being utilized or sustained. Words remain static in order to properly and effectively utilize a language system, but the system itself is dynamic, considering it is quite sensitive to external influence (in the case of language, that influence would be society). Do you not agree that languages evolve? You would be a fool to think other wise.



Diphenhydramine said:


> You can't say "Ah X is Y" to someone in a public forum on a public discussion board on a topic about which anyone can read and reply and then turn around and say "oh no I didnt mean that at all!!


Yes you can. That's called clarifying. @hornet never said "Betas are only interested in frivolous activities". What he actually said was:



hornet said:


> For *you* aristocracy is about a bigger picture than frivolous social activities.


Now I agree his choice of wording was poor and that it can easily be implied that he's saying Betas, being Aristocrats, are interested in frivolous social activities. But he said for YOU (Freebeer, who is Delta), Aristocracy is about a bigger picture than frivolous social activities. By directing his statement to Freebeer, he actually is providing a frame of reference - on a subjective level. In which case, if Freebeer actually does think Betas are only interested in frivolous social activities, that actually is his prerogative, because it's his opinion. Similarly, if YOU think Gammas are uptight cunts, well fuck bruv, think what you want.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

hornet said:


> Different ideals same mindset.
> Che Guevara thought that nuclear weapons was a card he could play.
> You don't and you don't have his ideals either.
> 
> ...


:| I just thought it would be dumb to bomb our natural habiat. Who is gonna live there with their "freedom", considering how irradiated the place will be? Not practical imo, nor realistic. Che doesen't make sense, is all.

o.o btw did you know that if you hold your thumb to a mushroom cloud and the cloud is bigger then your thumb... you are in the radiation zone? 










*I just don't consider myself aristocratic. In my mind it makes no sense based on what I know about myself. I think I'm IEE thou. I also don't think supervisor relationships actually work the way tey think they do or any socionics relationship for that mater (I fail to see the evidence and will not take the model without them backing it up through evidence).* *Theory is nice...but prove it is viable - real.
*
*There are individual differences and similarities that dictate how two people get along imo and its never a good idea to base one's opinion of another person on quadra, group they belong to etc..*

*I am a individualist by definition:*



> *Individualism* is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group, while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.


*o.o thus imo you made an error when you failed to consider that I may be mistyped or just deviate form standard IEE mold, in stead of basing our interaction on a hypothetical model that may or may not even work.*

*There is no "WE" in "I"*​


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

FreeBeer said:


> :| I just thought it would be dumb to bomb our natural habiat. Who is gonna live there with their "freedom", considering how irradiated the place will be? Not practical imo, nor realistic. Che doesen't make sense, is all.
> 
> o.o btw did you know that if you hold your thumb to a mushroom cloud and the cloud is bigger then your thumb... you are in the radiation zone?
> 
> ...


Haha didn't know about the mushroom thumb xD
Great to hear that not everyone is as eager to blast everything to kingdom come! 

Well as far as the theory I can see it being correct when thinking of my interactions with people who happen to be
the types that manifest different relations that is all. 
Sure you could be a mistype, but for me personally in my life I think like this.

*You got to give yourself a rule of thumb, 
cause you just can't go every single time and waste your time on something that isn't working.
Relationships are too timeconsuming overall.*

Jungian types are my rule of thumb, so by advocating that you are an ENFp you place yourself at the mercy of it.
And you will be treated as an ENFp, meaning I will ask myself, is it in my best interest to interact with an ENFp
at this point in time? If you are unhappy with this over the slight chance that you have mistyped yourself...
Well I suggest you get up to speed ASAP as I really don't see it as my responsibility to figure out your type.
I'm just doing a type of time management, sure there are always errors with rules of thumb.
But the nice thing is that if you kinda know what you are doing, they work more then 90% of the time.
Saving you a buttload of hassles in the process.

As for you being upset with my hypotetical mold, looking at the trackrecord of this particular mold "Jungian types".
I have experiences back to august 2009, I can not remember any other previous system of dealing with others
that have helped me so much. So it clearly works for me. Then it really doesn't matter ohowaccurate it really is.
Cause my rule of thumb is working most of the time.

Btw: I did tons of real world trial and error to calibrate it.
Meaning I would type a person, then interact with them as I would normally have done anyway and see
if the results matched the theorys expectations. Then when it did match over and over and over
*I was like man, lets just stop getting into all the bad stuff it is predicting...*
*Cause I don't need that shit in my life!*
And now I'm saving myself a lot of grief.

And then you as my supervisor type will just continue as you just did, 
critizise my work as you see it as flawed in a way.
But that is okay, cause I expect you to do that.
Actually my last work supervisor was an ENFp and nothing I did was ever good enough.
I was always like trying to catch up to some impossible metric.
All my ideas was looked upon as a bit too simple and such.

So since I'm assuming that this is going on right now between us.
Well I don't really write this to impact you.
I just write it to make my perspective even more clear to myself and anyone in the audience.
But hell I feel the need, the need to get trough to you ENFp's.
And sometimes I do, and when I do it is only cause I know how to shape my message with cognitive knowledge.
And since I havn't done this with this post I kinda don't have high hopes for it anyway. 

As for you considering yourself aristocratic, well I can't help you there.
You will have to figure out that on your own.
Just know that as long as you advocate yourself as an ENFp,
well then you risk being treated as such. Aristocratic is part of the package.
What commes to mind is Dawnton Abby aristocrats.
That is the delta way, know your place in a static hierarchy.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@hornet

I think thats perfectly fine. I suffer from this thing called doubt, so I question things. The dreaded: WHAT IF!?  its probably nothing else.

:bored: lol Dawnton Abby aristocrats.

Meh, I don't like / understand completely social hierarchy stuff. I relate to others mainly on an individual basis: I like you or I don't . Position, status, group is not important...hell even your name is unimportant and I won't bother remembering it for the first week to a month.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

FreeBeer said:


> @_hornet_
> 
> I think thats perfectly fine. I suffer from this thing called doubt, so I question things. The dreaded: WHAT IF!?  its probably nothing else.
> 
> ...


Perhaps there is more to it than that...
I dunno, but we will have to see how things pan out.
The enneagram I forget about all the time.
6 doubting everything... Gee sure...
Well I resist 6 whenever I'm healthy. xD


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

CasuallyBelligerent said:


> He's saying that the meaning of each individual word remains the same but when read in a (multiple) sentence(s), creating context, the context then produces new meaning. Which is not the same as saying the words themselves suddenly take on new meaning. They merely create contextual meaning.


I see, though I am still not quite sure I agree with the below while that is at least a logically better position than what Diph offered:



> Correction: Words have to have fixed meanings, not the language overall. That doesn't necessarily mean that the meanings behind words are truly fixed either. They just remain static for the most part because if suddenly the word "the" changed its meaning, the English language would fail. The same principle can be applied to practically any complex system. If every part of a system were dynamic, it would be utterly chaotic and incapable of being utilized or sustained. Words remain static in order to properly and effectively utilize a language system, but the system itself is dynamic, considering it is quite sensitive to external influence (in the case of language, that influence would be society). Do you not agree that languages evolve? You would be a fool to think other wise.


But does "the" actually have a meaning beyond a structural one? The word itself is meaningless on its own and can only operate in certain syntax structures, wherein its form helps to shape the structure into a syntax that is actually meaningful in conversation or helps to clarify. So is it then not a matter of form rather than of strict content? Form dictates content in that it shapes content in a certain way so yes, in this case I agree that we need rules for language, but even rules can be bent and shaped. You're not speaking the same archaic English people spoke 1000 years ago. Even over time, written language has changed when it comes to its rules.



FreeBeer said:


> *I just don't consider myself aristocratic. In my mind it makes no sense based on what I know about myself. I think I'm IEE thou. I also don't think supervisor relationships actually work the way tey think they do or any socionics relationship for that mater (I fail to see the evidence and will not take the model without them backing it up through evidence).* *Theory is nice...but prove it is viable - real.
> *
> *There are individual differences and similarities that dictate how two people get along imo and its never a good idea to base one's opinion of another person on quadra, group they belong to etc..*
> 
> ]


Did you read the explanation I offered about delta aristocracy and why it can be difficult to understand?



> And this is part why I think it took time for me to understand how delta is aristocratic because ultimately, I don't ascribe people groups they don't ascribe themselves, but when Fi is blocked with Ne this is exactly what happens. Ne sees potential, and with Fi it becomes individual potential. This person would be great working within the industry, for example. Or this person would be a great artist. Especially because NeFi is also paired with SiTe, what results is that Si picks up predictive models of reality of subjective nature over time compared to the as is nature of Se. Si sees repeated patterns in how people behave (which is not the same as how Fe observes how people behave by the way), and because it is blocked with Te, they will try to figure out what is the most efficient way to ascribe people effective roles in society based on people's innate potential. So this person is a fast runner. Maybe this person will in the future be a great runner. Te logic then assumes this person is best seeking a career as a runner. Thus we end up in aristocratic logic because again, groups are ascribed onto people based on generic and generalized traits. So all these people who over time seem to behave this way thus possess the same innate potential qualities of becoming X, and it is more effective if they pursue X so therefore they are X.
> 
> I think the difference between beta and delta aristocracy is that beta notices social groupings such as say, communities. In sociological studies, I think diasporas are great examples of beta groupings, actually. People who all gather up and formulate one community because they happened to have one trait in common e.g. migrating from X country.
> 
> 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.


Is this something that is easier to relate to, thinking of individuals having potential to fulfill certain social (productive) roles?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> EDIT
> As for Fe not seeking clarifying answers, I have the perfect example of that conflict today. So I was supposed to meet my SLE cousin around 16.30. She said she would be home at 16.30 so I interpreted it as that I can come anytime after 16.30 so I did. I arrived around 17.00. She got pissed and mentioned a snide comment where she had to cancel an appointment with the hair dresser and managed to imply it was my fault because I was in her world, late.
> 
> I don't understand why she got pissed off. In my perception of what happened she only said she would be home at 16.30 but she didn't say I would be at her place 16.30 sharp which to me is a great difference to make. If she had said the former I would have done so and not arrived at 17.00. My impression was that she would arrive 16.30ish at her place so logically speaking I don't want to be there outside her door exactly 16.30 (though this is something my stepmom would nag about too, ugh) in case she's not even there. How do I know?
> ...


I would interpret the situation the exact same way that you did. If someone tells me that they will be at home - as opposed to a restaurant, for example - then I will assume that they are expecting me to arrive some time after that time. If told OTOH, to arrive at 6:30; then that's the time, I would be there.

My basis of this is that the location is paramount to making sense of this. If the person told me that they would be at a restaurant at 6:30; then I would assume that was the time that I was expected to arrive but in someone's home, I would consider it rude to be earlier than 6:45, since like you said; they had just gotten in the door.


----------



## vosquoque (Jul 26, 2012)

I've noticed that aristocracy, above all, is the one apparent quality in those Tumblr social justice blogs. I think Socionics nailed what no other had found a name for, or even distinguished, with this concept of aristocracy vs. democracy.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

vosquoque said:


> I've noticed that aristocracy, above all, is the one apparent quality in those Tumblr social justice blogs. I think Socionics nailed what no other had found a name for, or even distinguished, with this concept of aristocracy vs. democracy.


Care to provide an example of what you mean? I don't really follow Tumblr.


----------



## vosquoque (Jul 26, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Care to provide an example of what you mean? I don't really follow Tumblr.


I can't really bring up an individual example from my memory, but I recall that there is a general aura around them that I have yet only witnessed aristocracy, especially Beta aristocracy, summing up. They are not just collectivistic, per se, in that they desire the unity and solidarity of their group, but that they see the world in identity groups and interpret everything in group conflicts, which has angered me just by reading it quite a few times. It is like they see the entire world in groups and labels. Tumblr was just a clear example of that general tendency.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

vosquoque said:


> I can't really bring up an individual example from my memory, but I recall that there is a general aura around them that I have yet only witnessed aristocracy, especially Beta aristocracy, summing up. They are not just collectivistic, per se, in that they desire the unity and solidarity of their group, but that they see the world in identity groups and interpret everything in group conflicts, which has angered me just by reading it quite a few times. It is like they see the entire world in groups and labels. Tumblr was just a clear example of that general tendency.


Yeah, this explains that there were mobs that fought thanks to shit like which OTP is better and other fandom related things. I also think that the existence of closed roleplay groups, where the members of them were forbidden to play with people outside of them, or those elitist people that thought that all OC roleplayers or non-multishippers were some kind of inferior species that didn't deserve any chance for writing a thread with them, where aristocratic people. I think that many Final Fantasy roleplayers had some sort of aristocratic thinking as well, as they avoided players from other fandoms.

Thanks to those issues I end ragequitting from that environment, as my ideas weren't really compatible with those drama lovers, so I only found few people which were also bothered by those issues or that had ideas that went beyond writing fluff or similar crap.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

vosquoque said:


> they see the world in identity groups and interpret everything in group conflicts, which has angered me just by reading it quite a few times. It is like they see the entire world in groups and labels. Tumblr was just a clear example of that general tendency.


Lol, agreed. It can get rather annoying sometimes, when I come across a lot of posts going back and forth with their verbal lashing of the opposing group. I wonder if it isn't possible for them to let things be and accept some things as unfortunate realities of the world, but everything becomes an issue to take up arms against as a whole group and go to war, apparently. While I commend the initiative some of these people show, I don't know why everything has to become an occasion to gang up and feel that solidarity_ all the time_. 

It's prevalent even in how the fandoms there function. People have so many group identities; in their blog descriptions they often mention all these identities as if all of them put together define them. It makes me think of a Venn diagram.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

vosquoque said:


> I can't really bring up an individual example from my memory, but I recall that there is a general aura around them that I have yet only witnessed aristocracy, especially Beta aristocracy, summing up. They are not just collectivistic, per se, in that they desire the unity and solidarity of their group, but that they see the world in identity groups and interpret everything in group conflicts, which has angered me just by reading it quite a few times. It is like they see the entire world in groups and labels. Tumblr was just a clear example of that general tendency.


As an example, for example someone with a feminist agenda or such? I think I know what you mean, but I have noticed this more in political debate which makes sense, considering how this kind of politics is strongly aristocratic as well. Democratic types wouldn't really argue strongly for one group over the other regardless of reason, even if this reason seems democratic at face value e.g. inclusion, equality or such.


----------

