An Observation

[Ezra]

NTs - the theorisers and developers of ideas in and of society; those that propel the best way of living; philosophers and scientists

STs - the doers and the guardians of ideas and theories which are put forward by NTs; politicians, lawyers, doctors and teachers

NFs - those that take care of the spiritual and artistic aspects of life in a society; the inspirational figures; artists and icons

SFs - those that ensure peace, stability and harmony among the individuals in a society; the mediators, social workers, councillors and coaches

This is only a very rough outline - it doesn't purport that any one grouped type is bound to that particular area (we've seen NF politicians, NT lawyers, ST scientists and SF artists), nor does it explain that some individuals are wrecklessly unhealthy and are portrayed here nothing like they are in reality.

[aestrivex]

no.

[Creepy-bg]

bah... I hate the unhealthy word. Who's to decide that some people are wrecklessly unhealthy? It's a bogus label. I know that's got nothing to do with what the post was about but I'm on a holy war against people using that word to describe others. It makes me semi-angry just seeing it. More often than not it's a sign of somebody who feels themselves intellectually or phsychologically superior to others. (not that I'm saying that describes you)

[Slacker]

Didn't I just read in another thread that you figure you're Democratic > Aristocratic? Because this looks like an Aristocratic post to me.

I think the SF and NF ones are pretty far off regardless. I don't know about the other two.

[Logos]

NTs - the theorisers and developers of ideas in and of society; those that propel the best way of living; philosophers and scientists

STs - the doers and the guardians of ideas and theories which are put forward by NTs; politicians, lawyers, doctors and teachers

NFs - those that take care of the spiritual and artistic aspects of life in a society; the inspirational figures; artists and icons

SFs - those that ensure peace, stability and harmony among the individuals in a society; the mediators, social workers, councillors and coaches

This is only a very rough outline - it doesn't purport that any one grouped type is bound to that particular area (we've seen NF politicians, NT lawyers, ST scientists and SF artists), nor does it explain that some individuals are wrecklessly unhealthy and are portrayed here nothing like they are in reality.

Have you ever looked into the clubs: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Club?

[Ezra]

Didn't I just read in another thread that you figure you're Democratic > Aristocratic? Because this looks like an Aristocratic post to me.

Ah yeah, I see what you mean. It is a bit. About groups as opposed to individuals.

The thing is, I see Aristocrats as basically prejudice i.e. he dresses and talks like a chav so he is a chav, or, worse, he looks like a chav and so must be everything that every single person who represents what he seems to represent is. This is just plain ill reasoning, and it's not an open-minded enough stance to take. This is what makes me shy away from Aristocracy.

But take Augusta. As an ILI, she was a supposed Democrat. Nonetheless, the whole theory of socionics is founded on the type of theories that I just came up with.

I think the SF and NF ones are pretty far off regardless.

Where would you place them?

[Ezra]

NTs - the theorisers and developers of ideas in and of society; those that propel the best way of living; philosophers and scientists

STs - the doers and the guardians of ideas and theories which are put forward by NTs; politicians, lawyers, doctors and teachers

NFs - those that take care of the spiritual and artistic aspects of life in a society; the inspirational figures; artists and icons

SFs - those that ensure peace, stability and harmony among the individuals in a society; the mediators, social workers, councillors and coaches

This is only a very rough outline - it doesn't purport that any one grouped type is bound to that particular area (we've seen NF politicians, NT lawyers, ST scientists and SF artists), nor does it explain that some individuals are wrecklessly unhealthy and are portrayed here nothing like they are in reality.

Have you ever looked into the clubs: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Club?

I have indeed. This is partly what I based my theory on.

[Slacker]

Didn't I just read in another thread that you figure you're Democratic > Aristocratic? Because this looks like an Aristocratic post to me.

Ah yeah, I see what you mean. It is a bit. About groups as opposed to individuals.

The thing is, I see Aristocrats as basically prejudice i.e. he dresses and talks like a chav so he is a chav, or, worse, he looks like a chav and so must be everything that every single person who represents what he seems to represent is. This is just plain ill reasoning, and it's not an open-minded enough stance to take. This is what makes me shy away from Aristocracy.

But take Augusta. As an ILI, she was a supposed Democrat. Nonetheless, the whole theory of socionics is founded on the type of theories that I just came up with.

I think the SF and NF ones are pretty far off regardless.

Where would you place them?

That is a stereotype about Aristocracy, and not really what it's like, and that is a perfect example of why it isn't useful to type by dichotomies.

[Creepy-bg]

Didn't I just read in another thread that you figure you're Democratic > Aristocratic? Because this looks like an Aristocratic post to me.

Ah yeah, I see what you mean. It is a bit. About groups as opposed to individuals.

The thing is, I see Aristocrats as basically prejudice i.e. he dresses and talks like a chav so he is a chav, or, worse, he looks like a chav and so must be everything that every single person who represents what he seems to represent is. This is just plain ill reasoning, and it's not an open-minded enough stance to take. This is what makes me shy away from Aristocracy.

But take Augusta. As an ILI, she was a supposed Democrat. Nonetheless, the whole theory of socionics is founded on the type of theories that I just came up with.

I think the SF and NF ones are pretty far off regardless.

Where would you place them?

That is a stereotype about Aristocracy, and not really what it's like, and that is a perfect example of why it isn't useful to type by dichotomies.

are you saying that he has an aristocratic view of Aristocracy?

[Slacker]

to BG

I had the exact same opinion - that I could not possibly be Aristocratic. And for the same reasons. But if you get past the words and the images they conjure up, and the stereotypes associated culturally with those words, and beyond the idea that grouping means stereotyping, which Socionics Aristocracy isn't about, I can see how I could be labeled as Aristocratic. Actually, the first problem with this dichotomy is how poorly it's named.

I have seen this described well but I don't remember where or how. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Logos]

That is a stereotype about Aristocracy, and not really what it's like, and that is a perfect example of why it isn't useful to type by dichotomies.

Well to be fair, none of the dichotomies are that simple; as for Aristocracy there is a different Beta and a Delta manifestation of it.

[Slacker]

That is a stereotype about Aristocracy, and not really what it's like, and that is a perfect example of why it isn't useful to type by dichotomies.

Well to be fair, none of the dichotomies are that simple; as for Aristocracy there is a different Beta and a Delta manifestation of it.

Yeah, exactly! People are trying to type themselves off of this and I just don't think it's a good idea. They are very complicated, and they can show up differently in different types, and they're badly named, etc. It's an awful way to type.

[Ezra]

But I didn't just look at the name - I looked at how it manifests itself in people too.

[Gilly]

Augusta was ILE, not ILI.

[Slacker]

But I didn't just look at the name - I looked at how it manifests itself in people too.

Not if this is what you think it is:

The thing is, I see Aristocrats as basically prejudice i.e. he dresses and talks like a chav so he is a chav, or, worse, he looks like a chav and so must be everything that every single person who represents what he seems to represent is. This is just plain ill reasoning, and it's not an open-minded enough stance to take. This is what makes me shy away from Aristocracy.

[leckysupport]

Clubs on their own are pretty crappy to work with. Clubs and Quadras (Beta ST Alpha NT etc.) are much easier to work with.

[Slacker]

Ezra: read this thread

I don't know if that'll make things clearer or more confused though.

[Slacker]

This is faster and easier to read:

Aristocracy and Democracy

[Ezra]

But I didn't just look at the name - I looked at how it manifests itself in people too.

Not if this is what you think it is:

The thing is, I see Aristocrats as basically prejudice i.e. he dresses and talks like a chav so he is a chav, or, worse, he looks like a chav and so must be everything that every single person who represents what he seems to represent is. This is just plain ill reasoning, and it's not an open-minded enough stance to take. This is what makes me shy away from Aristocracy.

But that is Aristocracy! Look:

Aristocrats

1. Inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to; however, such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions.
2. Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
3. Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
4. Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
5. In collective hierarchical structures (as in work, organizations, etc) inclined to pay little attention to a person's official position in that structure.

[Ezra]

Augusta was ILE, not ILI.

That doesn't change what I said about her - she's still Democratic.

[Ezra]

This is faster and easier to read:

Aristocracy and Democracy

This is where I derived my information from in the first place. It's a common misconception that I introduce a theory or idea without having first considered the facts.

[Slacker]

But I didn't just look at the name - I looked at how it manifests itself in people too.

Not if this is what you think it is:

The thing is, I see Aristocrats as basically prejudice i.e. he dresses and talks like a chav so he is a chav, or, worse, he looks like a chav and so must be everything that every single person who represents what he seems to represent is. This is just plain ill reasoning, and it's not an open-minded enough stance to take. This is what makes me shy away from Aristocracy.

But that is Aristocracy! Look:

Aristocrats

1. Inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to; however, such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions.
2. Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
3. Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
4. Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
5. In collective hierarchical structures (as in work, organizations, etc) inclined to pay little attention to a person's official position in that structure.

First, I don't know what a "chav" is. I assume it's some British thing?

But it isn't like that. It's more like, someone says he's going to introduce me to someone, and he knows this person because they were in the same fraternity in college. I think, "a frat boy? Great." But then I meet the guy and he's OK. So my initial reaction is that he's going to be a certain way because he's a frat boy, but I don't hold onto that when I meet him. And it isn't that I say someone dresses like something therefore he'll be like something, it's backward from that. I hear someone is in some group, and I guess things because he/she belongs to that group. Not that I see a quality and assume a group based on the quality. Also, someone else's group means nothing to me - in fact I usually react negatively toward traditional societal stereotypes. I make my own groups based on my own experiences.

[Ezra]

Yeah, I am not Aristocratic if that's what Aristocracy is.

[Slacker]

It's how it works for me and I'm Delta. I'm not Beta so I can't describe that version but as I understand it it's different. I have no idea how different.

[Creepy-bg]

a chav is sorta like a ******... Englands version of hip-hop white trash... sorta... You ever see the Ali-G character? that's a characature of a chav.

[Ezra]

a chav is sorta like a ******... Englands version of hip-hop white trash... sorta...

Kind of.

A chav is essentially what rose out of the council-housing estates and flats in the early '90s. They look like this (notice said residences in the background):



And more recently, this (they scrapped the Burberry):



Some believe 'Chav' is an acronym for 'Council-House Associated Vermin'.

They have a fucking awful reputation in the UK.

[Ezra]

It's how it works for me and I'm Delta. I'm not Beta so I can't describe that version but as I understand it it's different. I have no idea how different.

I'd be interested to know. Let me know if you find out.

[marooned]

[NTs, STs, NFs, SFs] = [theorists, developers of ideas, promoters of better ways of living, philosophers, scientists, doers, guardians of ideas and theories, politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, spiritualists, artists, inspirational figures, icons, peace makers, mediators, social workers, councilors, coaches, astronauts, lunatics, luddites, oatmeal eaters, cookie monsters, animal lovers, athletes, goat herders, truck drivers, gambling addicts, miniture golf champions, people who sing off key in their showers, whiners, alcoholics, arctic explorers, mimes, thieves, pianists, etc. etc.]

[Creepy-bg]

[NTs, STs, NFs, SFs] = [theorists, developers of ideas, promoters of better ways of living, philosophers, scientists, doers, guardians of ideas and theories, politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, spiritualists, artists, inspirational figures, icons, peace makers, mediators, social workers, councilors, coaches, astronauts, lunatics, luddites, oatmeal eaters, cookie monsters, animal lovers, athletes, goat herders, truck drivers, gambling addicts, miniture golf champions, people who sing off key in their showers, whiners, alcoholics, arctic explorers, mimes, thieves, pianists, etc. etc.]

what about drug addicts

[marooned]

awwww, I tried to be representative of everyone. Drug addicts are just going to have to fall under "etc. etc." or "alcoholics"...

[Expat]

But I didn't just look at the name - I looked at how it manifests itself in people too.

Not if this is what you think it is:

The thing is, I see Aristocrats as basically prejudice i.e. he dresses and talks like a chav so he is a chav, or, worse, he looks like a chav and so must be everything that every single person who represents what he seems to represent is. This is just plain ill reasoning, and it's not an open-minded enough stance to take. This is what makes me shy away from Aristocracy.

But that is Aristocracy! Look:

Aristocrats

1. Inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to; however, such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions.
2. Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
3. Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
4. Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
5. In collective hierarchical structures (as in work, organizations, etc) inclined to pay little attention to a person's official position in that structure.

What you described is a particular form of Aristocracy, a "primitive" or "extreme" form of it. As the description above says, "such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions." So some Aristocrats might indeed classify people into "chav" and "not chav"; many others wouldn't.

For instance, Ezra, you yourself classified the forum users into "serious socionists" and "bored people just using socionics to give some meaning to their lives" etc. This could be seen as a manifestation of Aristocracy.

Moreover, Aristocracy, as defined by Reinin and Augusta, is merely a grouping of types that have the following blocks: + , + , + , + . Augusta deduced, or observed, behavior traits specific to each of those. "Aristocracy" was the one she seemed to regard as most typical.

Having said that, I don't think that particular dichotomy is useful for self-typing, precisely because people tend to associate it with the kind of social prejudice you have just mentioned, and obviously do not want to associate themselves with it. Rightly so in my opinion.

[Ezra]

Some believe 'Chav' is an acronym for 'Council-House Associated Vermin'.

They have a fucking awful reputation in the UK.

called knackers in ireland.

What, testicles? Hahaha. They're called Neds in Scotland.

[Ezra]

For instance, Ezra, you yourself classified the forum users into "serious socionists" and "bored people just using socionics to give some meaning to their lives" etc. This could be seen as a manifestation of Aristocracy.

Perhaps I am Aristocratic after all.