Aristocracy/Democracy

[Ezra]

Doesn't work. Why?

Today, we were in a take away, me and my IEE - Aristocratic - and LII - Democratic - friends. We were talking about my vision of an ideal state. A guy who was also ordering a takeaway added his two pence worth (as you do) and we all said 'fair point'. As he walked out, my IEE friend says to me and my LII friend "don't judge a book by its cover. You'd expect him to be a Hard-Fi [a term he lends to people who 'live for the weekend' and basically drink and party and lead mundane lives. If you live in the UK, you'll be familiar with them; they constitute about 95% of 16-25 year olds, male and female], and he actually made a good point." We looked at him and laughed, telling him that we didn't even give thought to that.

Now, this is clearly an example of Aristocracy. IEE takes one look at this guy and thinks "young, dumb and full of cum". LII (fair enough, he's a Dem.) and me don't even think about it. And, as an SLE, I'm apparently Aristocratic. Or not.

Moral of the story: you can still be a Beta or Delta and be Democratic.

[force my hand]

At the risk of going off-topic, what's your vision of an ideal state?

[Phaedrus]

Doesn't work. Why?

Today, we were in a take away, me and my IEE - Aristocratic - and LII - Democratic - friends. We were talking about my vision of an ideal state. A guy who was also ordering a takeaway added his two pence worth (as you do) and we all said 'fair point'. As he walked out, my IEE friend says to me and my LII friend "don't judge a book by its cover. You'd expect him to be a Hard-Fi [a term he lends to people who 'live for the weekend' and basically drink and party and lead mundane lives. If you live in the UK, you'll be familiar with them; they constitute about 95% of 16-25 year olds, male and female], and he actually made a good point." We looked at him and laughed, telling him that we didn't even give thought to that.

Now, this is clearly an example of Aristocracy. IEE takes one look at this guy and thinks "young, dumb and full of cum". LII (fair enough, he's a Dem.) and me don't even think about it. And, as an SLE, I'm apparently Aristocratic. Or not.

Moral of the story: you can still be a Beta or Delta and be Democratic.

Moral of your post: You haven't understood much of the Democracy/Aristocracy dichotomy. Go back to your study chamber!

[Blaze]

i don't put a lot of stock in this dichotomy myself.

saw a special the other night on Andrew Jackson, an american president during the war of 1812, clearly an SLE. clearly much more democratic than aristocratic. and most SLE's i know, even though they like to be large and in charge, espouse and support democratic ideas designed to distribute power for all.

[Logos]

i don't put a lot of stock in this dichotomy myself.

saw a special the other night on Andrew Jackson, an american president during the war of 1812, clearly an SLE. clearly much more democratic than aristocratic. and most SLE's i know, even though they like to be large and in charge, espouse and support democratic ideas designed to distribute power for all.

Why?

[Expat]

I think Andrew Jackson was SEE. And I wasn't even thinking of this dichotomy.

[Ezra]

At the risk of going off-topic, what's your vision of an ideal state?

I've explained it before.

Basically, it's much like the UK at the moment, except that education would be free. So taxes would be higher, but people would be more free (and less slaves to debt).

[Blaze]

Why?

well the special was kind of cool in that it explained a lot of the politics of the time. couple of examples of more clear-cut democracy:

1. there was no popular vote for the presidency at that time. the electoral college decided who the president would be. since jackson was so popular, it was just prior to his election that the popular vote for the presidency was instituted. jackson was the first president to have been elected (more) democratically. if not for this, it would have been very unlikely that he'd have been president. jackson was a person of the people, most of whom were working class.

2. during the war of 1812, he flauted military authority and executed a couple of british soldiers after a battle in florida despite explicit orders not to do this. in this way, he went against the military and political aristocracy.

3. jackson lived with and eventually married a woman who was married to another man. this man eventually divorced jackson's eventual wife...one of the first divorces. this indicates a willingness to go against established aristocratic norms of the time. later, when he ran for president, her adultery became a problem in his campaign for presidency. he knew this would happen, but chose to run anyway. his wife died early in the campaign, which released him from social sanction.

4. while he was president he went on a vendetta against the u.s. bank, who held the vast majority of the nation's public and private money. he saw the bank as having way too much economic power and as functioning basically as a kingship or something similar.

basically during his whole presidency he fought for greater democracy not against it.

evidence for SLE rather than SEE:

during the war of 1812, his troops were starting to defect due to extreme hardship conditions. he had defectors shot. and plunged forward in his military goals in the southeast swamps. he successfully used various indian groups to push his military goals forward and launched wildly successful campaigns which elevated the national mood. i can't see an SEE keeping his eye on the ball through obstacle after obstacle in the same way. his interests were gambling and racing of horses. he had a runaway slave whipped - 300 lashes - as a way of keeping his african american slaves in line.

so, in summary, large in in charge himself, but democratic in overall approach.

for sure.

[Logos]

[quote=Sunshine Lively;284638]well the special was kind of cool in that it explained a lot of the politics of the time. couple of examples of more clear-cut democracy:

1. there was no popular vote for the presidency at that time. the electoral college decided who the president would be.

Technically there is not popular vote in the US, and the Electoral College still does decide. The only difference is that the delegates are now decided by the party who wins the popular vote in each state.

since jackson was so popular, it was just prior to his election that the popular vote for the presidency was instituted. jackson was the first president to have been elected (more) democratically. if not for this, it would have been very unlikely that he'd have been president.

I fail to see how this makes him fall more in line with the Democratic dichotomy. Being elected in a more democratic process and being popular does not make him a Socionics Democrat, but merely a politician who belongs to political party that wants to take steps to win the presidency.

jackson was a person of the people, most of whom were working class.

Ah, yes the birth of the political election campaign in which plantation owning Jackson presented himself as a backwoods common man.

2. during the war of 1812, he flauted military authority and executed a couple of british soldiers after a battle in florida despite explicit orders not to do this. in this way, he went against the military and political aristocracy.

You are A) taking the meaning of this dichotomy too literally, and B) I am not seeing why his defiance and desire to play the role of a tyrant makes him a Democrat.

3. jackson lived with and eventually married a woman who was married to another man. this man eventually divorced jackson's eventual wife...one of the first divorces. this indicates a willingness to go against established aristocratic norms of the time. later, when he ran for president, her adultery became a problem in his campaign for presidency. he knew this would happen, but chose to run anyway. his wife died early in the campaign, which released him from social sanction.

Uh, what? Come again?

4. while he was president he went on a vendetta against the u.s. bank, who held the vast majority of the nation's public and private money. he saw the bank as having way too much economic power and as functioning basically as a kingship or something similar.

And the U.S. Bank was started by...anyone? Anyone? Hamilton. Who was a...anyone? Anyone? ENTj. Why? Anyone? Anyone? To make government transactions more efficient by strengthening the a central U.S. currency.

basically during his whole presidency he fought for greater democracy not against it.

Which is all well and good, but fighting for democracy does not a Socionics Democrat make. The popular image of Delta after all is as the Quadra with the hippie protesters. The question instead is why he did this and to obtain what result.

While Jackson may be a Socionics Democrat, your argument does a less than desirable job of convincing me.

[Blaze]

well to be honest, logos, i really don't give a shit what you think or whether you're convinced.

esp since i think most of the reinin dichotomies are useless crap.

i'm not going to go through your post line by line since it's not my style and i don't have the time. there was no popular vote prior to jackson, the u.s. bank did have too much power, and living with a woman who was married to another man was scandalous...more for her than him but scandalous nonetheless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy

[Expat]

evidence for SLE rather than SEE:

during the war of 1812, his troops were starting to defect due to extreme hardship conditions. he had defectors shot. and plunged forward in his military goals in the southeast swamps. he successfully used various indian groups to push his military goals forward and launched wildly successful campaigns which elevated the national mood. i can't see an SEE keeping his eye on the ball through obstacle after obstacle in the same way. his interests were gambling and racing of horses. he had a runaway slave whipped - 300 lashes - as a way of keeping his african american slaves in line.

Well, the first Russian socionists surely disagree with this concept of SEEs, since they chose first Napoleon, then Caesar, as prototypical SEEs.

Now Napoleon is viewed (correctly imo) as SLE, and I'm not sure about Caesar -- but the point is that they, and I, don't have a problem with the concept of a SEE in that kind of role.

[Blaze]

Well, the first Russian socionists surely disagree with this concept of SEEs, since they chose first Napoleon, then Caesar, as prototypical SEEs.

Now Napoleon is viewed (correctly imo) as SLE, and I'm not sure about Caesar -- but the point is that they, and I, don't have a problem with the concept of a SEE in that kind of role.

well perhaps. but napoleon and caeser were at the highest levels in the military. people in these positions are able to sit back and view things from a larger, more comfortable perspective.

i'm thinking jackson was at maybe the level of general or some other mid-level. so he'd have had to be right in the mix with the soldiers, uncomfortable, trudging through the swamp, and having to be physically tough. not usually what i picture with SEE.

[Wittmont]

well perhaps. but napoleon and caeser were at the highest levels in the military. people in these positions are able to sit back and view things from a larger, more comfortable perspective.

i'm thinking jackson was at maybe the level of general or some other mid-level. so he'd have had to be right in the mix with the soldiers, uncomfortable, trudging through the swamp, and having to be physically tough. not usually what i picture with SEE.

Caesar was famous for doing this. He pushed himself relentlessly physically.

[Blaze]

Caesar was famous for doing this. He pushed himself relentlessly physically.

could be i guess.....do we know any IRL that do this though?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[mikemex]

I see this dichotomy as follows:

* Aristocracy: Ideas and people are separate things. They believe in an external source of truth.
* Democracy: Ideas an people are the same thing. They believe that there is no external source of truth.

[Logos]

well to be honest, logos, i really don't give a shit what you think or whether you're convinced.

esp since i think most of the reinin dichotomies are useless crap.

i'm not going to go through your post line by line since it's not my style and i don't have the time. there was no popular vote prior to jackson, the u.s. bank did have too much power, and living with a woman who was married to another man was scandalous...more for her than him but scandalous nonetheless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy

Yes, that is all well and true, but that is merely a regurgitation of historical fact, and by no means necessarily indicative of the Democratic dichotomy.

[Steve]

Actually there may be some truth to what Sunshine Lively was getting at (if I picked up your point correctly). Jackson himself was an ENTj, and the type of thinking and way of running things he brought about was fairly individualist democratic. He didn't believe in a representative democracy, but instead in a popular vote, which takes away the collective element of it that you'd see in a collectivist democracy. Also, he was big on the spoils system, which gammas are supposedly rumored to do.

[Steve]

I see this dichotomy as follows:

* Aristocracy: Ideas and people are separate things. They believe in an external source of truth.
* Democracy: Ideas an people are the same thing. They believe that there is no external source of truth.

I'd say that's true in many cases. I think Aristocracy the way you described it is frequently seen in Delta, in the sense that you see a lot of Delta's simply being enforcers of abstract truths or policies/rules, and that if you were to challenge them on that, they'd say "It's not me, its the rules" - Also I would say that they seem particularly prone to overemphasizing titles (Betas do it to, but in a different respect - with Beta titles are more about power status and who's getting the biggest paycheck or whatever). Delta's do it more regarding knowledge and truths. They seem particularly adamant about listening to "those who know best" - aka "the doctor knows best because he went through medical school, etc", or someone's official title of "teacher" makes them somehow immune to questioning. This is the type of aristocracy I think can be seen in many Deltas - the individualist aristocracy. People in this system believe that everyone is capable of achievement, but they must go through the established system, pass through the ranks, pass tests, and be officially deemed as qualified.

I relate very much to what you say about people and idea being the same thing in the democratic perspective. To me, I see no distinction between those who enforce rules and those who create them (if the enforcer has the power to change the rules - because obviously some peon won't be able to change the rules, even if they wanted to). If I see a policy that's crappy or some postulation or premise that people seem to be telling me that I think is false, I'll say "well why is that the correct way? Tell me why you think that way of doing things is good." And if someone responds "well he/she said so, and they have X title" I don't buy that argument for one minute. I'll respond with "Well I have a better way, and this is why (and I'll explain the real world context and situation that shows that my way would be better)" - Then, sometimes the other person will give me this sour look or criticize me from questioning the "appointed truth-telling authorities" - which is a big no-no with me. Quite frankly I find blindly listening to those who have supposed "titles" is quite dangerous. It's happened numerous times with Deltas IME. Again I am not saying all Deltas do this, but there are definitely some where the individualist aristocracy manifests in this way.

[Blaze]

Actually there may be some truth to what Sunshine Lively was getting at (if I picked up your point correctly). Jackson himself was an ENTj, and the type of thinking and way of running things he brought about was fairly individualist democratic. He didn't believe in a representative democracy, but instead in a popular vote, which takes away the collective element of it that you'd see in a collectivist democracy. Also, he was big on the spoils system, which gammas are supposedly rumored to do.

i don't think he was LIE though. from the reading i did plus what i saw on PBS, he seems SLE.

Originally Posted by mikemex
I see this dichotomy as follows:

* Aristocracy: Ideas and people are separate things. They believe in an external source of truth.
* Democracy: Ideas an people are the same thing. They believe that there is no external source of truth.

these definitions which i assume are from wikisocion don't say much. if i had to agree with one or the other i'd prolly agree with the aristocracy one more than the democracy one.

de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. 4.political or social equality; democratic spirit. 5.the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

ar·is·toc·ra·cy /ˌærəˈstɒkrəsi/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ar-uh-stok-ruh-see]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1.a class of persons holding exceptional rank and privileges, esp. the hereditary nobility. 2.a government or state ruled by an aristocracy, elite, or privileged upper class. 3.government by those considered to be the best or most able people in the state. 4.a governing body composed of those considered to be the best or most able people in the state. 5.any class or group considered to be superior, as through education, ability, wealth, or social prestige.

when i think of democracy and aristocracy, i think of these kinds of definitions. i'm not sure why these words are used by reinin to describe socionics relationships between ideas and people. as a matter of fact, i don't see how you can completely ignore common definitions of these words when using them in socionics; there's bound to be misunderstanding. further, the meanings of these words are drummed into all of our heads from about the 3rd grade on....from schoolhouse rock to american history in 11th grade.

[Blaze]

Yes. Why would an ESTp be more likely to do so than an ESFp? I can't think of any reason why they would.

estp and esfp seem to be equally powerful due to leading Se but i guess i just see estp as being physically "tougher". for esfp, i see them as being more socially tough or something. like i visualize estp putting themselves at a high level of discomfort in order to achieve their goal. whereas, esfp i don't see as putting up with physical discomfort as much. more like they'd be relationally tough, moving through social groups and successfully manipulating people and relationships.

like, from the HBO series, Rome, Atia fits the SEE stereotype and Titus Pullo fits the SLE stereotype.

[Expat]

estp and esfp seem to be equally powerful due to leading Se but i guess i just see estp as being physically "tougher". for esfp, i see them as being more socially tough or something. like i visualize estp putting themselves at a high level of discomfort in order to achieve their goal. whereas, esfp i don't see as putting up with physical discomfort as much. more like they'd be relationally tough, moving through social groups and successfully manipulating people and relationships.

I see no reason for the ESTp being physically tougher than ESFp. It's for both a question of dominant Se and ignoring Si. Generally speaking, I think it's a big mistake to use this kind of traits, as such, to type people -- that leads to typing, in the future, all "tough" ESFps as ESTps, by default.

Also, I don't think that what you described is a fair description of how ESFps operate.

like, from the HBO series, Rome, Atia fits the SEE stereotype and Titus Pullo fits the SLE stereotype.

I totally disagree, actually -- I don't think Atia is a stereotype of any type. If she is your view of the stereotypical ESFp, I think that's just wrong. If she's ESFp, then not a "typical" one.

I think that Titus Pullo, on the other hand, is closer to ESFp than ESTp. Again, I think that the "physical toughness" bit means nothing to differentiate those two types in particular.

In my opinion, a stereotypical ESFp in fiction is Rocky, in the very first film in particular, as is also Stallone himself. That whole film is pure Gamma.

Back to Rome, I think that the ESTp there is Mark Antony (as is, I think, the actor, James Purefoy).

[Blaze]

i guess we are all entitled to our opinions. i disagree with yours as well.

also, i don't think physical toughness is the only criterion for estp....just one that seems to stand out on a regular basis.