Reinin dichotomies: "Aristocracy / Democracy" - doesn't everyone do both?

[BlackCat]

I can sort of see what the dichotomy is trying to say, but then again I don't. Almost everyone that I know shows traits of both dichtomies at once... anyone care to clarify what it actually means? I'm using the wikisocion definition. The dichotomy seems to identify something that everyone does- you see someone and they seem similar to other people you know or who they remind you of. Then you assume that they have some of those traits. Then when you get to know them, you see them for their individual traits rather than the traits associated with that "group." And yes... the STs and NFs that I know do this, as well as NTs and SFs. So obviously there is something I'm missing with what it actually means. Thanks.

[Brilliand]

The way I currently see this, it's treating Feeling and Sensing (and Thinking and Intuition) as going together, as opposed to treating Feeling and Intuition (and Thinking and Sensing) as going together - basically the clubs, which become a meaningful difference when you consider that duals are of the opposite clubs, but side clubs have no very good relationship (semi-dual being the best of them). So Democratic is anyone who is SF or has an SF dual, while Aristocratic is anyone who is ST or has an ST dual.

I don't think much of the Wikisocion description of this dichotomy... I think we had one on some thread that I liked, but it was of the "theoretical garble" variety.

[BlackCat]

The way I currently see this, it's treating Feeling and Sensing (and Thinking and Intuition) as going together, as opposed to treating Feeling and Intuition (and Thinking and Sensing) as going together - basically the clubs, which become a meaningful difference when you consider that duals are of the opposite clubs, but side clubs have no very good relationship (semi-dual being the best of them). So Democratic is anyone who is SF or has an SF dual, while Aristocratic is anyone who is ST or has an ST dual.

I don't think much of the Wikisocion description of this dichotomy... I think we had one on some thread that I liked, but it was of the "theoretical garble" variety.

Well what is a good description of the dichotomy then? I mean, what you put is good and all but that doesn't actually describe what it does within a person.

I tried searching for similar threads... didn't come up with anything. Do you have any you could link to me? I'd appreciate it.

[Brilliand]

Well what is a good description of the dichotomy then? I mean, what you put is good and all but that doesn't actually describe what it does within a person.

I tried searching for similar threads... didn't come up with anything. Do you have any you could link to me? I'd appreciate it.

I know the thread I was thinking of would be hard to search for (even for me)... it was a derailed thread by the event I was thinking of. I'll try to repeat it from memory.

Democratics investigate why things work the way they do - Aristocrats simply recognize that they work, and use it. Aristocratics investigate their feelings, and why they feel the way they do - Democrats simply recognize that they feel the way they do.

Here we have Intuition as investigation, Thinking as mechanical workings of the universe, Sensing as recognition of what is, and Feeling as, well, feelings. Democrats look on mechanical workings as the thing to be studied, and feelings as something to be simply recognized - Aristocrats look on feelings as the thing to be studied, and mechanical workings as something to be simply recognized.

Ah yes, and my source - Pinocchio and Strrrng were the primary participants in that discussion, as I recall; I commented, but I don't think that I influenced the above description at the time (though I'm sure I've changed it slightly in reciting it from memory).

[BlackCat]

Aristocratics (using typology terms) usually gravitate more towards having a social hierarchy based on merits. Tend towards more where there is an in group in the ranks based on whatever deserving of favor which makes for distinctions from the rest (Betas and Deltas).

Democratics tend to gravitate less to social rankings which set others apart for whatever qualifications used to distinguish and prefer a structure which encourages people to treat each other as equals while also recognizing individual characteristics but avoiding the creation of groups comprised of certain characteristics which individuals are allotted to.

It's more of a default and preferred social attitude and is easily observable. Of course, it doesn't mean NTs and SFs don't have their in groups and cliques (because we all tend to have those of people we prefer to be around and being prone to avoid certain groups or individuals) and it doesn't mean STs and NFs are against breaking out of the mold and embracing personal freedom, but I do believe these dichotomies do color ways of thinking of society and social order.

Sounds good to me... so Deltas and Betas would naturally tend towards social power games? Like x person did x favor for someone in the group, so they are deserving of a favor in return or respect in return? While Alphas and Gammas wouldn't think like that.

I want more!

I know the thread I was thinking of would be hard to search for (even for me)... it was a derailed thread by the event I was thinking of. I'll try to repeat it from memory.

Democratics investigate why things work the way they do - Aristocrats simply recognize that they work, and use it. Aristocratics investigate their feelings, and why they feel the way they do - Democrats simply recognize that they feel the way they do.

Here we have Intuition as investigation, Thinking as mechanical workings of the universe, Sensing as recognition of what is, and Feeling as, well, feelings. Democrats look on mechanical workings as the thing to be studied, and feelings as something to be simply recognized - Aristocrats look on feelings as the thing to be studied, and mechanical workings as something to be simply recognized.

Ah yes, and my source - Pinocchio and Strrrng were the primary participants in that discussion, as I recall; I commented, but I don't think that I influenced the above description at the time (though I'm sure I've changed it slightly in reciting it from memory).

I actually recall the thread... it was that "Am I an unhealthy LII" thread I think (EDIT: Okay maybe not). But yes, this and what aixelsyd said was precisely what I was looking for... thanks.

[Brilliand]

It's kinda like Apple computers and Microsoft, Apple being aristocratic and Microsoft democratic in that Apple was more 'we have THE computer...now let's not let our ways of making our system leak out to just anybody' versus Microsoft's approach of 'hey, Joe Blow, you are good at this shit and Jack there can make that program, there, and...well, whoever the hell is good at this or that, this is our current system...if you know how to make it better, just take that open source or whatever and do it.'

I'm not sure whether to side with the Gammas or the betas here.

In my post I looked at primarily the Intuitive angle (Sensing was described as "not Intuitive") - I think you may be looking at more the Sensing angle. Following the pattern from my previous post, Sensing estimates the value of things - Aristocrats estimate practical or material value as the primary measure of value, whereas Democrats estimate the emotional value as the primary value. On the Aristocratic end, this results in rewarding great deeds or ability with high estimation of value (and horrible or disasterous deeds with a low estimation of value) - on the Democratic end, this results in behavior that has been previously observed as a contrast between SFs and NFs: valuing those close to you, rather than taking interest in just anybody.

[tcaudilllg]

The terms should not even be used for this purpose. I think it's primarily a problem of socionists not even understanding politics. (which most of them don't)

[Brilliand]

The terms should not even be used for this purpose. I think it's primarily a problem of socionists not even understanding politics. (which most of them don't)

Yeah, a lot of Reinin dichotomies have poorly-chosen words... heck, a lot of everything has poorly chosen words. Eventually you learn to live with it.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I can sort of see what the dichotomy is trying to say, but then again I don't. Almost everyone that I know shows traits of both dichtomies at once... anyone care to clarify what it actually means? I'm using the wikisocion definition. The dichotomy seems to identify something that everyone does- you see someone and they seem similar to other people you know or who they remind you of. Then you assume that they have some of those traits. Then when you get to know them, you see them for their individual traits rather than the traits associated with that "group." And yes... the STs and NFs that I know do this, as well as NTs and SFs. So obviously there is something I'm missing with what it actually means. Thanks.

Same as most dichotomies, imo some are more useful than others, and for me, this is one which is harder to place than the main ones for an individual, maybe I just need to work on applying it more.

[tcaudilllg]

Yeah, a lot of Reinin dichotomies have poorly-chosen words... heck, a lot of everything has poorly chosen words. Eventually you learn to live with it.

Yeah but, it's also something that needs to change as Socionics begins moving into the psychology mainstream.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[BlackCat]

I agree with the fact that Democratic and Aristocratic are just some titles which should not be used literally. The dichotomy means something different.
At their core, Aristocratic types separate things by the Internal/External membership and it seems that this segregation extends to all the levels.

Edit: aixelsyd, it has nothing to do with social hierarchy and ranks.

Care to elaborate? Or perhaps link that one thread where you discussed the dichotomy?

[krieger]

It points out a respect in which opposite quadras are similar.

It's like saying militant atheists and religious nuts have in common that they are both obsessed with the issue of religion.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[BlackCat]

So, because Aristocrats are either purely external or purely internal with their ego fixation, the way that they think is that they put information that they gather into mental "groups" of where that particular information "belongs?" Wheras Democrats compartmentalize data in a way that they don't think that anything really "belongs" anywhere mentally? Nothing prevents data from mixing and matching with other data (there are no mental groupings)?

And how would you observe this in action... That's mainly what I'm having a hard time grasping.

Lol, I hope that was coherant enough to understand.

[Brilliand]

And how would you observe this in action... That's mainly what I'm having a hard time grasping.

I told you it was theoretical garble.

[BlackCat]

I told you it was theoretical garble.

lol

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[BlackCat]

Are you interested in my opinion anymore, BlackCat?

Yeah I am.

Basically what I meant by this-

Nothing prevents data from mixing and matching with other data (there are no mental groupings)?

Was that Democrats don't do what Aristocrats do, lol. That there aren't really emphasized "groupings" in their minds.

I think to observe this I'm just going to have to adapt the dichotomy to my socionics lens when looking at people.