Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Aristocratic and Democratic

  1. #1
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Aristocratic and Democratic

    Of all the Reinin dichotomies, the Aristocrat vs. Democrat is the one that, to me, tends to stand out the most in interaction. It's not one of the more "apparent" dichotomies, but in my experience it is observable in people's styles of communication and attitudes towards social interplay. I wanted to highlight some of the traits that stand out to me as distinguishing Democrats and Aristocrats


    Mutual or Common Experiences

    This distinguishing trait is most observable, IMO, in Democratic Extroverts and Aristocratic Introverts.

    In communication, Democratic types are the most likely types, IME, to try to overtly establish or build off of the idea of a common or shared experience. Common phrases are things like: "You know how when you shower for too long..." "Have you ever noticed..." "Is x like this for you too?" Basically they will assert an experience and put it "to the jury" as to whether or not this is commonplace, expected, mutual, etc. The basic assumption of the Democratic quadras is that each individual is different, that each person acts on their own and is simply one of many extant individuals, so this is an attempt to "translate" the inherent differences they observe.

    In contrast, Aristocratic types operate with the assumption that certain people are either inherently similar or different. With people to whom they feel they relate or share certain things, they speak easily of experiences that they assume to be mutual, omitting things that the other is assumed to know and making statements or judgments based on what is taken for granted as common knowledge without drawing any attention to it; they assume that people either speak their language, or don't.


    Public Presentation

    In activities like public speaking or teaching, there is a distinct difference in the attitude of presentation of information.

    Democrats tend to have a casual, more lightheartedly performative approach to self-presentation. They are more likely usually very explicit or presentational, making more of a point to introduce themselves, perhaps saying something moderately personal, awkward, or funny to break the ice. They generally speak about their own ideas or contributions or something they find of personal interest, often using anecdotes to help people understand the specific applications of what they are saying. They are more likely to involve the crowd or "break the 4th wall." This gives them a somewhat stand-alone feel, appropriately; when we see them speak, we assume that nobody came before them, and nobody will follow them. They are remembered for being themselves and embodying their own viewpoints.

    Aristocrats, by contrast, can seem low key in presentation, because they assume a certain pretext for their words; they speak as if they require no introduction, perhaps even seeming arrogant to those unfamiliar with them. They are more likely to speak with a kind of contextualized gravity, as a priest giving a sermon; they sometimes use anecdotes to make the tenor of their speeches more personal or serious. More common topics are things that they feel are relevant to their direct audience, or things they feel "should be heard." When they speak, they speak for something else; when you see them on the stage, you see not one person speaking, but the conduit for the people or ideas that are "behind" them, that they attempt to embody and represent.

    These are just a couple; if people want to blurt out some ideas and help me get the juices going I will try to do more.

  2. #2
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    *crosses LSI off of list of possible self typings*

    Anyways, how about the ever present role of Democratic/Aristocratic in workplace hierarchies?

  3. #3
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The mutual or common experiences one is spot on.

    Some obvious other issues would be inclusion or exclusion of new individuals, and what about the description (somewhere on wikisocion) about how betas don't like telling inside jokes when there are people around who don't get them. I relate to that somewhat, as I always notice the person who doesn't get the joke(s), and I usually feel bad for them, and occasionally explain.

    Perhaps something about how artistocratic types go about testing new people to see if they fit in the group, what sorts of tests they do (i.e., delta tests being more about ethics, beta tests being more about a capability of some sort, be it wit, knowledge about a specific subject, or strength). Some sort of comparison to Democratic types; what do they do? Do they just accept everybody into their group and gradually drift away if they don't fit in, or what?

    May return with more thoughts later, as these are pretty surface-level, I'm afraid.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  4. #4
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Democratic types, I would assume, don't view people in "group" terms. It's more an individual like/get along with thing, I guess.

    I'm not a good example, since I avoid any settings where I can't interact individually.

  5. #5
    Haikus Sirena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    GAH, US
    TIM
    Mumpsimus
    Posts
    2,549
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gilly, those make a lot of sense. I definitely relate to Aristocratic.

  6. #6
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the tendency to organize people naturally into groups and hierarchies lends itself towards less "need" for interaction; Aristocratic types know that everyone has a place, which sort of naturally explains a lot of things that are unanswered or varying from situation to situation for Democratic types, who, with both Involved functions (S and F) grouped together, need to sort of get in the thick of it and interact before they develop their own individually relative sense of who's who and what's what.

    On that note, I think there is something to the fact (given that the dichotomy is most generally an attitude related to people and their placement) that Aristocratic quadras group Ethics (the "people" functions) with Intuition, which are abstract functions, and Democrats group Ethics with Sensorics, which are Involved. In Aristocratic quadras, a lot of the interaction is either implicit or goes on "behind the curtains," not always making it out in the open and finding full manifestation, whereas Democrats prefer a more transparent, immediate approach to dealing with people. They want to shake your hand, look you in the eye, talk to you for a few minutes, see what fiber you are made of and what you can do for them; Aristocrats want to know who you are in the broad scheme of things, what and who you know, which "realms" you belong to, and what you are getting yourself into with your life.

  7. #7
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    Hm. A little muddy. For reference, in case it adds to the discussion,
    I think this is wrong.

    Delta has a formal aristocracy and Beta is more ideological and informal.

    Delta is like a meritocracy or old boy network, and Beta is like an underground warlord who selects a feisty orphan boy off the street and treats him as royalty because he likes his spirit.

    Delta: Rising through the ranks slowly, formal rules and foundations, conduct

    Beta: Rapid rising, informal cliquish rules, theatrics
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  8. #8
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    Delta is like a meritocracy or old boy network,
    Doesn't sound very formal to me, sounds like it's based on money and reputation as the source of position, as opposed to purely occupying a position in and of itself.

    and Beta is like an underground warlord who selects a feisty orphan boy off the street and treats him as royalty because he likes his spirit.
    See, this sounds more formal to me as I think of the word, because, outwardly at least, it simply is what it is; the warlord would probably never tolerate his reasons for the orphan's favor being questioned by other subordinates, would make it more carte blanche, more set in stone.

    I suppose Deltas are more "traditional," which could tie into a more superficial, external sense of formality, but I think when you get at the core meaning of the word, Betas are much more "formal." They also have the tendency to naturally seem "formal," even in casual settings, whereas Deltas try to be casual even in settings that are formal. Beta has more of a capacity to be rigidly formal or businesslike in the extreme and really embody it, whereas Delta attitudes are more of a constant meshing of proper behavior, desired or appropriate affect, and personal touch.

    Delta: Rising through the ranks slowly, formal rules and foundations, conduct

    Beta: Rapid rising, informal cliquish rules, theatrics
    Well, for one, think about the word "theatrics" and how it applies to Beta in the broadest sense. Can't you just see a pristine Beta maiden in a red dress, black rose between her teeth, posed perfectly in crystalline perfection? Now imagine the Delta "pristine maiden": white dress, somewhat wholesome and down-to-earth, more "natural" feeling.

    To me, the idea of "rising through the ranks slowly" points towards a kind of casual indifference to actual ascension, seen as not integral but merely a biproduct of the individual's interaction with the greater whole; no predestination or higher selection, just where the pieces fit best. Contrast to Beta ascension, which is very black or white; regardless of the rules as they are written, if you have it, you have it, and if you have it, you will rise.

    It might just be a difference in the interpretation of the word "formality," but I see Beta as having at least a higher capacity towards the extremes of formality, because Delta is always tempered by Si/Ne, and will never be as strict or thorough-going; when it comes down to it, formality at its greatest extremes has no practical implication, and is obvious unsustainable (think Geisha lifestyle, ballerinas, ritualistic sacrifice, etc), so Delta is going to reject it.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I were an economics teacher, this is how I would introduce myself to the class:

    *runs into room*

    "Hello, I'm your economics teacher. Let's learn some goddamn economics."

    Then I would just jump straight into the first lesson. I would probably randomly switch between my various accents during each class.

    However, if I took my ADD medicine I would probably be pretty professional.

  10. #10
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    If I were an economics teacher, this is how I would introduce myself to the class:

    *runs into room*

    "Hello, I'm your economics teacher. Let's learn some goddamn economics."

    Then I would just jump straight into the first lesson. I would probably randomly switch between my various accents during each class.

    However, if I took my ADD medicine I would probably be pretty professional.
    If I were an economics teacher (and I could get away with it), this is how I would introduce myself to the class:

    1) *Have a man in a suit walk into class and place a labtop on a table in front of the class and turn it on, he goes and stands in the corner, I pop up on the screen in an office sitting in an armchair*

    "Welcome to economics, I am sorry I could not be here today, I'm a busy man; but regardless lets get down to business"

    NOTE: I'd really just be in my office at the universiy

    2) *Wait until the class begins and people are settled, have a smoke machine go off, walk out of the smoke/mist in a mysterious way*

    "Economics. *pause* What is it? *pause* What can it do for you? What can't it do...... *pause and look around the room*"

    "for you."
    *points at student in front row*

    *changes voice to be less pensive and more direct*
    "you have 25 seconds, then I'll know if your going to pass this class or not.... shoot"

    *looks at watch*

  11. #11
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    I think this is wrong.

    Delta has a formal aristocracy and Beta is more ideological and informal.

    Delta is like a meritocracy or old boy network, and Beta is like an underground warlord who selects a feisty orphan boy off the street and treats him as royalty because he likes his spirit.

    Delta: Rising through the ranks slowly, formal rules and foundations, conduct

    Beta: Rapid rising, informal cliquish rules, theatrics
    +10
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  12. #12
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    If I were an economics teacher, this is how I would introduce myself to the class:

    *runs into room*

    "Hello, I'm your economics teacher. Let's learn some goddamn economics."

    Then I would just jump straight into the first lesson. I would probably randomly switch between my various accents during each class.

    However, if I took my ADD medicine I would probably be pretty professional.
    That's basically how the best professor I've ever had did class. The first class, he said, "Hi, I'm Professor [insert name here]. But enough about me, let's talk about you." It was pretty wonderful. He then went on to give us a lecture about how his class was going to transform our lives and shake up our opinions, etc., etc., so I guess he didn't really go straight into the first lesson (more like a mission statement for the course), but it was wonderful.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  13. #13
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I were an economics teacher, I'd probably spend the first half of the lecture making crass sexual jokes and/or making fun of other professors, the second half bitching about all the wrong theories out there, and expect the students to understand the material all by themselves. I had an ENTj professor whose lectures were just like that and everybody loved him.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  14. #14
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Democrat is all like, let him speak! and im all like, why would you ever let that guy speak? Fuck that guy.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  15. #15
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    re: gilly's distinction regarding formality, I would say that deltas are formal, whereas betas are formalized. basically, there's an implicit formality that goes with the warlord taking the orphan under his wing and pushing him up through the ranks, but it's more like an invisible film that lightly encompasses interactions, not something completely set in stone. whereas with deltas, even though they embody a certain casual homeyness and can possess a certain emotional indifference, are always in some capacity formal in the strict sense, making sure an implicit protocol is being followed, however amorphous its genesis and operation may be.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  16. #16
    Word Definition Warrior – WDW Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    dispersed into the cosmos
    TIM
    H-ILE-Ne 7w6-2w1-1w9
    Posts
    1,944
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The mutual experience stuff rubs me in the wrong way.
    Oh you are sexually repressed because I want to secretly mate with extraterrestrial life like all my acquaintances and you are so passive.
    Because you are a man/woman. (and we are not talking about testicular cancer or sperm count here)


    I do not follow.
    Better description for my democratic nature is: what ever man as long as you do not hurt anyone with your actions.
    I even hate networking. Well, I don't do it for purpose so...

    Democracy in modern world rarely deals with real democracy.

  17. #17
    Whoobie77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Appalachia/Midwest Borderlands
    TIM
    ILI Counterphobic 6
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    If I were an economics teacher,
    If I were an economics teacher, I would probably do the "Communist Grade System" thing, just to fuck with the college-age birkenstock wearing leftists.

  18. #18
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to the theory, I should be a democratic type but I find myself fitting much of the aristocratic stuff too. I'm not sure which one I fit more overall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post

    In communication, Democratic types are the most likely types, IME, to try to overtly establish or build off of the idea of a common or shared experience. Common phrases are things like: "You know how when you shower for too long..." "Have you ever noticed..." "Is x like this for you too?" Basically they will assert an experience and put it "to the jury" as to whether or not this is commonplace, expected, mutual, etc. The basic assumption of the Democratic quadras is that each individual is different, that each person acts on their own and is simply one of many extant individuals, so this is an attempt to "translate" the inherent differences they observe.
    Yeah, I do this alot. Basically, I want to know if I'm normal or just weird freak about something. Not with all things though. Some things are the opposite where I assume that because I do it others must do it and then I'm surprised to later find that it really truly is some weird quirk of mine. So this could go either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    In contrast, Aristocratic types operate with the assumption that certain people are either inherently similar or different. With people to whom they feel they relate or share certain things, they speak easily of experiences that they assume to be mutual, omitting things that the other is assumed to know and making statements or judgments based on what is taken for granted as common knowledge without drawing any attention to it; they assume that people either speak their language, or don't.
    I do this alot as well. In some contexts I'll assume everyone in the group is somehow similar and then disappointed to find there are differences that make it harder to relate to certain individuals and the differences should somehow be smoothed out for better interaction. This is especially true in cases where people don't share similar interests.

    I'm not sure I assume either people 'speak' my language or don't. I don't think it's so black and white. It's more a matter of do they understand where I'm coming from or not. I've learned from experience that what I think is perceived as 'common knowledge' really isn't so. I used to be reluctant to just state the obvious, didn't want to bore people but sometimes it's necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Public Presentation

    In activities like public speaking or teaching, there is a distinct difference in the attitude of presentation of information.

    Democrats tend to have a casual, more lightheartedly performative approach to self-presentation. They are more likely usually very explicit or presentational, making more of a point to introduce themselves, perhaps saying something moderately personal, awkward, or funny to break the ice. They generally speak about their own ideas or contributions or something they find of personal interest, often using anecdotes to help people understand the specific applications of what they are saying. They are more likely to involve the crowd or "break the 4th wall." This gives them a somewhat stand-alone feel, appropriately; when we see them speak, we assume that nobody came before them, and nobody will follow them. They are remembered for being themselves and embodying their own viewpoints.
    I try to make things more lighthearted when possible but I have to be comfortable with the audience first. I don't tend to spend much time on introductions. I used to teach, and I was criticized for that. I had to tendency to say "my name is _______________, now let's get started on the material." I guess I didn't make things personal enough. I was more material and content focused I guess. I will use my own anecdotes if they fit the material.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Aristocrats, by contrast, can seem low key in presentation, because they assume a certain pretext for their words; they speak as if they require no introduction, perhaps even seeming arrogant to those unfamiliar with them. They are more likely to speak with a kind of contextualized gravity, as a priest giving a sermon; they sometimes use anecdotes to make the tenor of their speeches more personal or serious. More common topics are things that they feel are relevant to their direct audience, or things they feel "should be heard." When they speak, they speak for something else; when you see them on the stage, you see not one person speaking, but the conduit for the people or ideas that are "behind" them, that they attempt to embody and represent.

    These are just a couple; if people want to blurt out some ideas and help me get the juices going I will try to do more.
    I think I'm rather low-key in presentation. I try to be casual too but sometimes I come across as too nervous or awkward if I haven't had time to warm up with you yet. I tend to be mostly concerned with getting a particular message across but I do care alot about how I'm being perceived.


    Some other things:
    *I often long to feel a sense of unity with people. The people in the group all share similar interests, goals, and values. It's like we are one large entity. The differences we have are trivial or are meaningless to the purpose of why we are together in the first place. If people are too different, it makes it harder to have group unity, makes it harder to meet our purpose if person A wants X and person B wants Y. Wouldn't this be a more aristocratic POV?

    *When describing people though, I tend to describe them by personality traits rather than the groups they belong to. The fact that someone works at the bank, has brown hair, is middle aged, etc. says hardly nothing about what he or she is like as a person. On the other hand, to describe someone as funny, loud, quiet, considerate, sarcastic, etc. gives a much better sense of who he or she is like as a person and how interacting with that person might be.

    So I still don't have a clear sense if I'm more aristocratic or democratic. As an alpha quadra member, I clearly identify with merry and judicious. I just have a harder time placing myself on this dichotomy.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  19. #19
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,290
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm Aristocratic in the sense that there are certain tasks that I do not think I should be doing because of my qualifications or because it is something that I am not interested in. I prefer to specialize in something I'm interested in. However, I'm mostly Democratic in the sense that I will talk to anyone and don't really see an "us" vs "them". I tend to get along with groups that are "below" my status in a way that Aristocratic members of my own group do not. To be honest, I possess both Aristocratic and Democratic traits.
    Last edited by Chains; 03-21-2015 at 05:46 PM. Reason: grammar

  20. #20
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    The mutual or common experiences one is spot on.

    Some obvious other issues would be inclusion or exclusion of new individuals, and what about the description (somewhere on wikisocion) about how betas don't like telling inside jokes when there are people around who don't get them. I relate to that somewhat, as I always notice the person who doesn't get the joke(s), and I usually feel bad for them, and occasionally explain.

    Perhaps something about how artistocratic types go about testing new people to see if they fit in the group, what sorts of tests they do (i.e., delta tests being more about ethics, beta tests being more about a capability of some sort, be it wit, knowledge about a specific subject, or strength). Some sort of comparison to Democratic types; what do they do? Do they just accept everybody into their group and gradually drift away if they don't fit in, or what?

    May return with more thoughts later, as these are pretty surface-level, I'm afraid.
    I tend to mostly to the latter. I have an aversion to 'testing' people but I do assess in my mind about whether or not the person will likely fit in with us- based on their personality or interests. Will they be easy to get along with? That's probably the biggest thing I look for. Or do they understand our mission (I'm thinking of something more like a committee here rather than a casual social group). If they want to go in a completely different direction than everyone else, they are not likely to fit in well with the group.

    It's difficult for me to just reject people outright. If someone wanted to join a group and they didn't understand what we are really all about or greatly oppose what we stand for, I would bring that up and the person could decide if they truly want to join us. I might gently suggest another group might fit their needs closely. It's not really about rejecting others. It's more about group members self-selecting. If people in the group find it doesn't suit them, chances are they will leave or gradually drift away. In most cases, outright rejection of others isn't necessary- people tend to self-select themselves out of groups.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  21. #21
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmers View Post
    I'm Aristocratic in the sense that there are certain tasks that I do not think I should be doing because of my qualifications or because it is something that I am not interested in. I prefer to specialize in something I'm interested in. However, I'm mostly Democratic in the sense that I will talk to anyone and don't really see an "us" vs "them". I tend to get along with groups that are "below" my status in a way that Aristocratic members of my own group do not. To be honest, I posses both Aristocratic and Democratic traits.
    Regarding tasks I should or should not be doing, if I don't think I know enough about it and will do a poor job as a result, I would prefer to delegate to someone else. But when I think of the word qualifications, I think of degrees and certificates and the like, which are highly overrated. Just because you have a degree or certificate does not necessarily mean you are better at it than someone who doesn't. Some people self-educate themselves and have a high level of demonstrated ability but society doesn't seem to recognize this enough. It's all about whether or not you have that piece of 'paper.'

    I much prefer to specialize in things I'm interested in and do tasks I'm interested in. I think most people are probably like this. But I can also do tasks that don't interest me but need to get done.

    I also much prefer that there isn't an "us" vs. "them" divide. That everyone is all on the same side. I wish there weren't any social statuses at all. Everyone is on the same level. I don't really care about social status anyway when interacting with someone. It's who you are as a person that counts.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  22. #22
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,290
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also I believe that good ideas can come from anyone and progress arises when the best ideas are implemented.

  23. #23
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,272
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, but what school did they go to? Where did they learn those ideas?
    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  24. #24
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,290
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wacey View Post
    Yeah, but what school did they go to? Where did they learn those ideas?
    That is important. I'm thinking along the lines of open discussions vs backroom politics.

  25. #25
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,290
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have found that at work, many people are resistance to implementing new ideas, even if they would result in more efficient/effective systems. This bothers me

  26. #26
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,272
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmers View Post
    That is important. I'm thinking along the lines of open discussions vs backroom politics.
    I said those things because that's how the aristocratic quadras think, especially delta.
    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  27. #27
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,290
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wacey View Post
    I said those things because that's how the aristocratic quadras think, especially delta.
    That sounds Aristocratic.

  28. #28
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,290
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wacey View Post
    I said those things because that's how the aristocratic quadras think, especially delta.
    What in particular are you saying are delta, aristocratic values?

  29. #29
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmers View Post
    I'm Aristocratic in the sense that there are certain tasks that I do not think I should be doing because of my qualifications or because it is something that I am not interested in.
    this sounds vaguely aristocratic... reminds me of a debate I had with an SEE friend a while ago where I basically argued that people of lower intelligence/aptitude should be delegated the manual labor to allow the superior individuals to be of best service to the collective.

    I tend to get along with groups that are "below" my status in a way that Aristocratic members of my own group do not. To be honest, I possess both Aristocratic and Democratic traits.
    I don't see this as entirely incompatible with being aristocratic... often aristocrats with a greater degree of social openness will be easily able to mesh with people of other/lower groups, precisely because there's a collective context underlying the interaction.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  30. #30
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,290
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    this sounds vaguely aristocratic... reminds me of a debate I had with an SEE friend a while ago where I basically argued that people of lower intelligence/aptitude should be delegated the manual labor to allow the superior individuals to be of best service to the collective.



    I don't see this as entirely incompatible with being aristocratic... often aristocrats with a greater degree of social openness will be easily able to mesh with people of other/lower groups, precisely because there's a collective context underlying the interaction.
    Perhaps to some extent. My own resistance is away from tasks where I would have to interact with people more and the unpredictability of social situations, but once I acclimate I'm fine. I'm just resistant at first. There are many manual labor jobs I do without question, but certain jobs I will try and find a way to get out of them if they make me feel uncomfortable. Qualification is just a way to resist that.

  31. #31
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,272
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmers View Post
    That sounds Aristocratic.
    Okay...but its still true.
    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  32. #32
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,290
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also, at my job, I'm always making remarks about how I could train anyone to do this job, and that the amount of education required is often not needed. The aristocratic individuals scoff at me for saying this.

  33. #33
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    ILI ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,876
    Mentioned
    728 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    re: gilly's distinction regarding formality, I would say that deltas are formal, whereas betas are formalized. basically, there's an implicit formality that goes with the warlord taking the orphan under his wing and pushing him up through the ranks, but it's more like an invisible film that lightly encompasses interactions, not something completely set in stone. whereas with deltas, even though they embody a certain casual homeyness and can possess a certain emotional indifference, are always in some capacity formal in the strict sense, making sure an implicit protocol is being followed, however amorphous its genesis and operation may be.
    I typically hang out with betas and a couple of people from other quadras mixed in. I used to do this sort of thing (orphans under my wing) much to the dismay of some people. I would find some wallflower, loner, in the corner and bring them into the group. The more I showed that I liked the person and included them in the group, even speaking out, vehemently, on their behalf if someone tried to mess with them, the more others also started to include and invite them. It is like I grabbed them by the hand and pulled them into the VIP section, ignoring all protocol AND I got away with it.

    People did this for me too along the way, and I really appreciated it, so I decided to bring others (like me) in when I was in a position to do so.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  34. #34
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,290
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Distributing the workload of undesirable tasks equally amongst myself and others is something I prefer, rather than placing the burden on one or two individuals, because that would not seem fair to me.

  35. #35
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    I typically hang out with betas and a couple of people from other quadras mixed in. I used to do this sort of thing (orphans under my wing) much to the dismay of some people. I would find some wallflower, loner, in the corner and bring them into the group. The more I showed that I liked the person and included them in the group, even speaking out, vehemently, on their behalf if someone tried to mess with them, the more others also started to include and invite them. It is like I grabbed them by the hand and pulled them into the VIP section, ignoring all protocol AND I got away with it.

    People did this for me too along the way, and I really appreciated it, so I decided to bring others (like me) in when I was in a position to do so.
    that's cool of you. the most I've ever seen happen in a beta-dominant group, is a latent potentate unexpectedly making a few inroads or nice moves and being shuffled up through the hierarchy accordingly... the one thing I've always appreciated about betas, is that they're flexible, in this regard. but I've never seen such an archetypal experience pan out. though I'm sure it's possible, I know if I found someone I deemed worthy I could easily convince everyone else present that they needed to be elevated. personally I'm used to always occupying a place of kind of low-key respect.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  36. #36
    suedehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyone I meet or take a liking seems to exist in a vacuum, and I don't feel attached to contexts. I ignore anything that isn't relevant to me and I move where I want to. This mindset produces a feeling of bittersweet isolation, and it somehow gives me the sense that the distinction between a bum and someone who's functional is illusory and most people exist in a constant state of transition, with the possibility of degradation/self-destruction always being there.
    Last edited by suedehead; 03-22-2015 at 07:19 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •