A possible explanation for this trait regarding group thinking goes as follows. Aristocratic reasoning merely structures logically (
) characteristics they have observed (
) in several individuals, being thus a logical "connecting of the dots" applied to people. From a purely logical
perspective applied to
perceptions and goals, it makes perfect sense to assume that, if you perceive an individual as belonging to a group posssessing some traits you have already concluded are characteristic of that group, said individual will exhibit those traits. For example, if in your experience so far (
) all persons belonging to a particular division in a company have been unhelpful, it makes sense to conclude logically (
) in a purely impersonal way that that is a characteristic of that division, and extrapolate that to further persons from that group. From the point of view of primitive societies or situations of non-organized warfare and conflict, such a reasoning may even be crucial for survival since it allows you to estimate who your enemies are before they attack you.
By contrast, the Democratic reasoning focuses on observations
on a case-by-case basis, that is of the individual they happen to be interacting with at the moment (
). A focus on
does not lead to creating logical structures, but to forming stable connections to persons on individual-to-indvidual basis, and in that case there is no point to, and no inclination for, considerations of whether the observed reality
of the person fits into a broader logical structure of a group (
).
This explanation seems more obvious in connection to the Beta quadra; far less so in the case of Delta since the
+
block is subdued. Another way of explaining this for Delta might be through the
+
block; on the basis that the realization of someone's potential (
) is realized via connections with others (
), and that one of Delta's characteristics is the formation of groups towards worthy and productive goals.