Insights in the Aristocratic and Democratic attitudes on membership

[The Ineffable]

Membership to groups can be exclusive or not, in Socionics the two views are in my opinion represented by the Aristocratic and respectively Democratic [1] attitudes. Aristocratic inclusion is an either/or operation, "you are either with us or not", in extreme cases it can be "either with or against". Why does this happen? What I observe as a rule in the Aristocratic attitudes is consistency, unity and totality [2], these can alone guarantee the integrity of the group (in this view) and total prevention of undesirable incidents at a social scale. I can see two situations when this integrity can be threatened:

- conflict of practical interests of two or more groups. If the member belongs to both and neither is his "true" group, the unity with each is broken. You can't belong to us but withdraw in conflict, or even worse, take the other side. It just doesn't work like that, the membership would be merely symbolic, in reality meaningless. Membership means a persistent sense of common interest.
- differences in ideology between two or more groups. When ideology defines the Aristocratic group, this group is synthetic and can include members with different interests, however they can't be allowed to have a different ideology than the group, not even partly, because that breaks the group principle of integrity (the ideology is correct entirely), the result is that you don't respect the definition and you are therefore excluded.

I assume few would have the difficulty in associating the two views with the Delta and respectively Beta Aristocratic attitudes. The interesting part to me is that counter-intuitively, the Delta type of consistency is not internal, but actually external and contingent, therefore related rather to Te than to Fi, internal (one's view) is only the sympathy. I can now associate extreme Delta sort of attitude with groups like family business, Mafia, while the Beta one with totalitarian states (Nazi DE, Soviet Union, N Korea) or radical religion. Nationalism, IME, can be of both kinds.

It should be noted that Beta types are highly individualistic, which at a glance comes in contradiction with the idea of Aristocratic type, but it is not. As stated above, ideological groups are synthetic and can include people of different interests and sympathies; as long as their thinking is correct, they can't step wrong but in "trivial" matters, the ones that are not addressed by the ideal. If say this ideal consists only of believing they are the descendants of Atlantis, then they are allowed to do anything but doubting this, everyone who are perceived to doubt or dispute it being banished.
---

Now what about Democratic attitude? Can't it from groups? Yes, it can [3], but unlike the Aristocratic one, these groups are perceived fragmented, they have goods and bads, or some may be appropriate/useful today but others tomorrow. The groups, the way such people perceive them, are not integer or definitory, they are merely organizations of people who have something in common. Being slightly (or sometimes) different, in action or thought, is perfectly allowed, since they focus on different aspects, the ones they are interested in and the group satisfies. Having this different view, multiple membership is natural, all relationships being of the same tier, in case of conflict of interests or ideas, they find legitimate to adhere to the one that is the most satisfactory or entirely withdraw, when the conflict does not address their concerns, therefore the concept of "treason" can not be applied.
---

[1] - Aristocratic = Beta, Delta; Democratic = Alpha, Gamma.
[2] - "you're an <identity> before everything", "you were born <identity>", etc.
[3] - I can't even conceive Gamma without unified effort and collaboration, which are very efficient.

[Absurd]

What are you basing this off?

I mean, is there some kind of a pool of people you have in mind?

[The Ineffable]

What are you basing this off?

I mean, is there some kind of a pool of people you have in mind?

I mentioned examples of concrete groups that I recalled. What I'm describing there is the attitude itself, not instances specifically. I'm not suggesting that this is the only manner how Aristocratic and Democratic attitudes manifest [1], nor that the respective types will literally and consistently manifest one way or another in one person. In Model A, concrete behavior is arbitrary, social factors are very important and changing views or pursuits [2] do not imply changing type.

I base this explanation on statistical indirect patterns in the reasoning of people I know, typed by me, in the framework of Model A.
---

[1] - although you haven't asked for it, I mention it as a different, but similar false implicature as yours. Its prevention is as important to me, people tend to overlook the non-social applicability of this dichotomy, which I simply don't address here, but I don't dismiss.
[2] - for example switching from technology to art, or the other way around, does not imply a change of type, even if types are described through references to such potential activities. Same goes with mass switch in political support, for instance revolutions.

[Absurd]

Let's see. Which quadra you think is quite against this individualism, as in, taking measures to thwart it and bring it back to, say, cooperation?

[The Ineffable]

Let's see. Which quadra you think is quite against this individualism, as in, taking measures to thwart it and bring it back to, say, cooperation?

I could not say there is one, in an absolute manner. And BTW, I should correct when I mentioned that "Beta types are highly individualistic" but the truth is I found many Beta persons highly individualistic, in my observations.

I think individualism and socialism [1] are emergent and depend on many factors. Emergent means that I don't view it as an actual attribute of a type concept, and as stated in my explanation, both come - when they do - from differences in cognition, in this case what identity is. In the case of Aristocratic attitude, it means this prioritary unity.

Consider this: I take the two approaches as two manners of how membership can be viewed, by anyone, not just the types associated with the respective quadras, although the latter, based on their cognitive values, are at the core [2] prone to the respective attitudes. There are situations when one view is obviously more appropriate than the others for a reasonable person, and in case of threat, a socialist one is the only sensible choice, people are interdependent. Take for instance the simple case of a battle, which I think I exemplified before, defectors are intolerable because if they hadn't showed their support in advance, the others wouldn't have taken the decision to confront the enemy in the first place. They are together in this and they can't do everything they wish individually. This demonstrates that breaking this established unity - I depend on you, you depend on me here, is it understood? - implies an almost direct act of aggression, the consequence of many defecting being that more of the men who stand and fight will die, they can even be slaughtered.

And I don't even think that unitary social views need to be restricted to multiple groups of people, it can be the entire humanity. Think of the fuss over the greenhouse effect, this effect would threaten us all, and if this threat is real, anyone who doesn't comply should be forced to. Individualism would be cnosidered retarded and destructive by the majority. In theory. But as we know, this is a complex matter in reality, people have different perceptions about the potential threat, some are skeptical about the arguments, others think they have other priorities, other focus on the offering of new opportunities for gathering power or profit, and so on. Imagine what great pretext for seizing power it would be if a huge asteroid would threaten the Earth, if it requires a global effort . But this is already politics.

The web of social interactions is complex, above I exemplified cases when a Democratic type should adopt an Aristocratic attitude. But the other way around can be easily envisiones. An Aristocratic view over a group or an ideology of Democratic nature creates an apparently paradoxical situation. But the reason that was wrongly expected to determine a socialist view can very easily do the opposite: is that impossible for someone to take individualism as a necessary social norm, of for someone else to self-sacrifice for his Macchiavelian ideal? I think not, people are rarely consistent more than a certain extent.

---

[1] - in our particular sense. This excludes any historical connotations.
[2] - in the absence of external influences, a hypothetical ideal case that I guess can never exist.

[The Ineffable]

(not 100% serious and off-topic) But to answer your question:

Based on the values and the order of functions, and my overall impression on people I typed, I distinguish three types of "anti-individualists" based on three separate criteria:
- Beta - when the criterion is law, order, standards, education, and similar things. Examples: Mordor, Vader's Empire, Nazis, Soviet Union, Apple, tcaudillg's followers, PETA, ISO, random "non-profit" regulatory organization, the one or two members of the International Organization of Random Martial Art Nobody Heard Of, people behind the rules that turned the Western fencing into the joke it is today, etc.
- Gamma - when the criterion is maximum profit and fastest progress, be it material or intellectual. They also are involved in standards and shit, but have a different manner than Betas, they raise awareness and promote indirectly by means of exposure and popularity, as de facto. Examples: Microsoft, Google, USA, the Alpha group on the16types.info, the Nobel Foundation, the Guinness World Records Organization, the Roman Empire, random curators, random art critics, random lobbists, Napoleon's minions, Ashton's minions, people who write "New York Paris London Tokyo" on every perfume, etc.
- Delta - not very different from Gammas, but with a focus on security and internal harmony rather than gain. Examples: The Shire, isolated Amazonian Indians, random rednecks, "<-Absurd, Kassie & Sons->", the blue people from Avatar, Flower-Power, The Greens, The Free Software Foundation, Anonymous ("We are legion"), hippies and junkies who protest at G5.

Although I'm specifically targeting Rationals of the mentioned quadras, I don't dismiss Irrationals.

As a related anecdote. I got this IEE guy at my workplace who almost each day annoys me with his social absolutes and calls to groupthink: "... because it is a good game" (although I told him that it sucks to me and others I know), "everyone does this everyone does that" or "Let's all wear beards for this month. Why? Because it's No-Shave November". I DO NOT AND I WILL NEVER GIVE THE SLIGHTEST FUCK ABOUT NO-SHAVE NOVEMBER, NO-PANTS DAY AND ANYTHING SIMILAR! EVER! And I'm sure I'm not the only one out there. Funny thing is that he understands the connotations of "groupthink" and "hipsterism" but that doesn't seem to affect him in practice.

[Absurd]

Alright. Thanks.

The individualist quadra isn't so individualist it seems.

I think I got it.

There was a guy typed by many gamma. He was quite opposed to the notion of individuality. You could see him protest against the Tories, for instance, so in your non-serious and off topic post that makes him lean a bit towards delta.

"Delta - not very different from Gammas" - Makes sense.

[Saberstorm]

To The Ineffable: why, oh why, did you not include Alpha in your assessment?

[strrrng]

alphas are the whitewashed collective spreadsheet of individuality... it's hard to be self-referential in that sense lolz

Let's see. Which quadra you think is quite against this individualism, as in, taking measures to thwart it and bring it back to, say, cooperation?

I think the point is that it just comes down to the state of power relations. in the US, you have a clear opposition between a patriarchy of tacitly enforced morality and the most bland kind of carte blanche-- 'as long as it's channeled through the correct proxy, mm yess?' but this varies across culture and history.

you will see aristocratic quadras stress this divide against one another the most strongly. their order can never be complete.

but overall, deltas seem to implicitly accept more variety among people, and make efforts to integrate this into their leviathan-esque conveyor belt... like in an ideal delta world, everyone would just be living through an automated dream of themselves, without ever forgetting that we each bring equal substance (to the woodchipper)... at least this is how it seems. betas tend to stress individuality on some kind of principle; not so much that they are a unique person, just that the expression of their inner states will never occur through a formula, even if perfect. but this is juxtaposed against what deltas would probably see as an ideological death oath; while reluctant of anything imposed, the cell-lstructures that sprout as a result of ballroom-esque interplay are taken very seriously.


Road to Perdition is classic delta family business; Hanks' character is probably LSI... going rogue to recalibrate the structure via poetic justice

[ArchonAlarion]

It's probably best to strip the names "democratic" and "aristocratic" from the dichotomy. Personally, I'm still wary of the terms. Before getting to any specific social conceptions, we should first discuss where the ST's converge on their social orientation, where the NT's do, etc. Then see to what extent the NF's concur with ST's and the SF's with the NT's.

I feel that the notions of aristocratic and democratic have become too much based on anecdotal experiences, whereas they should have some deductive substance. What makes the combination of sensory and thinking "aristocratic" for example?

[The Ineffable]

To The Ineffable: why, oh why, did you not include Alpha in your assessment?

I had no reason to.

alphas are the whitewashed collective spreadsheet of individuality... it's hard to be self-referential in that sense lolz

[The Ineffable]

I feel that the notions of aristocratic and democratic have become too much based on anecdotal experiences, whereas they should have some deductive substance. What makes the combination of sensory and thinking "aristocratic" for example?

Not sure how this translates into the actual social perception of As/Ds, but Aristocratics seem to clearly separate the practical and the imaginary, while Democratics mix them, for instance trying to apply a new theory in real life. That is explained by the blocking.

Indeed it would be really good to be able to model this at one point, moment that would probably allow us to come up with more appropriate and generic titles. I'm often trying to find this, but no luck so far :|.
---

What I consider so far:
- Sensing and Logic are External ("real", proven, justified), in an Aristocratic type they block together, as so do the Internal elements (Intuition, Ethics: hypothetical, feelings, suppositions, filling in the dots).
- Aristocracy seems to be either related or similar to Rationality, and Democracy with Irrationality. I can find a connection in the fact that Rationality consists in the correlation between Extroversion and Dynamicity, while Aristocracy in the Externality of the two functions in a block. Just so does the Extroversion and Externality in a function for Judicious/Decisive and Merry/Serious. That means that in Aristocratic, Rational and Decisive&Serious, the experiential "stuff" on one hand and the subjective on the other are bulked in separate functions or blocks, which overall give these types some sort of righteousness in taking decisions, while in Democratic, Irrational and Judicious&Merry, the mixing of the two aspects give them attitudes of exploring and adapting.
---

To better understand the underlying concepts I use, I mark with 1 (and in red when they correlate) what requires experience or reference to it; with 0 (and in blue what correlates) what does not, what is "brewed" in the mind. First digit is Extroverted/Introverted, second digit is Dynamic/Static, third being External/Internal.
- SLE: Se/Ti = 101/001; Irrational: 101/001; Decisive: 101/001; Merry: 101/001; Aristocratic: 101/001
- ESI: Fe/Se = 000/101; Rational: 000/101; Decisive: 000/101; Serious: 000/101; Democratic: 000/101
- LSE: Te/Si = 111/011; Rational: 111/011; Judicious: 111/011; Serious: 111/011; Aristocratic: 111/011

Note that in Socionics, the real names for Rational/Irrational are Schizothym (as in Schizothymia) and respectively Cyclothym (as in Cyclothymia) that Aushra explained, the notions of "schizo" (separation) and "cyclo" (alternation) very accurately describe the way I understand all these dichotomies, in my case: schizo = blue+blue or red+red, cyclo = blue+red. Understanding this requires accepting the above, that the 6 partitions of the three fundamental dichotomies are separated in two categories in respect to reference to experience. Not only that this way I find a nearly perfect match of separate analyses - descriptions of types, dichotomies, Information Elements and Information Aspects - I also think this is mandatory for a deeper and more complete understanding.

[Saberstorm]

Does the democratic irrational's exploring and adapting involve action?

Do the actions taken by the democratic irrational involve the command of others? or the use of resources?

[The Ineffable]

Does the democratic irrational's exploring and adapting involve action?

Do the actions taken by the democratic irrational involve the command of others? or the use of resources?

I would say not necessarily, either of them. I have no specific opinion on these details, in what A/D is concerned.

If this observation matters, IME SEEs would often use their command or influence upon others.

[redbaron]

purely anecdotal... I had a friend, SLE who was very much all-or-nothing with everyone. Once he decides you're "in" his life, you're in. But if he decides, for whatever reason, that he's had enough of you, you're suddenly blocked from his Facebook and erased from every corner. It's quite odd and I think a lot more extreme than most. He's not snooty when it comes to socio-economic status, but he IS snooty with other things, with character, intellect, political views. He'll act like it's okay for you to disagree with him, but all the while he will subtly try to win you over to his side (if he cares about the friendship). Any attempt on your part to win him over to your side, is seen as aggressive. LOL But it was funny how he called ME out on being aristocratic (and he knows nothing of socionics by the way) and yet is very much that way himself.

[EyeSeeCold]

purely anecdotal... I had a friend, SLE who was very much all-or-nothing with everyone. Once he decides you're "in" his life, you're in. But if he decides, for whatever reason, that he's had enough of you, you're suddenly blocked from his Facebook and erased from every corner.

This sounds like something SLE, ESI and ILI would do. I'm going to go ahead and assume EIE does it also. Negativist-Decisive-Constructivist(Inert Ethics) quaternion

Makes for a pretty tight-knit and loyal group, but also drastic and delicate.

[redbaron]

This sounds like something SLE, ESI and ILI would do. I'm going to go ahead and assume EIE does it also. Negativist-Decisive-Constructivist(Inert Ethics) quaternion

Makes for a pretty tight-knit and loyal group, but also drastic and delicate.

yes. interestingly, I dated an ESI who was also much this way. Much less dramatic in his expressions of it, but the results felt similar. I think I'm somewhat drawn to this sort of thing because being chose to be "in" makes me feel special. ha

[Gilly]

This sounds like something SLE, ESI and ILI would do. I'm going to go ahead and assume EIE does it also. Negativist-Decisive-Constructivist(Inert Ethics) quaternion

Makes for a pretty tight-knit and loyal group, but also drastic and delicate.

Funny, I was just oggling at how much I related to that description.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Funny, I was just oggling at how much I related to that description.

You're doing it again.

[woofwoofl]

Gamma - the Alpha group on the16types.info

priceless

[Korpsy Knievel]

Gamma is henceforth to be known as the IRC Party.

[silke]

purely anecdotal... I had a friend, SLE who was very much all-or-nothing with everyone. Once he decides you're "in" his life, you're in. But if he decides, for whatever reason, that he's had enough of you, you're suddenly blocked from his Facebook and erased from every corner. It's quite odd and I think a lot more extreme than most. He's not snooty when it comes to socio-economic status, but he IS snooty with other things, with character, intellect, political views. He'll act like it's okay for you to disagree with him, but all the while he will subtly try to win you over to his side (if he cares about the friendship). Any attempt on your part to win him over to your side, is seen as aggressive. LOL But it was funny how he called ME out on being aristocratic (and he knows nothing of socionics by the way) and yet is very much that way himself.

SLEs and IEIs seem to have a kind of inner aristocracy where they will silently measure people up, while EIEs and LSIs create it and exhibit it more openly towards their environment, how they rank others is more visible. I think it has something to do with process/result dichotomy, IEI-SLE being the result dyad and LSI-EIE the process one. Process type aristocrats seem more aristocratic to me than the result ones.

yes. interestingly, I dated an ESI who was also much this way. Much less dramatic in his expressions of it, but the results felt similar. I think I'm somewhat drawn to this sort of thing because being chose to be "in" makes me feel special. ha

a few ESIs I've known have been this way too, while my EII friend more openly shares her preferences likes and dislikes thus actively creating an inner and an outer group

[strrrng]

I don't really have solid categories for people, or even a standard; but over time certain qualities stick together, and natural preferences can be evaluated in terms of a given thing's purpose. it's actually become second nature for me to assess a person solely on their appearance, whether it be the color combination of their outfit, or the texture of their jawline during a yawn -- it's all the same, essentially. but it's about how it feels at that time, so while I may be able to place two black guys with kanye glasses in one category; in another scenario they could be in two totally different ones. actually now that I'm writing this I see that the process itself is completely arbitrary, but the fact that everything always aligns is enough for me, cause I don't have the time to wade through that much bullshit, nor the naivete to take the special snowflake approach. if you're a lesbian who lives in maine, chances are there's a dead cat in your attic, which you more than likely don't know about. if one assumption is a stretch, a blip is scratched, and the next harvest begins. sometimes I'm judgmental, but growing up with an ESE mother who refused to even consider the logic in saying that the jews deserved what they got because they consented to it, or that black people who are only here because of their grandpa's servitude have no right to complain, only tightened the edges. people basically don't exist outside the ideas that contain them unless they demonstrate an understanding of how they do; but as our führer spoketh, emotion for the many, reason for the few. and so we go.

[Gilly]

You're doing it again.

Stay in your corner, ******.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Stay in your corner, ******.

The name's Afro-Futurist, or Black ****** if you're nasty.

[Gilly]

You can have as much zyklon b as you want if you suck out of my white cock

[Saberstorm]

I hope you guys are secretly friends...

[Gilly]

I hope you guys are secretly friends...

You want some too?

[Saberstorm]

In no way do I shut anybody out of my life - I keep my friends close and my I keep my enemies closer...unless they are functionally inert.

[The Ineffable]

Okay, I recently had an accidental insight that finally made me correlate the core IE dichotomies with the high-level ones. The only possible logical operations for composition are XOR and XNOR, I will conventionally use XOR as I don't see a reason to have an additional negation (it's the same thing at the end, just inverted notations). I will temporary - because it is too abstract - use handles [1] for naming this binary distinction: "natural" (related to particular, "cyclo", empirical, mixed, concepts of objects, objective) VS "transcendental" (related to universal, "schizo", separation, segregation, abstract, concepts alone, subjective) [2]. The IA notation of 0 transcendental and 1 natural works with XOR, therefore I will keep it.

The following table is not complete. "Primary type" is only informative. I will unify my view on dichotomies with the one on the functions, therefore I will be able to add the attitudes (either individual or social, if applicable) in it as well. This apparently enables me the option to sort all my understanding in one unified and consistent architectonic. It remains to be seen whether absolutely everything fits when I place in all the knowledge - including observations - together.

Primary Type	Trasncendental (0)	Natural (1)	Misc
--------------------	---------------------------	---------------	-------
	Accepting (Acc)	Producing (Prod)
	Mental	Vital	Hypothetical, used below at S/D Conscious
	Valued	Subdued	Hypothetical, not used so far
	Strong	Weak	Hypothetical, not used so far
1st tier IE	Fields (F)	Bodies (B)
1st tier IE	Static (S)	Dynamic (D)
1st tier IE	Internal (Int)	External (Ext)
2nd tier IE	Judging (J)	Perceiving (P)	B/F XOR D/S; as IEs, not attitudes
2nd tier IE	Decisive, Serious (Sym)	Judicious, Merry (Asym)	B/F XOR Ext/Int; as Valued IEs
2nd tier IE	Unknown1-0 (U1-0)	Unknown1-1 (U1-1)	D/S XOR Int/Ext
3rd tier IE	Involved (U2-0)	Abstract (U2-1)	J/P XOR Int/Ext or B/F XOR Sym/Asym - it's the same result, presumably an explainable equivalence [3]
Function Attitude	Introtim (InV)	Extratim (ExV)	Acc/Prod XOR B/F
Function Attitude	Rational (Rat)	Irrational (Irr)	J/P XOR Acc/Prod
Value Attitude	Serious (Ser)	Decisive (Dec)	J/P XOR Sym/Asym
Value Attitude	Judicious (Jud)	Merry (Mer)	J/P XOR Sym/Asym
Block Attitude	Aristocratic (Ars)	Democratic (Dem)	XOR between Block Ext/Int - the only possible Block attitude, based on the 1st tier IE distinctions
Block Attitude	Democratic (Dem')	Aristocratic (Dem')	XOR between Block U2-0/U2-1
Ring Attitude	Static type	Dynamic type	The only possible Ring attitude, based on the 1st tier IE distinctions. Although the nature of the Mental Ring is disputable, it is obvious that a Static Metal makes a type just "Static"

There is no mistake in placing each of Aristocratic and Democratic in both categories! There are two different aspects that are considered. The former is more intuitive and fits more directly the observations that Aristocratic types are more judgmental and discriminating, much in line with other "Transcendental" partitions - especially Rational, Ethical, Serious and Decisive. It is sometimes hard to tell where a related behavior comes from. On the other hand, the second arrangement - although not that noticeable - correlates the view on the Democratic types as not being grounded, not in tune with immediate social realities and historical background (so detached).
---

[1] - these names are currently only handles, their literal meaning is irrelevant. While "transcendental" seems insightful in most cases, "natural" is potentially misguiding, I picked it because it is the antonym of "transcendental". They fit with premeditation, conscious, rationalization, judgment (transcendental) VS spontaneity, unconscious, obviousness, intuition (as in intuitive), "just comes" (natural). "Schizo" (split, detachment) and respectively "Cyclo" (cycle, alternation) would be more appropriate but I don't know what root to add to these prefixes .
[2] - each partition relates to the enumerated ideas, but regarding different aspects, this excludes any intentional equivalence made between any two elements of each enumeration. If someone, for example, would equalize "objects" with "objective" based on these categories, I am absolved of any fault. ...and obviously, the said person is an idiot, as seen in the Socionics VS Jung "object" dispute.
[3] - No name so far, as a standalone dichotomy. Symmetrical/Asymmetrical based on the conventional order of the IE distinction I use: B/F 1st, D/S 2nd, Ext/Int 3rd.
[4] - Yes, TheHotelAmbush, I now acknowledge the existence of such dichotomy, just now I have a reason for performing the operation, I don't pull the XOR out of my ass as you did. I name them Unknown2 because I don't know if Gulenko's naming is appropriate; even if "Abstract/Involved" are applicable on behavior, they can definitely not be applied to cognition as they are, rather inversed. I would appreciate if someone could point me out again to any known description if this dichotomy. I still maintain my opinion that this dichotomy is of a different tier than any other IE dichotomy. There are 7 IE distinction in 3 tiers.

[Absurd]

I think I know now what meta means, Guava.