Is there any purpose to these dichotomies? ESI gets thrown in to result instead of process, IEI is farsighted along with LSE and the list goes on. Why are they even allowed to roam the earth freely?
Is there any purpose to these dichotomies? ESI gets thrown in to result instead of process, IEI is farsighted along with LSE and the list goes on. Why are they even allowed to roam the earth freely?
Reinin Dichotomies are harder to understand, and not well described, but I've found many uses for Reinin especially dichotomies like Aristocratic/democratic, Static/Dynamic. Process/Result is a very useful Reinin, but it's not authoritatively described.
I think one has to have a great deal of experience with people and understand psychology/philosophy/etc in general before one tries to tackle Reinin from a exploratory standpoint.
Static/Dynamic is solid, and the idea of Process/Result is too, but looking at my ESI mother I can most assuredly say that she does not fit result. Or carefree. But after that it seems to be mostly guesswork at best. Like the NF club is the club that can twist the perspective of a person in a way that reveals positive sides of people, yet this club is exclusively aristocratic. The poor definitions (on some) doesn't help either.
From the way carefree is described, ESI's would be carefree. Also ESI are most definitely a result type imo. Maybe your mom isn't ESI?
NF's seek a sort of moral and spiritual purity and that is what makes them aristocratic, they might twist the perspective of a person in a positive manner(whatever this means), but they will also often have strict views on moral/spiritual purity which leads to a kind of elitism or separation of themselves. Ghandi is a good example of this along with many others, living a life of asceticism and/or engaging in many cleansing acts and practices.
I am sure that she is. She is like an ESI of the Fi subtype caricature.
But at the same time, Gandhi fought for equality and started by protesting against the apartheid in South Africa. So without twisting this discussion for an infinity, he did start his activism career by protesting against the "aristocracy" in South Africa where he considered it to be wrong that a person could be judged based on their ethnicity.
Reinin's stuff is not for a beginner, not at all. It enhances understanding, but can also produce a lot of confusion. There are no good introductions to it, even from Reinin himself. I love Reinin, but I cannot recommend him. He is frustrating.
Socionics -
the16types.info
They're derived mathematically from mixing the four dichotomies. What they actually mean is the meat of the problem. You'd be well-advised to take any one dichotomy's name vis a vis the dichotomy's meaning (e.g. process, aristocratic) with a pinch of salt when making your fomulations.
Yet he also created a situation where he made himself and his family set apart from the average person. His family today is the aristocracy in India and as corrupt as any old aristocratic family.
Just because someone fights against the old aristocracy doesn't mean they don't engage in the same practices.
afaik, aristocracy is commonly intended to identify types that view social interactions in terms of clearly defined ingroup and outgroup preferences, but doesn't cast the type of group in stone. it could be race, street gang, or something more abstract like ideological orientation. look into any east coast / west coast rivalry for a primer on aristocracy in a competitive but reasonably friendly context.
much speculation has been laid about the seeming irreconcilability between delta values and the decisiveness of aristocratic social classifications. gulenko has argued that negativism rather than aristocracy accounts for promoting ingroup integrity against outgroup intrusion. I'll leave you to wade through that mess.
Last edited by xerx; 12-01-2013 at 04:06 AM.
Socionics -
the16types.info
You're right, I'm wrong. But still he created a standard which is not replicated for the average person, which is what aristocracy often does. Ideals about purity is more or less a aristocratic sort of concept. Purity of race, purity of virtue, sharia law, are all founded on the same ideals yet can often be quite despotic.
Here you go. I translated it a few years back.
I think it can be both. However the influence of Negativism is a bit inconsistent. Types like LII and ILI can seem aristocratic/pedantic/stuffy while types like IEI can be more open and accommodating.
Also types like EIE can be extremely aristocratic and excluding.
There is likely a mix of traits that influence what can be viewed as aristocratic behavior/democratic behavior, but what is important imo is that democratic and aristocratic quadras share clubs and mutual activities. This overlap creates a reason to gather AND a reason to engage conflict, as they have different viewpoints on the shared domain.
Also, Delta "aristocracy" isn't the same as beta "aristocracy", it is a more decentralized aristocracy with a council of elders vs hierarchy of merit/superiority/strength.
However these forms of organization would be quite different than "democratic" organizations.
Democracy in socionics is within the realm of NT's(researchers) and SF's(socials), this is quite a bit different than pragmatists and humanitarians.
Pragmatists isn't even a good term for it imo, it's more Pragmatists tends towards a sort of consequentialism or utilitarianism which leaves very little room for creativity or experimentation while humanitarians strive for a purity which also leaves very little room for moral ambiguity and experimentation in that area of life.
Democratic organizations are often based on systems of checks and balances as well as social considerations which make assessment of ideals such as "merit" or "virtue" harder to determine, however it doesn't entirely divorce itself from these concepts either.
Because clubs form activity from the same strong functions, they all share a lot of similarities and characteristics, and clubs in socionics is the main division of shared activities and concerns.
It's very hard to go into specifics about this because concepts of Aristocracy and Democracy evolve and change, while imo the club differences are something of a driving force in the evolution.
This seems like quite an idealized view of the clubs. Also from this answer I am not quite sure which parts of this it is that you have found in literature and what is your personal view of it. If you did more elaborate distinctions in what it is that differ aristocratic from democratic then that would be helpful.
Btw, what's your type?
According to the aristocrat/democrat dichotomy Reinin makes sense IMO