society, types, functions, and eras

[liveandletlive]

I got to thinking today how far we as a society (US at least) have come in just the past century. It is hard to imagine that about a century ago (more or less) blacks were considered 1/3 of whites and women were men's property and did not have the right to vote or own property, etc. Now not only have blacks and women gained more rights, but racism and sexism although of course still prevalent in society are almost absurd notions to those who are young, educated, liberal, or really anyone who is not ignorant in society. This is so much so the case that racist and sexist jokes made among people of my generation are just that- jokes. no matter how mean or harsh they may be. We also have 2 serious contenders running for president who are a woman (hill) and black man (bamz). Society has also started to become more accepting of homosexuals than they ever were in the past with California recently making homosexual marriage legal and New York giving homosexual partners the same rights as married people. Sooo here are my questions:


1. What functions do you think we, as a society, used to value as opposed to now if they are different at all.

2. Are there types that you think would thrive or do better or enjoy more particular time periods in particular places?

3. What time period and where would you prefer to be in if you could choose and what do you think this says about you in terms of socionics?


Now only #2 pencils will be accepted. Please put your name, section number, and discussion instructor's name on your essay booklet. You have 90 minutes to complete the exam.

i felt like my intro and 3 questions totally sounded like an in-class essay exam.

[Expat]

I'd just suggest a less US-centric view of such issues. Also, I don't think it's true that women couldn't own property in the US 100 years ago. Or earlier. What did exist, until 1870 or whenever, is that the property of married women was controlled by the husband.

The changes you have cited are related to changes in the economic structure of society; and to changes in science and technology, in my opinion.

Having said that, legal rights of groups are related to + .

[Ms. Kensington]

I'd just suggest a less US-centric view of such issues. Also, I don't think it's true that women couldn't own property in the US 100 years ago. Or earlier. What did exist, until 1870 or whenever, is that the property of married women was controlled by the husband.

The changes you have cited are related to changes in the economic structure of society; and to changes in science and technology, in my opinion.

Having said that, legal rights of groups are related to + .

what legal rights would you think would involve Ti and Ne?

[Ms. Kensington]

1. What functions do you think we, as a society, used to value as opposed to now if they are different at all.

2. Are there types that you think would thrive or do better or enjoy more particular time periods in particular places?

3. What time period and where would you prefer to be in if you could choose and what do you think this says about you in terms of socionics?

hm.. well i think that there is more emphasis on a global outlook and in creativity within systems.. I can see applications of Ne but this might not be exclusively related to Ne types.

I prefer to live in the time that is cutting edge or to see the future.

[Expat]

what legal rights would you think would involve Ti and Ne?

Maybe those that apply to everyone without distinction.

[liveandletlive]

I'd just suggest a less US-centric view of such issues. Also, I don't think it's true that women couldn't own property in the US 100 years ago. Or earlier. What did exist, until 1870 or whenever, is that the property of married women was controlled by the husband.

The changes you have cited are related to changes in the economic structure of society; and to changes in science and technology, in my opinion.

Having said that, legal rights of groups are related to + .

ure rite i apologize for my exclusivity and lack of knowledge about world history... im an american DUH haha but id be interested to hear what you'd have to say about 2 and 3 tho especially since u no so much about history

[Exodus]

Maybe those that apply to everyone without distinction.

Yes, general principles like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as opposed to things linked to possession, power, and hierarchy. But "possession is 9/10 of the law".

[Expat]

ure rite i apologize for my exclusivity and lack of knowledge about world history... im an american DUH haha but id be interested to hear what you'd have to say about 2 and 3 tho especially since u no so much about history

I wrote on that here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...tional_quadras

[Ezra]

Personally, I don't see this as a changing of values (that is, a changing of the functions). People have always thought in a variety of diverse ways. What it is is society's changing in general. I mean, two thousand five hundred years ago in ancient Athens, democracy was considered the most efficient type of government. One and a half thousand years later, feudal rule was generally considered to be the most efficient kind of government. And this doesn't count the native American nations, who felt their most effective way of life was nomadism. So what does this tell us? Well, that Te has always been prevalent in the running of any given country. Likewise, in ancient Greece, there are your orators, such as Perikles and Thucydides, who most likely used Fe (Perikles certainly did; I've read his speeches) in order to gain more support; they inspired others by claiming what a fantastic state Athens is, and how they have everything Sparta and other states and nations have, plus more. Move forward to America 2008, and you have Obama spewing out his Fe in order to gain support. What does this tell us? Well, same principle as before; Fe was valued, is valued, and always will be valued, as long as society exists.

[liveandletlive]

I wrote on that here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...tional_quadras

wow thats great stuff expat! what shift do you think the US is going through rite now?

[liveandletlive]

Personally, I don't see this as a changing of values (that is, a changing of the functions). People have always thought in a variety of diverse ways. What it is is society's changing in general. I mean, two thousand five hundred years ago in ancient Athens, democracy was considered the most efficient type of government. One and a half thousand years later, feudal rule was generally considered to be the most efficient kind of government. And this doesn't count the native American nations, who felt their most effective way of life was nomadism. So what does this tell us? Well, that Te has always been prevalent in the running of any given country. Likewise, in ancient Greece, there are your orators, such as Perikles and Thucydides, who most likely used Fe (Perikles certainly did; I've read his speeches) in order to gain more support; they inspired others by claiming what a fantastic state Athens is, and how they have everything Sparta and other states and nations have, plus more. Move forward to America 2008, and you have Obama spewing out his Fe in order to gain support. What does this tell us? Well, same principle as before; Fe was valued, is valued, and always will be valued, as long as society exists.

i don't know how much i agree with this. so you're saying that society values Fe> Fi? What others functions do you think it values?

[Expat]

wow thats great stuff expat! what shift do you think the US is going through rite now?

No shift. The US is Gamma quadra, both culturally and institutionally. It's in a period of "quadra convergence" in culture and institutions. In that article, I included the contemporary US in the "Gamma boom moments", along with the Republic of Venice, the age of Augustus in Rome, and Britain in the period around 1830-1945.

Of course, that doesn't mean that every single US administration will have a Gamma character; it's broader than that. To see those quadra cultural and institutional values, you have to "zoom out" a lot.

[Expat]

Personally, I don't see this as a changing of values (that is, a changing of the functions). People have always thought in a variety of diverse ways. What it is is society's changing in general. I mean, two thousand five hundred years ago in ancient Athens, democracy was considered the most efficient type of government. One and a half thousand years later, feudal rule was generally considered to be the most efficient kind of government.

Which can be interpreted as a shift in the quadra cultural values of society as a whole, regardless of individual people.

And this doesn't count the native American nations, who felt their most effective way of life was nomadism.

They hadn't tried anything else.

So what does this tell us? Well, that Te has always been prevalent in the running of any given country.

Well a lone nomadic hunter will also use Te at some point, to run his own life.

Likewise, in ancient Greece, there are your orators, such as Perikles and Thucydides, who most likely used Fe (Perikles certainly did; I've read his speeches) in order to gain more support; they inspired others by claiming what a fantastic state Athens is, and how they have everything Sparta and other states and nations have, plus more. Move forward to America 2008, and you have Obama spewing out his Fe in order to gain support. What does this tell us? Well, same principle as before; Fe was valued, is valued, and always will be valued, as long as society exists.

Sure, in situations where you have politicians who have to be elected - such as Pericles - then, as in today, a considerable proportion of them will be Fe-focused. That is what it tells us, that the art of electoral politics tends to require Fe. But, still, there are variations in the degree of Fe that is used.

Also, I think that it's interesting that you picked ancient Athens, because, broadly speaking, it is one of the ancient societies with most values in common with our own; so it's easy - very easy - to compare Pericles to Obama (I'm sure he'd love it).

Anyway, in any society, of whichever quadra predominance, the central state will have Beta characteristics, which is what you're seeing.

[Exodus]

Yes, general principles like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as opposed to things linked to possession, power, and hierarchy. But "possession is 9/10 of the law".

Another idea: Ti + Ne describes how individuals come to certain positions in a government, and how specific laws are derived (i.e. from a constitution).

[misutii]

1. What functions do you think we, as a society, used to value as opposed to now if they are different at all.

I think the U.S./Canada currently has Delta/Alpha type values. Watching most news programs (I've seen mainstream news from Toronto/Detroit/Buffalo recently, the news programs seem to strongly value Si. They mix in little "fashion" tips for women and other stuff that has no point except to make the baby boomers feel comfortable. Compare this to British BBC news (which I think is much more Ni+Te), no commercials, less comfort, more facts.

[Exodus]

Are you basing this just on local news programs?

[Expat]

I think the U.S./Canada currently has Delta/Alpha type values. Watching most news programs (I've seen mainstream news from Toronto/Detroit/Buffalo recently, the news programs seem to strongly value Si. They mix in little "fashion" tips for women and other stuff that has no point except to make the baby boomers feel comfortable. Compare this to British BBC news (which I think is much more Ni+Te), no commercials, less comfort, more facts.

Perhaps the main reason for that is that the BBC is supported by state funds.

[Ezra]

i don't know how much i agree with this. so you're saying that society values Fe> Fi? What others functions do you think it values?

What I'm saying is that society will value all eight functions at any given time, regardless of the era.

Which can be interpreted as a shift in the quadra cultural values of society as a whole, regardless of individual people.

Society is a mixture of different people and cultures, and so quadra cultural values will inevitably be mixed. The only time you'll get pretty prominent values will be in, for example, a regime like the Chinese Cultural Revolution (probably Beta, maybe Gamma) or any given fascist state. This is because a single will - a single set of values - is forced on the people, and they have no choice but to accept it.

Well a lone nomadic hunter will also use Te at some point, to run his own life.

[...]

Sure, in situations where you have politicians who have to be elected - such as Pericles - then, as in today, a considerable proportion of them will be Fe-focused. That is what it tells us, that the art of electoral politics tends to require Fe. But, still, there are variations in the degree of Fe that is used.

Also, I think that it's interesting that you picked ancient Athens, because, broadly speaking, it is one of the ancient societies with most values in common with our own; so it's easy - very easy - to compare Pericles to Obama (I'm sure he'd love it).

Yes, but the fact is, in these two cases, people in different eras valued the same functions, and even if the degree of use was different, it wasn't so different as to say that the functions actually changed.

The only reason we know about the Roman and Greek ways of life is because of the sheer amount of sources from which we can induce facts about how they lived. It is quite possible that we could know that the Mesoamerican civilisations had also used Fe to the extent that Pericles had done in Ancient Greece, had they left more sources. To say that societies use Ti or Se or Fe or Ni or whatever is an inductive technique. Basically, what we have indicates that x is the case, and if x has always been the case in these situations, then x is always the case. It's a claim that logically follows.

Anyway, in any society, of whichever quadra predominance, the central state will have Beta characteristics, which is what you're seeing.

Interesting. Do you mean to say that, for example, Gamma only actually started to spread their wings in, say, the 19th century, when money-making was at its fullest potential?

Compare this to British BBC news (which I think is much more Ni+Te), no commercials, less comfort, more facts.

I'll give you credit for more Te equating to more facts, but the reason we have no advertisements in between is because it's a government-funded news channel (I know, sounds totalitarian, but the BBC has a lot of power over government, surprisingly). I don't know where you got the idea of "less comfort". How can you apply comfortability to a news channel?

[Expat]

Society is a mixture of different people and cultures, and so quadra cultural values will inevitably be mixed. The only time you'll get pretty prominent values will be in, for example, a regime like the Chinese Cultural Revolution (probably Beta, maybe Gamma) or any given fascist state. This is because a single will - a single set of values - is forced on the people, and they have no choice but to accept it.

First, why would you even consider Gamma for the Cultural Revolution? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Second, I addressed that issue in that article in the wiki. Of course quadra values, both cultural and institutional, will always be mixed, and the only way to achieve a "pure" quadra is through totalitarianism. But just because you don't have "purity" it doesn't mean you can't have predominance of one quadra over the others.

Which is pretty much the same kind of arguments when typing people, by the way.

Interesting. Do you mean to say that, for example, Gamma only actually started to spread their wings in, say, the 19th century, when money-making was at its fullest potential?

Again, I addressed that in that article in the wiki.

All quadras have always been present in all societies and ages. Yet, we also know that societies, if looked at as a whole, in a broad-brush way, also have different values (even if not every single individual in those societies will agree with them).

The Beta quadra is the one whose "expertise" is to mobilize a group against a common enemy. That is, almost by definition, the original reason for a centralized state, and for the medieval monarchies in particular. Of course people have always focused on money-making, if at all possible, everywhere; but, in the British case for instance, the visible "shifts" to more money-making were in the reign of Elizabeth I (precisely after the external threat - the Spanish Armada - had been defeated), perhaps the Restoration, and yes, in the 19th century, after the defeat of Napoleon.

It is nothing new, in historical studies, to suggest that Britain could "devote herself" more to money-making becase the sea diminished the perception of a need to mobilize against external enemies; I am just putting it in socionics terms.

Also, the monarchy, in Britain as elsewhere, is a Beta institution. Even the presidency of the United States, as in institution, is a diluted form of Beta. But in the case of the British monarchy, it is worthy of not that it has survived by becoming more Gamma, that is, connected to the respect and admiration that people feel for the person of the monarch. In the early 19th century, you could still have a buffoon such as George IV as Prince Regent and King for a total of 20 years. Later, the monarchy survived largely due to the personal prestige of Victoria, Edward VII, George V, George VI and Elizabeth II, at least as much as due to respect for the institution as such. At least as much Fi as Ti.

[Joy]

I got to thinking today how far we as a society (US at least) have come in just the past century. It is hard to imagine that about a century ago (more or less) blacks were considered 1/3 of whites and women were men's property and did not have the right to vote or own property, etc. Now not only have blacks and women gained more rights, but racism and sexism although of course still prevalent in society are almost absurd notions to those who are young, educated, liberal, or really anyone who is not ignorant in society. This is so much so the case that racist and sexist jokes made among people of my generation are just that- jokes. no matter how mean or harsh they may be. We also have 2 serious contenders running for president who are a woman (hill) and black man (bamz). Society has also started to become more accepting of homosexuals than they ever were in the past with California recently making homosexual marriage legal and New York giving homosexual partners the same rights as married people. Sooo here are my questions:


1. What functions do you think we, as a society, used to value as opposed to now if they are different at all.

2. Are there types that you think would thrive or do better or enjoy more particular time periods in particular places?

3. What time period and where would you prefer to be in if you could choose and what do you think this says about you in terms of socionics?


Now only #2 pencils will be accepted. Please put your name, section number, and discussion instructor's name on your essay booklet. You have 90 minutes to complete the exam.

i felt like my intro and 3 questions totally sounded like an in-class essay exam.

I don't have time to write an essay style response atm, but I can say that if I'd been born into most eras/societies that have existed in the world thus far, I probably would have gotten myself stoned (or something of the like) within my first 20 or so years of life.

[Creepy-bg]

I don't have time to write an essay style response atm, but I can say that if I'd been born into most eras/societies that have existed in the world thus far, I probably would have gotten myself stoned (or something of the like) within my first 20 or so years of life.

interesting because that's what I've been doing for the last 20 or so years of my life

[Joy]

I wrote on that here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...tional_quadras

It's interesting to think of this concept in terms of short, medium, and long term trends... trends within trends.

EDIT: I suppose "cycles" would be a more accurate term than trends.

interesting because that's what I've been doing for the last 20 or so years of my life

LOL

[misutii]

Are you basing this just on local news programs?

Absolutely not. I just limited the example because I was lazy at the time. There's plenty more that I think shows US/Canada is in a Delta/Alpha stage.

BUSINESSES

Businesses are increasingly being defined by their quarterly earnings. In other words the "Long-Term" is actually quite short. What are long-term forecasts these days? 2 years? if? Maximizing profit may have something to do with Te but making it dependent on the short-term is contrary to Ni. My ENTj uncle, who's high up at his company, was recently telling me how the one thing he dislikes about his job is that everything is judged on quarterly results. Both of us agreed that the 'traditional' business model (whereby businesses pandered less to their shareholders and focused more on the long-term is superior) An example of a Delta/Alpha value company in the modern day is Wal-Mart and an example of a 'traditional' business-type company is Virgin. Wal-Mart focuses it's resources on monetary growth simply so that it can grow more. There's less risk, less direction, and less things of value produced. Now compare to Virgin, which panders less to its shareholders and more to good old fashioned risk based businesses... case in point - Virgin is investing in the ability to bring tourists into space. While most companies (like Wal-Mart) don't see the point (or simply lack the direction of) making such risky investments, businesses where Ni is valued would be more likely to.


EDUCATION

The education system here is quite blatantly Ne and Si valuing. Even post-secondary institutions. Fact is that "doing well", academically, is simply based on putting the time in to do your homework. Furthermore more attention is being placed on keeping the 'dumb' people afloat than on allowing the 'bright' people to realize their potential. I have two Gamma friends (an ENTj and INTp) that were placed in the gifted program in elementary school, because standardized IQ testing took place. In high school there wasn't any gifted program, result? both flunked out. So now while I already have my university degree they've both just begun their first year. This 'inclusiveness' concept, of not separating people, is Delta by my knowledge. It's also stupid. High school and university are becoming increasingly practical.

We're taught science not from an historical stanpoint (i.e. The universe began with the big bang, us humans are made up of star dust, the periodic table that you are memorizing is important because the elements in it are what make up the stars you see in the night etc.) but from a standpoint based on adhering to a an established method for practical reasons)

Finally, universities are increasingly becoming intellectualy cowardly. Students are forbidden from openly discussing issues deemed too "controversial". Simply put the institutions are pandering to any minority that demands it be pandered too. There was controversy at my university in my last year because a muslim girl found it 'discriminative against her religion' that she had to make nude drawings for her art class. People that took her side used the argument, 'there's no reason there has to be nude drawings in that art class' - notice such an argument completely devalues the history of art, and according to my Ni that is stupid.

There's tons more that I can go on but this should do for now. And for the record I think North America was in a Gamma(valuing) stage during the Cold War.

[misutii]

Perhaps the main reason for that is that the BBC is supported by state funds.

Yes, and guaranteeing a company like BBC money guarantees that it will be able to produce quality news and documentaries in the long-term (Ni-valuing). I'm Canadian, I've never been to Britain, but the vast majority of the best (made for tv) documentaries I've watched have been by BBC. Furthermore the best educational-focused series i.e. Horizon is also BBC material - I don't know if you've seen any episodes but it clearly shows Gamma values. Have you seen shit produced by fox? by CNN? they're absolute crap. Canada has a watered-down version of of BBC called "CBC" which occasionally produced quality television but such productions are few and far between. Using media, like TV, as an educational tool, used to be valued in North America (see "Good Night and Good Luck") but it's not anymore. Most shows here are trash that doesn't take any risks and doesn't push any boundaries. It's all about letting the "people decide" what's best. All the Ni-valuing males that I know don't pay for or watch cable, but download programs they find interesting instead. I've noticed that Si-valuing individuals are more prone to finding "comfort" in TV shows. Look at shows that should've ended a long time ago, i.e. simpsons, young and the restless etc. as examples. Ni-valuing types are less likely to seek comfort in such shows because it's a waste of time.

[Expat]

Yes, and guaranteeing a company like BBC money guarantees that it will be able to produce quality news and documentaries in the long-term (Ni-valuing). I'm Canadian, I've never been to Britain, but the vast majority of the best (made for tv) documentaries I've watched have been by BBC. Furthermore the best educational-focused series i.e. Horizon is also BBC material - I don't know if you've seen any episodes but it clearly shows Gamma values.

Most of Europe's "traditional" TV channels are, or were until recently, state-owned. By "traditional" I mean those that were the only ones available through free aerial reception - the only ones that people had access to before cable, satellite, etc. So you had BBC1 and BBC2 in Britain, the RAI channels in Italy, ARD, ZDF and the regional networks in Germany, ORF1 and ORF2 in Austria, and so on and so forth.

All of the above channels, from the point of view of accessibility and even popularity, were the equivalent of the US's ABC, CBS and NBC. Besides, of course, the countless small regional tv networks.

That happened because European countries lacked, at the time, the market, and the private funds, with "critical mass" enough to have private TV channels. There was also a lot of socialist-ish ideology behind it. So, in Europe, the trend was for the state to start all the first TV channels.

In doing that, they were supported by taxes and told by the government to have "educational purposes", so they went more for what you call "quality".

More recently, however, the most popular TV channels in Europe tend to be precisely the private ones, and those that show precisely the kind of "low-quality" shows you described.

So, it seems that everyone's taxes are used to finance quality tv shows that only a minority really wants to see.

[misutii]

Most of Europe's "traditional" TV channels are, or were until recently, state-owned. By "traditional" I mean those that were the only ones available through free aerial reception - the only ones that people had access to before cable, satellite, etc. So you had BBC1 and BBC2 in Britain, the RAI channels in Italy, ARD, ZDF and the regional networks in Germany, ORF1 and ORF2 in Austria, and so on and so forth.

All of the above channels, from the point of view of accessibility and even popularity, were the equivalent of the US's ABC, CBS and NBC. Besides, of course, the countless small regional tv networks.

That happened because European countries lacked, at the time, the market, and the private funds, with "critical mass" enough to have private TV channels. There was also a lot of socialist-ish ideology behind it. So, in Europe, the trend was for the state to start all the first TV channels.

In doing that, they were supported by taxes and told by the government to have "educational purposes", so they went more for what you call "quality".

More recently, however, the most popular TV channels in Europe tend to be precisely the private ones, and those that show precisely the kind of "low-quality" shows you described.

So, it seems that everyone's taxes are used to finance quality tv shows that only a minority really wants to see.

When I use the term "quality" I'm using time as a measurement of quality. So "quality" shows, music, movies etc. are those that have stood the test of time.

What are your personal views on government-supported tv? Do you disagree with the taxes being used for quality programs that only a minority are watching? What about the fact that BBC has begun broadcasting in Canada and other places (you can purchase it on digital cable) and that young people (like myself) from all over the world are able to download such programs quite easily (BBC doesn't seem to care, whereas movie companies try to sue downloaders) and so will continue to inform people globally while even, to a degree, acting as a powerful platform for spreading british culture so ironically likely benefitting british tax payers more than it harms them.

[Expat]

When I use the term "quality" I'm using time as a measurement of quality. So "quality" shows, music, movies etc. are those that have stood the test of time.

Well so have lots of American tv shows, and lots of what BBC does is rubbish. They also have things like Eastenders.

What are your personal views on government-supported tv? Do you disagree with the taxes being used for quality programs that only a minority are watching?

My personal inclination is to disagree with it in principle, for all that I myself enjoy some of those programs.

What about the fact that BBC has begun broadcasting in Canada and other places (you can purchase it on digital cable) and that young people (like myself) from all over the world are able to download such programs quite easily (BBC doesn't seem to care, whereas movie companies try to sue downloaders) and so will continue to inform people globally while even, to a degree, acting as a powerful platform for spreading british culture so ironically likely benefitting british tax payers more than it harms them.

That's something to be taken into account in the overall picture, I agree.