Aristocratic view of Democrats - discussion of Reinin dichotomy

Democratic means the will of the majority (the masses) for the benefit of the whole. So, basically, you have high taxes to prevent people spending it in their own self-interest, and put to the greater good (e.g. universal free health care in Britain :P ). They assume that what is right for society is right for individuals.

Aristocrats have a hierachial structure, where those who have got to the highest positions (through their own self-interest) get the most rewards - what is right for the individual (their hierachial position determined by their power) is right for society, which becomes hierachial.

Also, it might seem democratic to give people (when I say give, I mean through external factors, e.g. job promotion based on skill) a position suitable to their power\skill, as they are reaping what they sow etc. However, in the Democracy vs. Aristocratic thing, democrats favour any individual based on need, whereas aristocrats favour society, not focussing on any individual.

Aristocrats - self-interest in society's interest
Democrats - group-interest in favour of individual

In politics:
Aristocrats - favour low taxes, and businesses
Democrats - favour high taxes, and the individual
(and yet democrats give less freedom to a specific individual through taxation - although, as I said, the typical, generic individual is better off, and so is society - aristocrats assume what is best for society is the self-determined selfish interests of individuals).

(I think Gamma types as a whole favour democracy order by the actual ( :Se: = details) or observed ( :Te: = data) power\skill of individuals in the current moment, whereas Alpha types favour democracy by sheer numbers 'one for all, all for one' :P - equality for each person because they exist etc., rather than through their skills. The other quadras are most likely combonations\permutations of the two, making them Aristocratic).

aristokrats are elitistik priks snobs, democrats just make out with everybody (slutty)

Diana, Subterranean's argument still lies within the logical boundaries of what is being discussed in a way that makes sense to the two different categories, so there is no reason to ACK! just yet.

Both the Aristocratic and Democratic descriptions focus on society and individuals, they aren't one or the other - individuals make up society, and society is made up of individuals. You can take each to their extremes to easily compare - it's not a contradiction to say Aristocrats focus on individuals for the good of society, and yet favour individuals over society - they might think that what is good for society is freedom for individuals. A Democrat could focus on society and thus also determine what is good for the individual (being a part of society, they are doing things for the good of society). They aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm aristocratic (I love saying that). My main beef with democrats is that they blatantly attempt to combine Marxian Egalitarianism with Capitalistic Individualism, the whole "personal responsibility" and "we're all born equal", like plz save the ideological bull shit and just admit there's a hierarchy based on groups and you're controlled by it (but I assume this is the typical Aristocratic refute)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diana

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

It wasn't until my second post that I realized how it was that a democrat could spend her life working on a project that grouped people if it was claimed that democrats don't group people.
And then I realized that Socionics uses the representative method of grouping people. The descriptions used describes one person who is then treated as a representative of a type. (I may have two single fathers I am working with, but I also know that neither is a representative of the other because of the differences between them...hence why I treat them differently.)

---

Anndelise, representative grouping is aristocratic.

---

Not really.
1) The descriptions of aristocracy was written from a democrat's pov, thus it is being influenced by that democrat's pov.
2) A democrat claims to not group people…but admits to associating people on similarities/differences they have with themselves (with the democrat).
3) A democrat treats everyone the same regardless of "groups" a person belongs to.
4) It makes sense that a democrat would see an aristocrat mentally split people up according to various "groups/aspects" and then assume that the aristocrat treats everyone within that group the same. (That is how the democrat would do it…because the democrat believes in treating people the same.)
5) While the democrat may assume that the aristocrat treats people in a group the same (because that is how the democrat would do it if they split people up into groups), that is not how the aristocrat actually does it.
6) The aristocrat treats individuals differently based on the differing groups the individual belongs to. It's too simplistic to suggest that an aristocrat says "you're female therefore I'll treat you like all females"..because that is treating all females the same…but aristocrats don't treat people the same (democrats do), the aristocrat treat the individuals differently

An example:
you are a female who wants to go into the front lines during war time. There are aspects to being female that might create problems so lets take care of those…we need to ensure that you have the appropriate feminine hygiene items that the men don't need, we also need to ensure that (if you have fairly large breasts) you have the appropriate chest binding items that you can put on/off yourself and will keep your breasts from interfering with your abilities as well as ensuring that the bindings will not interfere with your needs/abilities. If your breasts are quite large, then we'll need to consider some lower back support as well. We would also like to make sure that you would be relatively able to psychologically handle issues that may come up should you be captured….as unfortunately there are things that are usually done to women that are not usually done to men.

A democrat says, women should go into war just the same as men, there should be no difference in the treatment of women in war than men in war.
An aristocrat says, women should be allowed to go into war if they choose to, and those women who choose to may need a few extra considerations that men do not require. As idealistic as 'same treatment' sounds, reality says that women have periods and women have breasts, and women are often brutally raped and/or treated as sexual prizes if captured. To not take into consideration those things is to dehumanize those females.

As you can see, aristocratic groupings are not a simple 'female/male' divisions.
It is the various aspects of how males and females differ.
Most females have periods. If a female does not have periods, then this is not a 'grouping' that applies to that particular female, and thus there is no need for differential treatment based on having periods.
Many females have breasts. Breast sizes range from small to quite large. What group does this female fall into. She has largish breasts, thus we cannot support her breasts the same as we would support small breasts.
Some large breasted females have issues with lower back strain. Does this woman have issues with lower back strain? Yes she does, so we will have to treat her slightly different than we would that other woman who has large breasts but does not have lower back strain.
History has shown that women captured during war time have been treated as sexual objects. We also know from stories of women who have been raped that some women recover fairly easily, and someone are traumatized. (there are varying degrees, I'm being simplistic for current communications sake). We believe that a woman should be aware as possible of these potential results and allow her to decide whether this is a risk she is willing to take.


So yes, an aristocrat uses 'groupings' to help determine what considerations to give when preparing this woman for the front lines in war time. But it's quite obvious that this woman is not being treated as a representative of women. The best you can do is to make a stretch and say that this women is being treated as one possible representative of "a woman who wants to go to the frontlines during wartime, has no periods, has largish breasts, has low back strain, is willing to take the risks of capture, and feels that she can recover from abuse that may occur". But she is not treated the same as the men, nor as women who do not fit into the "grouping" I labeled above. To treat her the same as "men in wartime" or as "women who do not fit into the grouping" would be a democratic treatment, not an aristocratic one.


It's possible that what I am describing is a deltan aristocracy> betan .
It's possible that the democratic description of aristocracy is actually an alpha description of betan aristocracy.

Quote:

---

Yep, socionics is a set of groups a person could fit into in one sense, or in another, a system of how people relate based on their functional order. In other words you could take several different approaches. A couple examples: 1) Mary is an ENFp. ENFps have these characteristics in common. I can expect Mary to share these characteristics. Mary is a Ne-subtype ENFp, etc. Making further groups and etc. like you described. 2) Mary is interesting. She's a lot of fun, and sometimes scattered. She seems to use a lot of Ne and Fi. I relate very well to her in this area, and not in this other area. Why is that? Oh, I see, Mary as an ENFp has Fi creative, and Ti polr, with a Se role. This helps me understand Mary.

But you're right, overall it does group people. I felt for a long time like it was much too limiting, and still don't like being treated as though I am a type, rather than a person. But when I look at what Smilingeyes is working on for example, even though I don't fully understand it, I see the possibilities of range and much greater fluidity being expressed in the theory, and that's a lot easier to accept than the boxes.

---

Regarding socionics….I admit that I do identify with accepting Ne and creative Fi. (and obviously now I'm noticing the groupings of aristocracy vs democracy in some things) But I've always considered the functions/types/reinin's stuff as ranges and not as a true dichotomy (I see in shades of gray, not "black or white")

I admit though that when a person claims to be [insert type] then I expect to see some aspects of [insert type]. I don't expect to see all aspects of the type, but I do expect to see SOMEthing that suggests that "group" and not a different "group". Otherwise, these socionics "groups" are useless to me.

Quote:

---

And my brain stopped there. Probably just as well, so my post doesn't get too long. When it kicks back into working mode I'll come back.

---

Mine stopped a while back. I'm ready for another break from the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misutii

I'm aristocratic (I love saying that). My main beef with democrats is that they blatantly attempt to combine Marxian Egalitarianism with Capitalistic Individualism, the whole "personal responsibility" and "we're all born equal", like plz save the ideological bull shit and just admit there's a hierarchy based on groups and you're controlled by it (but I assume this is the typical Aristocratic refute)

---

I'm not sure if you're talking about the Democrat party there or not :P

but, they don't treat people being born equal as a fact - they see it as desirable. So, if people have an unfair advantage in life, either through birth or through being so damn talented :lol: , they should be taxed more heavily to support the lesser well off. I think in America, the Democrats and the Republicans are both right wing compared to the U.K., so the distinction might not be so clear. Capitalism in a high tax, liberal society is controlled by giving the poorer people capital to spend on necessity goods by taxing the rich people who are skilled in someway and making lots of money. It attempts to make people more equal and thus more able to control capital-production, by purchasing shares, buying stuff etc. (Though there's no such thing as a perfect society).

Aristocrats are in favour of both a hierachial society as well as ranked individuals - you can't have one without the other. So, yes, they are grouped, but they are also acting in their own self-interests - they need the group in order to have power.

Democrats are in favour of an egalitarian society, which results in equal freedom for all - so they are focussed on both the individual and society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

1) The descriptions of aristocracy was written from a democrat's pov, thus it is being influenced by that democrat's pov.

---

That's an aristocratic statement. Democrats tend to criticize statements independent of who said them, whereas Aristocrats have to get into the biases, the ulterior motivations, and generally undermine the statement psychologically rather than logically. This is obviously due to N blocked with T versus N blocked with F. (I'm mainly talking about abstract things like this.) Take Expat and XoX, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

This is another difference between Aristocrats and Democrats. Democrats are not so concerned with justifying the fact that they are better than "the other guys". They just naturally assume it. :wink:

---

yeah well, read the aristocracy list and it'll mention a sense of superiority...
obviously aristocrats believe theirs is the best method. :wink:

---

Let me point out that that last sentence was facetious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

1) The descriptions of aristocracy was written from a democrat's pov, thus it is being influenced by that democrat's pov.

---

That's an aristocratic statement. Democrats tend to criticize statements independent of who said them, whereas Aristocrats have to get into the biases, the ulterior motivations, and generally undermine the statement psychologically rather than logically. This is obviously due to N blocked with T versus N blocked with F. (I'm mainly talking about abstract things like this.) Take Expat and XoX, for example.

---

yes, and also something considered a "logical fallacy" i think.
I've actually been noticing the past few months that there might be some kind of correllation between some of the "logical fallacies" and various groupings (such as reinin's groupings) Nothing has formed clearly yet.


A number of months ago Expat and I argued over Fe. He made claims about how (as in the manner that) IxFps used Fe. A few INFps tried to tell him that he was wrong. He wouldn't listen. At some point I had to point out that he was not describing Fe as from an Fe ego approach, but was instead describing it based on a Te'd approach. He was Te'ing Fe, and then claiming that is what IxFps do. Suddenly the things Expat was claiming began to make sense when approached from that pov, and some of the INFps finally understand what the problem was. So yeah, while it may be considered a logical fallacy to point out those things, it can help with informal communications and developing mutual understandings. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

1) The descriptions of aristocracy was written from a democrat's pov, thus it is being influenced by that democrat's pov.

---

That's an aristocratic statement. Democrats tend to criticize statements independent of who said them, whereas Aristocrats have to get into the biases, the ulterior motivations, and generally undermine the statement psychologically rather than logically. This is obviously due to N blocked with T versus N blocked with F. (I'm mainly talking about abstract things like this.) Take Expat and XoX, for example.

---

yes, and also something considered a "logical fallacy" i think.

---

Yeah, it's the Genetic Fallacy.

Quote:

---

I've actually been noticing the past few months that there might be some kind of correllation between some of the "logical fallacies" and various groupings (such as reinin's groupings) Nothing has formed clearly yet.

---

That is an interesting idea.

.

Sorry Diana, I wasn't ignoring you.
I'm going to take a break from the forum for a bit.

However, I didn't want to totally leave you hanging.
You said that I made some not quite right assumptions about democratics.
That is quite likely as the only way I can approach this is through an aristocrat method. My wordings and understandings will reflect that aristocratic method.
One of my arguments is that the same applies to democrats. As much as they may not want to consider "what is in your head", those things do, in reality, affect one's view, thus one's approach, thus one's understanding of another approach. iow, I believe that the descriptions make not quite right assumptions about what aristocrats do. I believe that these assumptions stem from coming from a democratic pov.
So, an aristocrat and a democrat can argue back and forth over "you do this" "no I don't, I do this other" "no you don't you do this".....
or they can each say "I do this, what do you do?" "oh, that's interesting, I do this other"



Anyhoot, I'm outta here.
It turns out that the most recent headaches are likely due to sinus infection....again. grrrrrr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diana

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

5) While the democrat may assume that the aristocrat treats people in a group the same (because that is how the democrat would do it if they split people up into groups), that is not how the aristocrat actually does it.

---

No, I imagine it isn't, but it's not because of the reasoning you give and it wouldn't be a fair assumption to make anyway. When I gave my example I can see how you could get the impression that I was assuming that, but I was just trying to keep it simple, rather than have to go into great detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

6) The aristocrat treats individuals differently based on the differing groups the individual belongs to. It's too simplistic to suggest that an aristocrat says "you're female therefore I'll treat you like all females"..because that is treating all females the same…but aristocrats don't treat people the same (democrats do), the aristocrat treat the individuals differently

---

Depends on what you mean. I get your pov, but I think you're headed in the wrong direction with the assumptions you're making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

An example:
you are a female who wants to go into the front lines during war time. There are aspects to being female that might create problems so lets take care of those…we need to ensure that you have the appropriate feminine hygiene items that the men don't need, we also need to ensure that (if you have fairly large breasts) you have the appropriate chest binding items that you can put on/off yourself and will keep your breasts from interfering with your abilities as well as ensuring that the bindings will not interfere with your needs/abilities. If your breasts are quite large, then we'll need to consider some lower back support as well. We would also like to make sure that you would be relatively able to psychologically handle issues that may come up should you be captured….as unfortunately there are things that are usually done to women that are not usually done to men.

A democrat says, women should go into war just the same as men, there should be no difference in the treatment of women in war than men in war.
An aristocrat says, women should be allowed to go into war if they choose to, and those women who choose to may need a few extra considerations that men do not require. As idealistic as 'same treatment' sounds, reality says that women have periods and women have breasts, and women are often brutally raped and/or treated as sexual prizes if captured. To not take into consideration those things is to dehumanize those females.

---

No, a democrat might say, "A person should be allowed to go to war if that person wants to, and is capable and able to handle what is required. If there are considerations that need to be made for that person, then we'll have to weigh those in determining whether they should be put in the front lines or not." (where those considerations could mean anything from health, to eyesight, to psychological factors, to things that may go along with being a female, to things that may be more prevalent in males)

---

I think a democrat recognises the inequality of people and desires equality, and thus treats some people unequally (they treat people based on need - why treat someone who doesn't need it?) in order to obtain equality - a level playing field.

A aristocrat recognises that everyone has an equal right to make things unequal - by giving everyone the freedom to do as they wish, everyone obtains their 'rightful', but hierarchical position. They see people as equal from birth, and therefore inequality in society is because individuals (rather than society) have made better opportunity of their original assumed equality.

Aristocrats = freedom for the individual = inequality in society (which they regard right, as everyone is in their rightful position) - they allow people to fulfil their birthright, for the greater good of society - although this brings inequality in terms of wealth, it brings equality in terms of rightfully gained social positions.

Democrats = only equality in society is right - they suppress the freedom of individuals of the whole society for the greater good of all society, and therefore individuals - although this brings equality in terms of wealth, it results in inequality in terms of power, as some people are restrained for the greater good.

.

I don't think so - I think what ann said was that aristocrats form groups based on power + roles - there is a unified group identity explained in contrast with other groups - 'us and them' - 'we're strong, they are weak'. If there is a specific role\job\task, it is filled in a hierachial order - the best person fulfils that role, others are excluded from the group.

Democrats treat everyone equally, regardless of ability to fulfil a role - either everyone is in the same group, or there are as many groups as there are people. While aristocrats work primarily in their own interest, or in their group's interest (both they and their group are ranked compared to others), democrats work in the group's interest and\or each individual fulfils all the roles individually. An aristocrat would recognise that there is someone better placed to do certain jobs.

For those interested, capable, and willing to read through quite a bit of bitching....
this thread: http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8131 shows some interesting examples of a beta aristo vs gamma demo

I'll have to reread it at some point, but one of the things that stood out to me was when the gamma person used "representative"




btw, I recently noticed my own usage of representation....
I get upset when I happen to belong to a group, and someone judges the entire group based on one person of that group.
Another recent example, my words were along the lines of "I find it disgusting the thought that someone might judge me based on [person x] 's actions."

I want to comment on this discussion in more detail later -- but first, a general comment:


Alpha democracy


http://www.kildarechildcare.ie/image...ren-jump1a.jpg


http://www.kids.com/datastore/0/kidsIndexImage.jpg


Beta Aristocracy


http://www.foxcreekleather.com/images/brando.jpg


http://www.rogerkershaw.com/itins/im...l%20blacks.jpg


Gamma Democracy


http://content.answers.com/main/cont...engagement.jpg



Delta Aristocracy


http://www.bearspawcc.org/images/Tour/ladiestennis.jpg


http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/tpettibo/hippies.jpg

I think they're fitting.

http://www.kids.com/datastore/0/kidsIndexImage.jpg

what a beautiful picture :)

Commenting bit by bit --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

If you mean about Xox, I think the argument was actually that Xox values Fe>Fi based on his emphasis on the group>individual, not based on aristorcracy vs. democracy (though I could have missed that argument).
xox said a few times that the group>individual grouping style indicated aristocratic grouping style. Expat as well stated at least once, possible more that the group>individual thing was related to being aristocratic>democratic. This bothered me as I, too, do the aristocratic grouping style, yet consider myself focused on individuals.

elsewhere, Expat and I agreed that it was likely an Fe>Fi thing that was causing the group>individual thing, and we both agreed that we were more individual oriented than group rule oriented. (but then, towards the end of the thread is when Expat said it was an aristocratic thing) (hence prompting my research bit)

---

Right, that's how I saw it and meant it.

XoX's Fe>Fi preference is visible in countless posts -- actually it would be hard to find one of his less self-conscious posts where that is not clear. In situations that have nothing to do with groups etc. Even on an individual level.

The thing on "team spirit" seemed to me to be an indication of both: first, as Fe>Fi, since it implied that the Fe situation should define his Fi. The impression was that you had to -- "submerge" in that particular Fe atmosphere and your own emotional state, your feelings, should be stronger connected to the team than to your own individual performance and situation. That was Fe>Fi as we (at least anndelise, Diana and I, as well as others) agree.

But then you have the extra component of "group thinking". XoX's description of the team, and his later examples of hockey teamsd, and especially the "who won? Who lost?" thing (which he later disowned, but anyway), all suggested to me a mindset where he focuses more on groups than individuals -- also in terms of "people in such situation do this" as anndelise mentioned, or "people with power over him" etc -- that is where I see the Aristocratic thinking.

So, I see Fe>Fi and Aristocracy, independently, not only in the team story.

I don't understand the pictures representing Gamma Democracy and Delta Aristocracy. :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eunice

I don't understand the pictures representing Gamma Democracy and Delta Aristocracy. :?

---

Ok -- perhaps you can tell me how you understand the ones for Alpha Democracy and Beta Aristocracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diana

Yep, socionics is a set of groups a person could fit into in one sense, or in another, a system of how people relate based on their functional order. In other words you could take several different approaches. A couple examples: 1) Mary is an ENFp. ENFps have these characteristics in common. I can expect Mary to share these characteristics. Mary is a Ne-subtype ENFp, etc. Making further groups and etc. like you described. 2) Mary is interesting. She's a lot of fun, and sometimes scattered. She seems to use a lot of Ne and Fi. I relate very well to her in this area, and not in this other area. Why is that? Oh, I see, Mary as an ENFp has Fi creative, and Ti polr, with a Se role. This helps me understand Mary.

---

I wish I had written these :) that is precisely the point as to, perhaps, "Aristocratic" and "Democratic" approaches to Socionics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

1) The descriptions of aristocracy was written from a democrat's pov, thus it is being influenced by that democrat's pov.

---

That's an aristocratic statement. Democrats tend to criticize statements independent of who said them, whereas Aristocrats have to get into the biases, the ulterior motivations, and generally undermine the statement psychologically rather than logically. This is obviously due to N blocked with T versus N blocked with F. (I'm mainly talking about abstract things like this.) Take Expat and XoX, for example.

---

Hmmm -- perhaps. I don't see it working as clearly-cut for the Delta logical Aristocrats, the Alpha ethical Democrats, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

A number of months ago Expat and I argued over Fe. He made claims about how (as in the manner that) IxFps used Fe. A few INFps tried to tell him that he was wrong. He wouldn't listen. At some point I had to point out that he was not describing Fe as from an Fe ego approach, but was instead describing it based on a Te'd approach. He was Te'ing Fe, and then claiming that is what IxFps do. Suddenly the things Expat was claiming began to make sense when approached from that pov, and some of the INFps finally understand what the problem was. So yeah, while it may be considered a logical fallacy to point out those things, it can help with informal communications and developing mutual understandings. :wink:

---

:oops: Uhhh -- can you refresh my memory on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

1) The descriptions of aristocracy was written from a democrat's pov, thus it is being influenced by that democrat's pov.

---

That's an aristocratic statement. Democrats tend to criticize statements independent of who said them, whereas Aristocrats have to get into the biases, the ulterior motivations, and generally undermine the statement psychologically rather than logically. This is obviously due to N blocked with T versus N blocked with F. (I'm mainly talking about abstract things like this.) Take Expat and XoX, for example.

---

Hmmm -- perhaps. I don't see it working as clearly-cut for the Delta logical Aristocrats, the Alpha ethical Democrats, etc.

---

Logic/ethics is probably relevant to this too, but not so much when you get into the realm of political beliefs (or ones perceived as such).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eunice

I don't understand the pictures representing Gamma Democracy and Delta Aristocracy. :?

---

Ok -- perhaps you can tell me how you understand the ones for Alpha Democracy and Beta Aristocracy?

---

Alpha picture: Been different but still having fun working together.
Beta picture: forming a clique based on their similarities and showing force. Feeling powerful as a group and that they are better than the outsiders who are not part of them.

I like the alpha ones. I think they capture the alpha spirit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

1) The descriptions of aristocracy was written from a democrat's pov, thus it is being influenced by that democrat's pov.

---

That's an aristocratic statement. Democrats tend to criticize statements independent of who said them, whereas Aristocrats have to get into the biases, the ulterior motivations, and generally undermine the statement psychologically rather than logically. This is obviously due to N blocked with T versus N blocked with F. (I'm mainly talking about abstract things like this.) Take Expat and XoX, for example.

---

Hmmm -- perhaps. I don't see it working as clearly-cut for the Delta logical Aristocrats, the Alpha ethical Democrats, etc.

---

Logic/ethics is probably relevant to this too, but not so much when you get into the realm of political beliefs (or ones perceived as such).

---

Both of you seem to be referring to differences between dynamic and static aristo/demo(?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

lol they look like cheerleaders

---

:lol: No, no, no -- that's the All Blacks - the New Zealand national rubgy team - doing the Haka - a Maori dance/ritual to intimidate their opponents.

A good example is here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zPXtS9neg0Y

Or here - facing the South African Springboks:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cle20lQg0Qs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eunice

Alpha picture: Been different but still having fun working together.
Beta picture: forming a clique based on their similarities and showing force. Feeling powerful as a group and that they are better than the outsiders who are not part of them.

---

I agree with that.

The way I see it:

Alpha - "non-exclusivist Democracy" - anyone can come and join the fun, but we are not a group
Beta - "exclusivist Aristocracy" - the clique
Gamma - "exclusivist Democracy" - we make our exclusive personal connections with anyone regardless of whatever "group" they might belong to
Delta - "non-exclusivist Aristocracy" - everyone come join our group if you want to

Alpha democracy

http://www.kildarechildcare.ie/image...ren-jump1a.jpg
notice how all the kids are around the same age and chosen to deliberately attempt to show diversity
of course, by deliberately attempting to show diversity, it's actually showing an ethnic categorizing, but age categories belong together??

http://www.kids.com/datastore/0/kidsIndexImage.jpg
once again, notice how all the kids are the same ages. what's with this grouping by age thing?
imo, grouping by age and attempting to show sameness by age removes awareness of individual growth and maturity patterns. The first picture showing sameness in ages despite being different in ethnicity removes awareness of the differences in experiences and cultural influences upon each child's growth and maturity pattern.


Beta Aristocracy

http://www.foxcreekleather.com/images/brando.jpg
ok, now we're grouping by interests/purposes at least. Notice the Us vs Them attitude

http://www.rogerkershaw.com/itins/im...l%20blacks.jpg
again, another Us vs Them attitude, more "war-like" than the previous. Both pictures have a bit of intimidation focus.
I admit, in both pictures I dislike the uniform look. Uniforms give off a "wanna remove individuality" vibe, but I know that in reality, betans (or introvert aristocrats) are able to look past the quick glances and look more closely at each subtle show of individuality even within the group. (iow, it's possible that my being Delta EP is what gives me icky feelings of loss of individuality when I see uniforms)


Gamma Democracy

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...engagement.jpg
Of all the pictures given, this one seems to show a deliberate attempt to distinguish Gamma as being the only individual focused one. However, notice the sense of belonging together (two people are still a "group"). Admittedly though, there doesn't seem to be a sense of losing one's identity within that group like there are in the Alpha age groupings and Beta "organizational" groupings. But it does give off a sense of "this is a closed group and while you might hang out with us, you'll never be able to belong".


Delta Aristocracy

http://www.bearspawcc.org/images/Tour/ladiestennis.jpg
ok, so here we have women of various ages, all coming together based on one particular interest. The chosen sport is played one against one and/or two against two. One-on-one games are one person competing against another one person. Two-on-two games are one person working with another person to compete with two other people. noone within the group has any particular "group success job", iow, there is no group dependency on any one person. there is no need for interacting as a group/team and thus there is no need for "team spirit". Basically, a relaxed and informal "group" of individuals who've decided to join others who also have this particular interest.

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/tpettibo/hippies.jpg
yet another informal "group", a couple of them seem to have met for the first time. temporarily brought together due to pursuit of individual interests which happened to place them in the same place at the same time. Natural diversity is shown (as opposed to the forced diversity in the first Alpha picture), individual idiosyncracies are shown as a naturalness to the group (as opposed to attempting to look alike through uniforms). This is a "grouping" that allows openness into the group instead of the closedness of the Gamma couple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

notice how all the kids are around the same age and chosen to deliberately attempt to show diversity
of course, by deliberately attempting to show diversity, it's actually showing an ethnic categorizing, but age categories belong together??

---

once again, notice how all the kids are the same ages. what's with this grouping by age thing?
imo, grouping by age and attempting to show sameness by age removes awareness of individual growth and maturity patterns. The first picture showing sameness in ages despite being different in ethnicity removes awareness of the differences in experiences and cultural influences upon each child's growth and maturity pattern.

---

I would have put a picture of children of clearly different ages if I had found one -- I found those in a very quick and "superficial" Google search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

again, another Us vs Them attitude, more "war-like" than the previous. Both pictures have a bit of intimidation focus.
I admit, in both pictures I dislike the uniform look. Uniforms give off a "wanna remove individuality" vibe, but I know that in reality, betans (or introvert aristocrats) are able to look past the quick glances and look more closely at each subtle show of individuality even within the group. (iow, it's possible that my being Delta EP is what gives me icky feelings of loss of individuality when I see uniforms)

---

Uniforms are not important for the point -- again, it's the general idea that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Of all the pictures given, this one seems to show a deliberate attempt to distinguish Gamma as being the only individual focused one. However, notice the sense of belonging together (two people are still a "group"). Admittedly though, there doesn't seem to be a sense of losing one's identity within that group like there are in the Alpha age groupings and Beta "organizational" groupings. But it does give off a sense of "this is a closed group and while you might hang out with us, you'll never be able to belong".

---

I think that to say that "two people are still a group" is to stretch it a bit. I see it as more like, "you and I share an individual connection, regardless of which supposed 'groups' you may belong to. They are not relevant to our connection" but it's not the group that's exclusive, it's the connection. An individual-to-individual rather than individual-to-group connection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

ok, so here we have women of various ages, all coming together based on one particular interest. The chosen sport is played one against one and/or two against two. One-on-one games are one person competing against another one person. Two-on-two games are one person working with another person to compete with two other people. noone within the group has any particular "group success job", iow, there is no group dependency on any one person. there is no need for interacting as a group/team and thus there is no need for "team spirit". Basically, a relaxed and informal "group" of individuals who've decided to join others who also have this particular interest.

---

I never said that my examples were perfect :) I saw it, that's a group, but an "anyone can join" kind of group. If I had found one with men as well as women, I'd have used it.

expat had asked someone else "Ok -- perhaps you can tell me how you understand the ones for Alpha Democracy and Beta Aristocracy?"
I decided to give my own two cents worth of MY understanding of those pictures.

In my 2 cents, i said "it's possible that my being Delta EP is what gives me icky feelings of loss of individuality when I see uniforms"; this would apply to seeing the two alpha pictures. No, they're not wearing uniforms, but there is a distinct uniformity in the pictures...the first one giving me a sense of deliberate attempt to show lacking uniformity..while inadvertantly still being uniform (as in the kids being around the same age..give or take a year or two). It was the sense of ickiness that led me to noticing that the kids were around the same age.

we can either ignore how each person views the pictures while sticking with our own perceptions of how others view things, or we can use that information to further our understandings of others.


Mostly, I think that one of the issues of this thread is that many of us (including me) seem to be using the term "group" to suggest at least two (if not more) meanings...
there is the verb grouping aka categorizing, which, imo, is a Ti/Fi thing (as in Ti/Fe axis categorize using Ti, Fi/Te axis categorize using Fi)
there is the group orientation (as in focusing on the well-being and purpose of the group)
there is the single noun meaning of "group"
there is the plural nouns meaning of "group"
and possibly one or two other forms of the word/idea of "group"

notice that in the very first sentence of this thread I am saying that I do not believe that aristo/demo is a group>individual dichotomy. This is my point, and the reason i responded to the pictures.

Note that Expat said this in reference to the couple: "I see it as more like, "you and I share an individual connection, regardless of which supposed 'groups' you may belong to. They are not relevant to our connection" but it's not the group that's exclusive, it's the connection. An individual-to-individual rather than individual-to-group connection. "

Yet it's this very statement/essence of his that I have regarding the delta pictures. These ladies have one connection, they enjoy tennis (at least it's assumed that they each enjoy tennis though it's left open that some of the ladies may be playing tennis for reasons other than enjoyment). But regardless of which supposed "groups" they each belong to, those "groups" are not relevant to this particular connection (playing tennis). In tennis, an individual oriented sport, it is individual-to-individual connections that are made. A person can look at pictures of more than one person and say "that's a group", but there's a difference between a group that is considered "as one" (singular noun), and a group of individuals (plural nouns).

Here's the thing, we each take different approaches.
Our understandings of the other approach are influenced by our own approach.
We cannot sufficiently describe the differing approach by describing it from our own approach's perceptions.
This falls inline with the quote I used to have in my sig line, about how it doesn't much matter how good your logic is if your perceptions are off.


On the one hand, I've got people agreeing that I'm showing aristocratic behaviors and categorizing styles.

On the other hand, I've got Expat and I agreeing that an individual's previous actions and behaviors should mean more than some "rule of behavior" that's applied to a group regardless of an individual's previous actions/behaviors

And yet on another hand, I've got Expat saying that despite my showing a preference of individual's previous actions/behaviors over "rule of behavior"....i'm an aristocrat therefore i'm group>individual. How is his judgement of me being group>individual by mere fact of being aristocrat any different than ignoring an individual's previous actions/behaviors in lieu of the "rule of behavior of aristocrats"?

Admittedly, Expat redeemed himself when just a few posts ago he suggested there being a difference between "exclusivist aristocracy" and "non-exclusivist aristocracy". This is a qualifying point, and one of the things I was attempting to suggest in my second post showing that aristocracy and democracy are each split up into two different types. Whether the split is based on "exclusiveness vs non-exclusiveness" or "static vs dynamic" or "beta vs delta" I don't know. One would have to take into account if/how static aristocratics are similar to each other yet different from dynamic aristocratics. If they don't have similarities and static beta aristocratics are also "exclusivists", then that grouping would apply. If not, then something else needs to be considered.


no matter how we approach it though, we are showing our biases if we say aristocracy = group>individual without taking into consideration what various aristocrats have to say about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

1) The descriptions of aristocracy was written from a democrat's pov, thus it is being influenced by that democrat's pov.

---

That's an aristocratic statement. Democrats tend to criticize statements independent of who said them, whereas Aristocrats have to get into the biases, the ulterior motivations, and generally undermine the statement psychologically rather than logically. This is obviously due to N blocked with T versus N blocked with F. (I'm mainly talking about abstract things like this.) Take Expat and XoX, for example.

---

Hmmm -- perhaps. I don't see it working as clearly-cut for the Delta logical Aristocrats, the Alpha ethical Democrats, etc.

---

Logic/ethics is probably relevant to this too, but not so much when you get into the realm of political beliefs (or ones perceived as such).

---

Both of you seem to be referring to differences between dynamic and static aristo/demo(?)

---

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Alpha democracy

http://www.kildarechildcare.ie/image...ren-jump1a.jpg
notice how all the kids are around the same age and chosen to deliberately attempt to show diversity
of course, by deliberately attempting to show diversity, it's actually showing an ethnic categorizing, but age categories belong together??

---

Perhaps the person who made the picture "deliberately" attempted to show diversity, but the whole point of Democracy is that groups are incidental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Both of you seem to be referring to differences between dynamic and static aristo/demo(?)

---

?

---

You pointed out something that may be a difference between N blocked with T vs N blocked with F.
Expat said he didn't see what you pointed out as being clear cut for dynamic deltans, dynamic alphas, etc (of course, neither of those are NT/NF ego, so I guess it would depend on what his "etc" included....my mistake)

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Alpha democracy
Notice how all the kids are around the same age and chosen to deliberately attempt to show diversity
of course, by deliberately attempting to show diversity, it's actually showing an ethnic categorizing, but age categories belong together??

---

Perhaps the person who made the picture "deliberately" attempted to show diversity, but the whole point of Democracy is that groups are incidental.

---

I'll respond with what another aristocrat said (and if I'm using it wrong, he can correct me) Note, bolded emphasis is mine:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misutii

I'm aristocratic (I love saying that). My main beef with democrats is that they blatantly attempt to combine Marxian Egalitarianism with Capitalistic Individualism, the whole "personal responsibility" and "we're all born equal", like plz save the ideological bull shit and just admit there's a hierarchy based on groups and you're controlled by it (but I assume this is the typical Aristocratic refute)

---

As much talk as I hear about 'for democrats the groups don't exist' or 'democrats don't group people' or 'the groups are incidental', etc...the thing is..humans categorize...whether to aid memory recall, gain understanding, whatever, we categorize, it's how we learn...to pretend that those categories aren't utilized nor effect one's perceptions/judgements is akin to being willfully blind to a natural part of human nature.

Some of us aristocrats hear/read democratic talk about how categories don't/shouldn't mean anything.
And we view it as ideological bullshit. Why? Because we see even democrats creating categories, using categories, and judging categories.... (irl, on forums, in chats, in PMs, etc....) yet at the same time that they create, use, and judge a category, they claim stuff like 'the category is incidental'.

If the category is incidental...why mention a category?
Are you really trying to suggest to me that the fact that the picture showing children of around the same age (give or take a year or two)and each seemingly from slightly different cultural groups is incidental?

If categories are incidental, why then is socionics a development primarily from alpha democrats?
Are you suggesting that socionics categories, types, interrelationship groupings, and reinin dichotomies are incidental?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Quote:

---

Both of you seem to be referring to differences between dynamic and static aristo/demo(?)

---

?

---

You pointed out something that may be a difference between N blocked with T vs N blocked with F.
Expat said he didn't see what you pointed out as being clear cut for dynamic deltans, dynamic alphas, etc (of course, neither of those are NT/NF ego, so I guess it would depend on what his "etc" included....my mistake)

---

I don't know what Expat thinks. The Aristocratic characteristic I mentioned is especially obvious in Beta STs.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Alpha democracy
Notice how all the kids are around the same age and chosen to deliberately attempt to show diversity
of course, by deliberately attempting to show diversity, it's actually showing an ethnic categorizing, but age categories belong together??

---

Perhaps the person who made the picture "deliberately" attempted to show diversity, but the whole point of Democracy is that groups are incidental.

---

I'll respond with what another aristocrat said (and if I'm using it wrong, he can correct me) Note, bolded emphasis is mine:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misutii

I'm aristocratic (I love saying that). My main beef with democrats is that they blatantly attempt to combine Marxian Egalitarianism with Capitalistic Individualism, the whole "personal responsibility" and "we're all born equal", like plz save the ideological bull shit and just admit there's a hierarchy based on groups and you're controlled by it (but I assume this is the typical Aristocratic refute)

---

As much talk as I hear about 'for democrats the groups don't exist' or 'democrats don't group people' or 'the groups are incidental', etc...the thing is..humans categorize...whether to aid memory recall, gain understanding, whatever, we categorize, it's how we learn...to pretend that those categories aren't utilized nor effect one's perceptions/judgements is akin to being willfully blind to a natural part of human nature.

---

Definitely. I mentioned before how the Democratic view is sometimes naive in this way.

Quote:

---

Some of us aristocrats hear/read democratic talk about how categories don't/shouldn't mean anything.
And we view it as ideological bullshit. Why? Because we see even democrats creating categories, using categories, and judging categories.... (irl, on forums, in chats, in PMs, etc....) yet at the same time that they create, use, and judge a category, they claim stuff like 'the category is incidental'.

If the category is incidental...why mention a category?
Are you really trying to suggest to me that the fact that the picture showing children of around the same age (give or take a year or two)and each seemingly from slightly different cultural groups is incidental?

---

No. I mean that I don't look at a group of black and white kids and think to myself, "wow, that group is really diverse". It's just some kids playing.

Quote:

---

If categories are incidental, why then is socionics a development primarily from alpha democrats?
Are you suggesting that socionics categories, types, interrelationship groupings, and reinin dichotomies are incidental?

---

It is important not to generalize the Reinin dichotomies too much. IMO This one does have something to do with politics (i.e. social structuring) more often than not, and if it really does apply to all kinds of categories, then it primarily affects the way you think about them, not the fact that you create them in the first place (content vs. mentality, as always in socionics).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

No. I mean that I don't look at a group of black and white kids and think to myself, "wow, that group is really diverse". It's just some kids playing.

---

actually, i don't generally notice either. however, i did mention that i do have issues with the whole uniform and "blending in with the crowd" and removal of individuality. so when I'm glancing through pictures (which i don't normally do) and get a semi-icky feeling, then I have to look to see what caused that semi-icky feeling. It's only when I take a closer look at the picture do other feelings pop up in me ...such as a feeling of possible propoganda being given...which caused me to look at what was giving me that feeling which had me notice a conflicting feeling between them all being the same and yet them all being different, which had me looking even closer at the picture to determine what was giving me those feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

No. I mean that I don't look at a group of black and white kids and think to myself, "wow, that group is really diverse". It's just some kids playing.

---

actually, i don't generally notice either. however, i did mention that i do have issues with the whole uniform and "blending in with the crowd" and removal of individuality. so when I'm glancing through pictures (which i don't normally do) and get a semi-icky feeling, then I have to look to see what caused that semi-icky feeling. It's only when I take a closer look at the picture do other feelings pop up in me ...such as a feeling of possible propoganda being given...which caused me to look at what was giving me that feeling which had me notice a conflicting feeling between them all being the same and yet them all being different, which had me looking even closer at the picture to determine what was giving me those feelings.

---

weren't you bigtime ROTC or something? that's an interresting viewpoint coming from that background... (of course being anti-establishment my understanding of ROTC is probably bunk :P )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bionicgoat

weren't you bigtime ROTC or something? that's an interresting viewpoint coming from that background... (of course being anti-establishment my understanding of ROTC is probably bunk :P )

---

yes, i was in JROTC for four years in highschool.
the first year i was very *clears throat* into nationalism. by that i mean to say that i believed strongly in "protecting the flag" (and yes, i'm quite embarrassed that I was like that). this was my freshman year of highschool. and yes, i hated those god-awful uniforms, having to put my hair up into a tucked in french braid, having to shine the shoes, having to say yes-sir no-sir, having to salute, having to "show respect" to someone i didn't respect at all, and watching her use her power to force those in lesser ranks abide by her irrational demands. (needless to say, she and i did not get along, she was one of the regular teachers...and one that i quickly took over her teaching position within the first semester.)

i was never interested in the uniform rankings part of competitions
i never really followed the rules
i was always coming up with alternative methods and possibilities (sarge and colonel both encouraged that in me...though at the time i thought colonel hated me...it turned out that he just didn't appreciate my lack of follow through :oops: )
i enjoyed the creative aspects of drill team competitions...but not so much the group teams
in fact, one of my projects that the colonel was encouraging me to actually complete was my idea for a saber team which would have placed as completely unique amongst the state and semi-nationals
i preferred the individual drill competitions. but again, here, i always found ways to go around the rules and insert my own individuality in...even to the point of doing the moonwalk as part of my drill routine :lol: (i got third place for it) This was sophmore year

[too personal info to keep online for long edited out]

so basically, even in a formal organization in which its members are perceived as being treated as less than individuals....
i still found a way for myself (and subsequently others) to shine through.