Quadra Dynamics

[Blaze]

I mean, I can accept that perhaps I aggrandize my own quadra, partly because I, like any human, am egocentric, and am prone to see my own role as the most important one. But I would rather you simply said up front that rather than trying to reframe everything I said In any case I'm glad we're on the same page.

I don't think my initial description was all that biased; maybe the part about transition from Alpha could use a little temperance. What phrases in particular, if any, made you see it that way?

well....regarding alpha, when you say that alpha is unwilling, this gives the impression either that alpha is lazy, or lacks drive. in short, saying alpha is unwilling reflects a beta bias. alpha's energies are directed toward intellectual production and innovation, data gathering, testing, tinkering. you can't engage in this type of activity fully if you are thinking about starting in with the establishment, planning strategies, and pushing people to take risks. all of alpha energy goes towards inventing their products. alpha endows beta with ideology, innovations, and new tools to drive a cause.

the same as beta can't be rabble rousing, getting things started, and throwing out the old stuff and at the same time be concerned with the efficiency and production and profit that gamma is all about. you can't do both at once.

i also don't think beta's primary mission is to destroy. their mission is to get the new ideology going in practical application. they may throw out the old, but more likely they are focusing attention on the new and the new way to do the new. i think this because people are much more attracted to doing something rather to not doing something. i think beta emotionally destroys the old way through propaganda and Fe-infused leadership, but that's in juxtaposition to the new way. part of the beta motivation and agenda is to overturn the delta aristocratic leadership way of doing things to match the beta aristocratic style. but this is a different thing than generalized destruction....more specific.

lastly gamma seems to be concerned with profit and efficiency. how to make money off the new way but also how to bring the new way to everyone in the most expedient way possible. competition is also a strong element in gamma and the only rules that apply are those of personal relationships. otherwise, all bets are off and it's dog eat dog for the money and power. there was a saying in the 80's: greed is good. while i would hesitate to put that phrase in a formal description, in a way it captures gamma philosophy. free-wheeling enterprise and entrepeneurship reign in a gamma phase.

if you feel like it, it would be interesting to look at the rings of benefit and supervision. the right ring follows the progression from delta that you describe...how do you describe the left ring of social progress?

[Gilly]

I said unwilling, yes, but I didn't make some sweeping generalization saying they are unwilling as a broad trait. Rather...

are not always willing to take the steps necessary to act fully upon their capacities, to do everything that is necessary to fully realize what they know is possible.

...which is basically what you said.

I hate to be a dick but I feel like you are sort of selectively misreading what I'm saying, and to be honest I don't want this thread to turn into petty quarreling, so if you have something to vent about I'd appreciate it if this wasn't the place. I'd love to hear what you have to say about the rings of benefit and supervision (personally I don't have any particular thoughts on them), but not if you're going to engender redundancy and selective interpretation.

[Blaze]

now who's personalizing? do you even read what i write? and where exactly do you see "venting"? *confused*

[Gilly]

I'm sorry, it just looks to me like everything you write is a rehashing of what I put down in the original post. I've read every word you've written in this thread and I just don't see the difference between what I wrote originally and your versions. I'm not trying to make this personal; au contraire, I want to stop it before it gets there. I just think it would be more productive if you pointed out what you thought was a problem instead of just rewording everything I say.

[strrrng]

alphas don't expect betas to examine a wide enough scope of ideas. that's alpha's job not beta's.

My point was, that quadras tend to get frustrated with each other because of differences in what they believe is the right thing to do (i.e. alphas getting frustrated with betas for not acknowledging what they see as relevant alternatives).

alphas don't hesitate about actions that are the job of alpha. are you saying that beta expects alpha to help them with their job?

No. I'm saying that betas implicitly expect others to react to them like betas, and thus can become frustrated at witnessing differences in certain behaviors.

[Waddlesworth]

My point was, that quadras tend to get frustrated with each other because of differences in what they believe is the right thing to do (i.e. alphas getting frustrated with betas for not acknowledging what they see as relevant alternatives).



No. I'm saying that betas implicitly expect others to react to them like betas, and thus can become frustrated at witnessing differences in certain behaviors.

i'm not really singling you out in particular... but...

How can you possibly know all this to be true? You speak as though you have so much experience with these quadras and conflicts between 'quadras' and quadras getting frustrated with eachother n' stuff. How many freakin' people you know that arrange into quadras and that you have completely confirmed are these specific types? I mean no offense by it, but it just seems a little ridiculous. You're what, 19? How could you possibly?!

But hey, maybe I am just 'off my rocker'. You know, a bit 'nutty'.

[strrrng]

i'm not really singling you out in particular... but...

Nice disclaimer.

How can you possibly know all this to be true? You speak as though you have so much experience with these quadras and conflicts between 'quadras' and quadras getting frustrated with eachother n' stuff. How many freakin' people you know that arrange into quadras and that you have completely confirmed are these specific types? I mean no offense by it, but it just seems a little ridiculous. You're what, 19? How could you possibly?!

I grew up with four deltas and two alphas in separate households; interquadra conflict is extremely native to me. And yes, I have studied it fairly extensively over the past couple of years, so I don't think it's exactly a stretch for me to claim understanding of certain psychological mechanisms underpinning quadra attitudes.

Really, if you have any substantial questions to ask me, I'll answer; but cut the passive ad hominem bullshit.

[Blaze]

I'm sorry, it just looks to me like everything you write is a rehashing of what I put down in the original post. I've read every word you've written in this thread and I just don't see the difference between what I wrote originally and your versions. I'm not trying to make this personal; au contraire, I want to stop it before it gets there. I just think it would be more productive if you pointed out what you thought was a problem instead of just rewording everything I say.

george what post are you reading. because we are saying different things. related things, but different things. you ask me what i think i tell you you say i'm rehashing. i'm not wasting any more time on this. even though i think it was a good first effort. you don't really want feedback, you only are after flattery. if you're going to move masses someday, though, you'd better be ready to deal with feedback.

[Gilly]

I'm sorry, I just don't see the difference between what you are saying and what I wrote; it seems to me like you just placed different emphasis on things because you didn't like the way I wrote it. What exactly do you see as "wrong" with what I wrote? Tell me the words, show me, be more explicit, because so far all I see is us agreeing and you insisting that we're not.

[strrrng]

Blaze is just being pedantic, for whatever reason. I'm impressed that you've put up with it for this long.

[Gilly]

I have a way of putting my feelings aside when I actually wish to see something accomplished. Anything is better than nothing. It is apparent at this point that she has nothing to contribute, though I wish she'd prove me wrong.

[strrrng]

I understand sidelining feelings for the sake of intellectual substance, but she demonstrated about... three posts back (to me, at least) that such a thing was untenable. I'm usually inclined to dismiss a person at that point, but maybe you still thought something could be gained.

[Gilly]

I mean I certainly saw it coming, but she seemed adamant so I was prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and consider that I might be missing some piece of her rationale. But that last post basically solidified that she was, in fact, just projecting irrelevant angst.

[Gilly]

I try, you know, I really do. Once every few months I muster up the care to make an interesting, insightful thread, to show where I'm at in my process of more fully understanding this theory, and see if people have anything to contribute, anything meaningful or useful to say, but it INVARIABLY either flies under the radar, or nobody gives a shit enough to say anything more, or people get fucking retarded and start bullshitting. Nobody in this place really gives a fuck.

[strrrng]

I mean I certainly saw it coming, but she seemed adamant so I was prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and consider that I might be missing some piece of her rationale. But that last post basically solidified that she was, in fact, just projecting irrelevant angst.

Right – the angst vibe is what I got.

I try, you know, I really do. Once every few months I muster up the care to make an interesting, insightful thread, to show where I'm at in my process of more fully understanding this theory, and see if people have anything to contribute, anything meaningful or useful to say, but it INVARIABLY either flies under the radar, or nobody gives a shit enough to say anything more, or people get fucking retarded and start bullshitting. Nobody in this place really gives a fuck.

lmao @ you saying the bolded while ruefully smoking a capone.

Either way, I think the people who aren't blinded by their own egotistical quadra love saw the value in this thread. Quality is standalone, so a lack of additional input can often be a sign of completeness.

[Gilly]

lmao @ you saying the bolded while ruefully smoking a capone.

You made me wake the dog up with one of my awkward weak Si laughs.

Either way, I think the people who aren't blinded by their own egotistical quadra love saw the value in this thread. Quality is standalone, so a lack of additional input can often be a sign of completeness.

*polishes fingernails on lapel*

See, this is the problem with producing something that's actually quality that everyone can agree upon: you get nothing out of it.

[strrrng]

You made me wake the dog up with one of my awkward weak Si laughs.



*polishes fingernails on lapel*

See, this is the problem with producing something that's actually quality that everyone can agree upon: you get nothing out of it.

That makes sense, since quality work should have no personal or egotistical implications.

[FDG]

I like Gilly's analysis. I don't like the nomad-boom-millennial generation stuff...too vague.

Anyway, @Blaze: I think dog-eat-dog is more typical of aristocratic quadras; STs are the types most likely to (perhaps unwillingly) engage in that line of action (not necessarily thinking: they may not be thinking about how the world perceives their actions, that's where NFs come into play). Gammas either have types with Fi, which gives a certain sense of insecurity towards acting boldly, unless there's some personal bond at stake; or types with Ni, which are clearly rather hesitant at taking actions that deal with pushing people around, even if they can be good at catching opportunities when they come by (catching opportunities though usually requires little interaction with the environment - otherwise it would be classified as creating opportunities).

[Gilly]

That makes sense, since quality work should have no personal or egotistical implications.

's the last time I put effort and careful contemplation into anything...

[Gilly]

I love how the one time I create a thread with selfless intentions and actually want to see something happen that doesn't revolve around me, I just get consistent, moderate praise. What the fuck is this world coming to?

[strrrng]

You didn't get praise; the analysis did.

[Gilly]

Touche. But intellect is one of my primary fixations, so it shouldn't matter...but...;_;

[Blaze]

I'm sorry, it just looks to me like everything you write is a rehashing of what I put down in the original post. I've read every word you've written in this thread and I just don't see the difference between what I wrote originally and your versions. I'm not trying to make this personal; au contraire, I want to stop it before it gets there. I just think it would be more productive if you pointed out what you thought was a problem instead of just rewording everything I say.

why don't you look at the first post i made; that's what i think. you know how to push the back button, right?

i've also said that you've left out the left ring.

if you and your butt buddy can separate your body parts for a minute...maybe you will be able to comprehend fairly simple and straightforward ideas.

[Blaze]

I like Gilly's analysis. I don't like the nomad-boom-millennial generation stuff...too vague.

Anyway, @Blaze: I think dog-eat-dog is more typical of aristocratic quadras; STs are the types most likely to (perhaps unwillingly) engage in that line of action (not necessarily thinking: they may not be thinking about how the world perceives their actions, that's where NFs come into play). Gammas either have types with Fi, which gives a certain sense of insecurity towards acting boldly, unless there's some personal bond at stake; or types with Ni, which are clearly rather hesitant at taking actions that deal with pushing people around, even if they can be good at catching opportunities when they come by (catching opportunities though usually requires little interaction with the environment - otherwise it would be classified as creating opportunities).

fdg to me dog-eat-dog seems Se oriented, paired with Te. ergo gamma. except for the people kept close via Fi. prolly just how i see it as an alpha though. when i think of Te, i think wall street, no known ethics really. *shrugs*

[The Greeter]

fdg to me dog-eat-dog seems Se oriented, paired with Te. ergo gamma. except for the people kept close via Fi. prolly just how i see it as an alpha though. when i think of Te, i think wall street, no known ethics really. *shrugs*

I think both Se-focused quadras abide by the dog-eat-dog dogma but the difference in which it manifests is due to an aristrocratic attitude from the former and a democratic attitude from the latter. Gamma's nature manifests as you described in the quote above (cutting aside the judgements--and I don't say this in a bad way). For Beta, I feel their natural focus on a "grand" and implicit social hierarchy, their emphasis on the individuation of their chosen group, makes them naturally want to be better than the rest.

I find Alpha and Delta doing most of the adjusting, though they have a competitive streak as well. And even if the Si-focused quadra tend to "adapt" as a whole, it's not so uncommon that they would best the Se-oriented quadra in their own game.

[Gilly]

why don't you look at the first post i made; that's what i think. you know how to push the back button, right?

FOR FUCKS SAKE I'VE READ YOUR POST AT LEAST FOUR TIMES, I WOULDN'T BE ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION IF I COULD FIND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OR GRASP YOUR STANCE ON MY OWN. To ME, it looks like YOU have no desire to reach an understanding, or you would seek to be understood rather than being dismissive. I have tried and apparently failed; I am willing to admit that much. Now will you help me understand or do you really just not give a shit?

I'm trying to be ingenuous, I really, really am, but there's only so much I can do! I'm trying, I swear! I wouldn't be this self-effacing if I was just trying to win or get attention or something; I am genuinely curious about what you think, because I don't see why you would be this persistent in this one discussion if this was about venting; you would probably just go somewhere else, unless you are targeting me for a reason. Please, help me understand! I'm not trying to be aggressive or turn you off or anything; I just really don't understand where you are coming from here.

i've also said that you've left out the left ring.

I don't know what you mean. How has my analysis excluded any of the types? This continuum encompasses all quadras; each type within each quadra serves its individual purpose in this cycle. I realize that the left ring of benefit goes in the opposite direction of what I have depicted, but I don't think that necessarily implies that the idea of quadra progression in society can travel in the opposite direction as well. How do you think this would manifest? What roles do you think the quadras would play in such a cycle?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I have a way of putting my feelings aside when I actually wish to see something accomplished.

I have a way of putting my accomplishments aside when I want to feel feelings. =p

[Marie84]

I think both Se-focused quadras abide by the dog-eat-dog dogma but the difference in which it manifests is due to an aristrocratic attitude from the former and a democratic attitude from the latter. Gamma's nature manifests as you described in the quote above (cutting aside the judgements--and I don't say this in a bad way). For Beta, I feel their natural focus on a "grand" and implicit social hierarchy, their emphasis on the individuation of their chosen group, makes them naturally want to be better than the rest.

I find Alpha and Delta doing most of the adjusting, though they have a competitive streak as well. And even if the Si-focused quadra tend to "adapt" as a whole, it's not so uncommon that they would best the Se-oriented quadra in their own game.

This
The dog-eat-dog mentality stems from Se+Ni IMU

[FDG]

This
The dog-eat-dog mentality stems from Se+Ni IMU

Mmmh. But, say, ESTjs are also really likely (perhaps more likely than ENTjs or INTps, from my perspective) to involuntarily promote that type of attitude towards work.

[strrrng]

fdg to me dog-eat-dog seems Se oriented, paired with Te. ergo gamma. except for the people kept close via Fi. prolly just how i see it as an alpha though. when i think of Te, i think wall street, no known ethics really. *shrugs*

I actually think it's more representative of SeTi. While the Se+Te combination tends to focus primarily on the objective, mechanical -- "what works" -- which can seem to engender callousness in the pursuit of pragmatism, I ultimately think that Fi keeps things in check to a degree that would limit such a thing from becoming too pervasive (after all, gammas are reformers, which entails a certain stability). With FiSe, implicit boundaries are established between directly observable things and people; so, while NiTe processes can be modulated in any way on their own, when the aforementioned things are imposed on them, the scope of possible actions is narrowed down significantly, and finds a more solid basis.

Conversely, with beta you have SeTi -- these two explicitly-defined elements are the boundaries, essentially the nuts and bolts that structure the core precepts and guidelines for how things operate in a beta society. While limited to observable qualities, systematization can occur endlessly, and the "rules" can be isolated down to a seeming perfection in order to justify ideologies. Ni centralizes themes "behind" the Se variables, which can bring about an attitude of urgent realism; while the Fe dynamics that occur under the surface with people are inevitably tied back to the Ti laws that give rise to them, ergo justifying the "kill or be killed" doctrines.

[Azeroffs]

Mmmh. But, say, ESTjs are also really likely (perhaps more likely than ENTjs or INTps, from my perspective) to involuntarily promote that type of attitude towards work.

I think you have the wrong impression. Think ESE versus EIE. LSE more vigorously approaches work, but it's more for the sake of doing a good job rather than the ambitious 'dog eat dog' of an LIE. (at least in comparison)


I think I'm missing exactly what Delta does. They preserve. So what does that mean? They just continue what Gamma has created?

------------
Some of my thoughts:

I was thinking that whenever there is a rational value switch (Beta>Gamma , Delta>Alpha) a new line of thinking has occurred. When Beta crosses over to Gamma there is order, and when Delta crosses into Alpha there is chaos. When there is an irrational value switch a new line of application occurs. When Alpha crosses into Beta there is war, and when Gamma crosses into Delta there is peace.

(maybe those aren't good terms, but I think it gets the idea across)

Essentially each quadra carries two dicotomies in a sense, but is more characterized by the change

Alpha characterized by Chaos, but also peaceful.
Beta characterized by War, but also chaotic.
Gamma characterized by Order, but also war-like.
Delta characterized by Peace, but also ordered.

Also, I feel like it's focusing on characteristics of the logical types, but I could be wrong.

NeTi > SeTi > NiTe > SiTe

It makes me wonder if there could be some kind of dynamic for ethical types that might be somewhat different.

[silverchris9]

I've been trying to figure out how to formulate this for a while, but I wanted to say that I think you didn't mention, Gilly, how much impact the beta "revolutionary" period has on the delta "peace" period. I find that the new stable conventions that delta introduces (the self-sustaining way of life, the "microcosm of perfection") tends to have much more in common, in ideals, beliefs, etc., with the beta revolution than with the previous delta "peace" (the pax del... tana?), even if it has more in common methodologically with the previous delta regime. I'm too lazy to think of historical examples right now, but I think that this is the lasting impact of the deltas and the betas on each other; no matter how alpha opens possibilities and gamma begins to refine, ultimately a beta "movement" is reacting to a delta "system", and the new delta "system" is built on (the remnants of) a beta "movement". While alpha introduces the new ideas, beta makes them a part of our lives to such a degree as to alter the imaginative possibilities, what we generally think is possible/normal/reasonable. Another way of saying this is to say that betas engender cultural change (or in general have engendered cultural change) at the fundamental level of what people expect or consider normal or within the realm of the "reasonable". Delta follows up and defends what is (now) "reasonable".

Also, I have an image of two pieces of fabric, right, and I see gamma stitching the fabric together, delta as the point when the two pieces of fabric are totally stitched together, alpha as the process of unstitching the fabric, and beta as the point when the two pieces of fabric are totally unstitched, apart, etc.

This relates to several things. First, it relates to the idea that I've developed that beta and delta are more extreme in conflict than gamma and alpha. That is largely based on evidence from observing people here, so obviously my sample size is tiny and my results will be skewed. But to me, alpha and gamma are just going in opposite directions. So, gamma tries to sew up, alpha tries to unsew, gamma whacks alpha on the hand and keeps going, alpha pouts then tries to sneak up and unsew it from under the table or something. Beta and delta on the other hand, have opposite assumptions about how things already are. Beta is shouting at delta: "look, things are totally apart," and delta is shouting at beta, "look, things are completely together," and they cannot possibly agree between the two of them. Beta and delta are no more or less opposites than gamma and alpha, but they are perhaps more extreme opposites (in some ways). Also, this relates to the beta and delta conceptual modes, imo, insofar as deltas tend to see the world with fewer tensions and disunites and struggles; we're all really the same, etc. etc. Betas, on the other hand, tend to see the world in more tensions, disunities, and struggles, except for philosophical or spiritual unity (monism), and even then the Unity of Being is then placed in a dichotomy against the Illusion of Difference/Becoming.

Also, I do want to take issue somewhat with the idea that the delta quadra as a whole tends to regard the past with suspicion. I have found that many deltas are of the conservative/traditionalist mindset, in which contemporary times are constantly compared to (somewhat idealized) past conditions, especially in the realm of morality. "back in the day," "I remember when," "used to be" are all phrases I associate with this mindset. Now, this could simply be weak Ni as opposed to unvalued Ni, or it could be that your definition needs a bit of refining (or it could be that my observation is off), to say something more akin to, "delta regards overarching interpretations of the past, or assumptions about historical trends with suspicion."

Also, while this was an extremely well-written and well-thought piece (and will probably at least moderately impact my understanding of socionics, going forward), I would like to see more application of this broad historical (yay Ni!) organization to more specific applications/interpretations/etc., about how this cycle, or the orientations that produce it, affect individuals and interpersonal affairs. For instance, how would a beta, who is focused on results, relate to a gamma who is focused on influence and/or power? That's a bad example, but I wanted to see more analysis tying this quadra succession stuff to how it plays out in one-on-one relationships and smaller group dynamics.

Also, you have a "function analysis" subheading over both the "beta" and "gamma" overall descriptions, which is probably a typo, since you provide the actually function analysis below those headings.

EDIT: Oh, and also, I know that beta is probably the most extreme quadra, but I don't necessarily think that everything is in tatters once we're done, or at least, we plant the seeds of a new order. But I guess beta, at its best, does ruin the old forms (ruin the sacred truths) of government, of politics, of "world order" or balance, of theology, of philosophy, of poetry, of whatever, but often on the basis of an interior logic. I mean, it's not just blind destruction. But I can see why you would argue that everything is broken and must be refused into a more... coherent system. I think that's the difference; beta is an incoherent system (operating on an internal logic), while delta is a coherent system (operating on an explicit logic, which requires unquestioned implicit assumptions).

[Azeroffs]

It seems to me that Alpha/Gammas have a more extreme way of thinking, and Beta/Deltas have a more extreme way of doing, which is kind of what I was trying to get at on my last post.

[Creepy-male]

silverchris, you're screwing with dark forces. Latin Grammar is a demon of immense power, and cannot be tamed by the likes of you or I. No, it requires a summoner of immense talent and incorruptible motive, and even then, their sanity is at risk. Do you understand now? Can you now grasp the depths of horror that await you down the dark path you have taken the first steps towards?

[silverchris9]

silverchris, you're screwing with dark forces. Latin Grammar is a demon of immense power, and cannot be tamed by the likes of you or I. No, it requires a summoner of immense talent and incorruptible motive, and even then, their sanity is at risk. Do you understand now? Can you now grasp the depths of horror that await you down the dark path you have taken the first steps towards?

?

[Creepy-male]

(the pax del... tana?)

I was referring to this.

[silverchris9]

I was referring to this.

hahaha. That's funny. I wish I had gotten that joke the first time, because it would have been really funny if I'd gotten it at first.

[Marie84]

Mmmh. But, say, ESTjs are also really likely (perhaps more likely than ENTjs or INTps, from my perspective) to involuntarily promote that type of attitude towards work.

My understanding of LSE's is that they tend to possess a tenacious attitude towards work, showing their aptitude in their skills and productivity to prove themselves worthy of achievements.
I think they get upset when people don't take notice of this, which leaves them feeling unappreciated, even more so if someone whom (they feel) is less worthy is promoted/recognized ahead of them.
So, basically, I think their goal is to be rewarded for their hard-work, not their status/position

Also, I do want to take issue somewhat with the idea that the delta quadra as a whole tends to regard the past with suspicion. I have found that many deltas are of the conservative/traditionalist mindset, in which contemporary times are constantly compared to (somewhat idealized) past conditions, especially in the realm of morality. "back in the day," "I remember when," "used to be" are all phrases I associate with this mindset. Now, this could simply be weak Ni as opposed to unvalued Ni, or it could be that your definition needs a bit of refining (or it could be that my observation is off), to say something more akin to, "delta regards overarching interpretations of the past, or assumptions about historical trends with suspicion."

Yah I think it's more likely linked to weak Ni than quadra values.
My LSI father is extremely conservative in his positions, often making comments about the "good ol'days". Their weak Ni makes it hard for them to see the unfolding consequences behind their ideals

[Gilly]

Hmmm, perhaps regarding the past with suspicion is poorly worded. Perhaps I should say that they don't believe trends pointing to the past as a proper indicator of widespread change or upheaval unless it is obvious, and they tend to be suspicious of reinterpretations of the past that cast current trends in a new light or bring their personal assumptions about development into question, especially when it entails upheaval or drastic change.

[Rocket]

The proposal that Delta occupies some sort of equilibrium position at the full fruition of an idea (or set of ideas) makes conceptual sense to me .. so it will be accepted at face value at least for now .... good work!

It seems to me delta is interested in new ideas but only ones that can be implemented without disruption to an existing hierarchy ..... (Aristocratic) ..... Alpha on the other hand values and considers new ideas without such constraints thus setting off the chain of events you describe.

Now Gulenko says this ....

"If we compare the degree of peripheralness, then further from the focus of the attention of sotsiuma is located fourth kvadra. Fourth kvadra is opposite to the second, which always most probable aspirant to the central position........"

How would you reconcile the two? In your scheme Delta appears to occupy an effective center of society while Gulenko sees Delta as on the furthest periphery!

Do you think it possible that both schemes can be correct?

Is it possible that the same basic mechanism is always operation but what we see in terms of society ultimately comes down to the length of the cycle of change (from delta back to delta). Could it be that rapidly advancing societies (eg USA) look primarily alpha-beta-gamma (mostly beta-gamma) while stagnant ones (eg. middle ages) are predominantly delta?