Aristocratic and Democratic

[The Exception]

According to the theory, I should be a democratic type but I find myself fitting much of the aristocratic stuff too. I'm not sure which one I fit more overall.

In communication, Democratic types are the most likely types, IME, to try to overtly establish or build off of the idea of a common or shared experience. Common phrases are things like: "You know how when you shower for too long..." "Have you ever noticed..." "Is x like this for you too?" Basically they will assert an experience and put it "to the jury" as to whether or not this is commonplace, expected, mutual, etc. The basic assumption of the Democratic quadras is that each individual is different, that each person acts on their own and is simply one of many extant individuals, so this is an attempt to "translate" the inherent differences they observe.

Yeah, I do this alot. Basically, I want to know if I'm normal or just weird freak about something. Not with all things though. Some things are the opposite where I assume that because I do it others must do it and then I'm surprised to later find that it really truly is some weird quirk of mine. So this could go either way.

In contrast, Aristocratic types operate with the assumption that certain people are either inherently similar or different. With people to whom they feel they relate or share certain things, they speak easily of experiences that they assume to be mutual, omitting things that the other is assumed to know and making statements or judgments based on what is taken for granted as common knowledge without drawing any attention to it; they assume that people either speak their language, or don't.

I do this alot as well. In some contexts I'll assume everyone in the group is somehow similar and then disappointed to find there are differences that make it harder to relate to certain individuals and the differences should somehow be smoothed out for better interaction. This is especially true in cases where people don't share similar interests.

I'm not sure I assume either people 'speak' my language or don't. I don't think it's so black and white. It's more a matter of do they understand where I'm coming from or not. I've learned from experience that what I think is perceived as 'common knowledge' really isn't so. I used to be reluctant to just state the obvious, didn't want to bore people but sometimes it's necessary.

Public Presentation

In activities like public speaking or teaching, there is a distinct difference in the attitude of presentation of information.

Democrats tend to have a casual, more lightheartedly performative approach to self-presentation. They are more likely usually very explicit or presentational, making more of a point to introduce themselves, perhaps saying something moderately personal, awkward, or funny to break the ice. They generally speak about their own ideas or contributions or something they find of personal interest, often using anecdotes to help people understand the specific applications of what they are saying. They are more likely to involve the crowd or "break the 4th wall." This gives them a somewhat stand-alone feel, appropriately; when we see them speak, we assume that nobody came before them, and nobody will follow them. They are remembered for being themselves and embodying their own viewpoints.

I try to make things more lighthearted when possible but I have to be comfortable with the audience first. I don't tend to spend much time on introductions. I used to teach, and I was criticized for that. I had to tendency to say "my name is _______________, now let's get started on the material." I guess I didn't make things personal enough. I was more material and content focused I guess. I will use my own anecdotes if they fit the material.

Aristocrats, by contrast, can seem low key in presentation, because they assume a certain pretext for their words; they speak as if they require no introduction, perhaps even seeming arrogant to those unfamiliar with them. They are more likely to speak with a kind of contextualized gravity, as a priest giving a sermon; they sometimes use anecdotes to make the tenor of their speeches more personal or serious. More common topics are things that they feel are relevant to their direct audience, or things they feel "should be heard." When they speak, they speak for something else; when you see them on the stage, you see not one person speaking, but the conduit for the people or ideas that are "behind" them, that they attempt to embody and represent.

These are just a couple; if people want to blurt out some ideas and help me get the juices going I will try to do more.

I think I'm rather low-key in presentation. I try to be casual too but sometimes I come across as too nervous or awkward if I haven't had time to warm up with you yet. I tend to be mostly concerned with getting a particular message across but I do care alot about how I'm being perceived.


Some other things:
*I often long to feel a sense of unity with people. The people in the group all share similar interests, goals, and values. It's like we are one large entity. The differences we have are trivial or are meaningless to the purpose of why we are together in the first place. If people are too different, it makes it harder to have group unity, makes it harder to meet our purpose if person A wants X and person B wants Y. Wouldn't this be a more aristocratic POV?

*When describing people though, I tend to describe them by personality traits rather than the groups they belong to. The fact that someone works at the bank, has brown hair, is middle aged, etc. says hardly nothing about what he or she is like as a person. On the other hand, to describe someone as funny, loud, quiet, considerate, sarcastic, etc. gives a much better sense of who he or she is like as a person and how interacting with that person might be.

So I still don't have a clear sense if I'm more aristocratic or democratic. As an alpha quadra member, I clearly identify with merry and judicious. I just have a harder time placing myself on this dichotomy.