I just realized a way in which my Aristocracy manifests itself

[pianosinger]

That is, if I'm understanding Aristocracy right...

So I have asked a lot of questions on these forums, asked for help typing people, and such. I have also done my share of trying to answer other people's inquiries as I've felt comfortable doing so. I just realized something earlier today that I ddin't realize I was doing before because it happened so automatically.

On these forums, I am always more likely to listen and take heed (when discussing Socionics) to those who have been on these forums the longest. Like, someone whose join date is October of 2008 will-- in my mind-- be more likely to know what they're talking about, than someone who just joined in October of 2010. Later I may find that the first person I listened to was wrong, and then I might go back and look more at what the next person said, but even if the "oldest" person turns out to be wrong, I am still likely to "try on" what they have to say first.

Even when I respond to answer other people's Socionics questions-- and I try to be as sure and confident as I can be-- I still expect that the person who asked the question will probably take the word of someone who has been around longer than I have before they listen to me. And btw, because of this, when someone does find my answers or analyses useful, despite my newbness, I get an unexpected ego boost.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Yes, I agree. I do the same thing as well.

And I do think this tendency is a good thing. There is definitely a correlation between experience and knowledge and socionics accuracy. Of course, not everyone who's been around several years is 100% right all the time, but in general, I think respecting those who have studied something longer than you have helps you understand and learn the right things faster.

[Creepy-Snaps]

On a sidenote: I'VE BEEN HERE ONE MONTH LONGER THAN YOU HAVE!

Big Southpark voice: RESPECT MA AUTHORITAY!

[pianosinger]

On a sidenote: I'VE BEEN HERE ONE MONTH LONGER THAN YOU HAVE!

Big Southpark voice: RESPECT MA AUTHORITAY!

yes, sir.

[Jarno]

And I do think this tendency is a good thing.

And ironically it isn't.

I used to think too that it would count, but on average the people who have been longest here or have posted the most, are the ones who keep being confused.

But to put it in the right perspective, it's just slightly negative correlated.

[Creepy-Snaps]

And ironically it isn't.

I used to think too that it would count, but on average the people who have been longest here or have posted the most, are the ones who keep being confused.

But to put it in the right perspective, it's just slightly negative correlated.

So not even part of you respects people who have been around longer? And are you talking about yourself?

But maybe there is a correlation, at least with socionics, for posting more/being around longer and being more cemented in your opinion, and less likely to listen, and greater chance of being wrong.

I'd like to think perhaps the people who have confused you simply did so because of a difference in communication styles... and that with time, people's knowledge generally increases, and that their opinion should be respected more.

And maybe this is something pianosinger and I admit to doing, considering we're relatively new? Maybe if we were some of the people who had been around for years already, we'd realize there probably isn't that much of a correlation between experience and socionics understanding. And then disregard join date, and pay attention to simply the person and their opinion.

Because, after all, socionics isn't exactly a skill you can practice and get better at... it's still an evolving science, and subject to misinterpretation... so unlike a skill, being more experienced with it, or being around longer, doesn't guarantee your understanding is better than those who are new.

[Brilliand]

But maybe there is a correlation, at least with socionics, for posting more/being around longer and being more cemented in your opinion, and less likely to listen, and greater chance of being wrong.

Naw, the chances of being wrong are the same across the board, except as the chances of leaving are correlated with the chances of being right (that is, they might have a shared cause). It's just that newbies have a greater chance of changing their mind, whether wrong or not.

[Park]

You should take into account that some of the people with early join dates may have taken long breaks from the forum and/or from studying socionics, so their information may be as useful and up-to-date as anyone's.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Naw, the chances of being wrong are the same across the board, except as the chances of leaving are correlated with the chances of being right (that is, they might have a shared cause). It's just that newbies have a greater chance of changing their mind, whether wrong or not.

Could you explain the underlined part a bit more? How are the people who are more likely to be right about socionics, and understand it, more likely to leave?

[Beautiful sky]

That is, if I'm understanding Aristocracy right...

So I have asked a lot of questions on these forums, asked for help typing people, and such. I have also done my share of trying to answer other people's inquiries as I've felt comfortable doing so. I just realized something earlier today that I ddin't realize I was doing before because it happened so automatically.

On these forums, I am always more likely to listen and take heed (when discussing Socionics) to those who have been on these forums the longest. Like, someone whose join date is October of 2008 will-- in my mind-- be more likely to know what they're talking about, than someone who just joined in October of 2010. Later I may find that the first person I listened to was wrong, and then I might go back and look more at what the next person said, but even if the "oldest" person turns out to be wrong, I am still likely to "try on" what they have to say first.

Even when I respond to answer other people's Socionics questions-- and I try to be as sure and confident as I can be-- I still expect that the person who asked the question will probably take the word of someone who has been around longer than I have before they listen to me. And btw, because of this, when someone does find my answers or analyses useful, despite my newbness, I get an unexpected ego boost.

Demonstrating Fe makes you look like an ENFj and attracts your conflictory relation to you by mistake. I'm sure if you thought about it long enough you really don't like the heir-achy and want to be equals.

[717495]

Hmm I do this sort of, except I don't go by join date.

[Aiss]

Not sure if it's in any way type related, but I usually just read posts and only look who wrote them as an afterthought.

[717495]

Not sure if it's in any way type related, but I usually just read posts and only look who wrote them as an afterthought.

+123

[1981slater]

FTR: I don't care about the joining date. For instance: I find Divided's posts very interesting, in spite of he has joined the forum recently.

[Marie84]

I've been reading the site since 2006 or 2007 and didn't really find a correlation with join date and being more trustworthy about Socionics.
In my case I just absorbed all the information here and from other sites over the years and only when I felt confident in my own understanding did I start to filter which posters I thought to be consistent with their own understanding as being more trustworthy

[Computer Loser]

I respect people that have more experience, but that doesn't mean I'll automatically yield to what they say. I have a lot of common sense.

[Bardia]

Oh. I never pay attention to people's join dates. Seems like completely useless clutter information to me.

I just size up a person from reading them, and get a sense of whether they're insightful and worth listening to, or an idiot to overlook in the future.

This pretty much what I do. Based on my own understanding I see if what this person says expands on what I think fits or if it seems way off.

[pianosinger]

Okay, I think I've been slightly misread...

I did say that the first thing I tend to look at is how long a poster has been around...but just like many of you have also pointed out, I also have learned after a while which members I tend to agree with more, which seem most knowledgeable and which are just too confusing or too full of themselves or whatever...

And I don't look at exact join date all the time, either. Often I'll also try to notice which people other members tend to "revere" more as well.

Anyway, maybe it's not Aristocracy after all. But, an interesting observation (to me) nonetheless.

EDIT: okay, looking back on my OP, I did actually describe things in a more cut-and-dry manner, didn't I?

[Galen]

Okay, I think I've been slightly misread...

I did say that the first thing I tend to look at is how long a poster has been around...but just like many of you have also pointed out, I also have learned after a while which members I tend to agree with more, which seem most knowledgeable and which are just too confusing or too full of themselves or whatever...

And I don't look at exact join date all the time, either. Often I'll also try to notice which people other members tend to "revere" more as well.

Yeah, I figured you weren't saying that Join Dates are your sole means of judging who to listen to or who is dependable. But again, just not something I've ever seriously looked at. Could just be a personal thing you do

[silverchris9]

Oh. I never pay attention to people's join dates. Seems like completely useless clutter information to me.

I just size up a person from reading them, and get a sense of whether they're insightful and worth listening to, or an idiot to overlook in the future.

+10.

I dunno if that counts as aristocracy or not. I think the aristocratic part of delta comes in all these implicit Fi standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people. I suppose democratic/aristocratic has to be a function of a certain set of function blockings, i.e., TeSi, NeFi, NiFe, and SeTi (or some subset thereof) are more aristocratic than TeNi, SeFi, SiFe, and NeTi (or some subset thereof). Does anybody know specifically what function blockings are considered to be responsible for the phenomenon?

[Aiss]

I think the aristocratic part of delta comes in all these implicit Fi standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people.

Myself, I always perceived Fe as implicit standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people, as opposed to more subjective/individual Fi. It might be opposite values view or something, I don't know.

[1981slater]

Myself, I always perceived Fe as implicit standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people, as opposed to more subjective/individual Fi. It might be opposite values view or something, I don't know.

IMHO

When a group of merry people meet, with different backgrounds each, they KNOW they value different things but, at the same time, they KNOW that this shouldn't undermine the "FUN". Think of: "OK, we are never gonna see each other again, but let's put our best to make this moment funny".
Serious people on the other hand, cannot stand someone with a different approach to life or set of values.
As usual, someone will tell me I have defined a different dichotomy You are welcome, though

[Slacker]

Myself, I always perceived Fe as implicit standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people, as opposed to more subjective/individual Fi. It might be opposite values view or something, I don't know.

I agree, but this is going to head back to the Fi/taboo debate. LOL.

[golden]

(all the Jung stuff)

Well, that was interesting. I think that sounds a lot to me like "implicit Fi standards that are generally shared by wide groups of people."

Having given some thought to Jung's Fe material for a while, I'd say it's accurate BUT, for me, incomplete.

I don't mindlessly go about holding myself and others to objective standards of emotional/behavioral/social interaction. I am probably pretty well aware of those standards, and sometimes I really do appreciate them and deploy them in order to make life go more smoothly. I care about these things because to me they lead to efficiency. I hate having to improvise or work from scratch in the ethical domain, especially in small matters.

But just as important, my mind is often preoccupied with critique of those standards, values, and traditions. I question why people behave as we do, why we treat one another as we do. What values do and don't serve society at large, and me in particular? Therefore, I might choose to deviate sharply from commonly held behavioral norms. But if I depart from the acceptable and reasonable, lol, I usually do it consciously, and I can generally turn on a dime to behave in a standard way, or conversely to flout the standards on purpose for specific reasons. Sometimes the reasons are conceptual, sometimes the motivation is merely to get my way, and sometimes the desire is to express myself in a manner that authentically reflects my convictions or emotions, which I admit seem to go hand in hand. I might do it just for kicks, too, but if asked to defend myself in such a case, I'll generally give a theoretically based reason, I think.

When someone's behavior deeply offends me, sometimes it comes down to "You just don't DO that. Anyone knows that's not a way to behave." And I suppose that reaction arises in me only when the person in question doesn't seem to know what the objective standards are and just does whatever s/he feels in the moment. For me, that kind of behavior contrasts sharply with intentional transgression, which doesn't usually bother me so long as it's not deeply harmful or dangerous.

And ... I really don't get happy when someone extrapolates from a subjective feeling to generalities about right and wrong, i.e., "That hurts my feelings, or that offends me, so it's always bad for everyone." Just not how I do things, that.

[Aiss]

@silverchris - I think you have a point, but are trying to fit it to Ti/Fe way of thinking . When you say:

With Fi, it seems to be the opposite: the objective derivation is put in the background, and the subjective formula is foregrounded. There is still an action taken in response to certain stimuli. But the external stimulus-external response aspect is downplayed in favor of the subjective, internal stuff that happens: the relation of the stimulus to the internal world, the process that turns the stimulus into the response, if that makes sense.

... all I can say is that from my point of view, you have it backwards - it isn't Fi that implies Te (like Ti -> Fe would make you think, thus you assume Fi -> Te and speak of subjective foreground), but Te that implies Fi. Focus is on how people's actions shape the relation. Otherwise, I tend to agree with mechanism presented, though I wouldn't take it to the extreme, either. Looking for people who'll agree with you on everything is first, impossible (unless someone was seriously brainwashed), second, it seems more like craving ego-boost than anything else, and third, IME I'm more likely to get it from smiling/crying/nodding along Fe anyway, regardless of their actual opinion. It's more about people's actions (Te) making them incompatible (Fi). White supremacist and someone passionate about racial equality simply aren't compatible as long as they're both active and uncompromising in their approach, so it only makes sense for them to not become close, I'd think? But many differences don't stop people from disagreeing and being close. Others might make a friendship less likely but can be overlooked when working towards unrelated goals. And exactly what and how much matters to an individual is part of this implicit derivation, inherently subjective, yes.

[Galen]

That is, if I'm understanding Aristocracy right...

So I have asked a lot of questions on these forums, asked for help typing people, and such. I have also done my share of trying to answer other people's inquiries as I've felt comfortable doing so. I just realized something earlier today that I ddin't realize I was doing before because it happened so automatically.

On these forums, I am always more likely to listen and take heed (when discussing Socionics) to those who have been on these forums the longest. Like, someone whose join date is October of 2008 will-- in my mind-- be more likely to know what they're talking about, than someone who just joined in October of 2010. Later I may find that the first person I listened to was wrong, and then I might go back and look more at what the next person said, but even if the "oldest" person turns out to be wrong, I am still likely to "try on" what they have to say first.

Even when I respond to answer other people's Socionics questions-- and I try to be as sure and confident as I can be-- I still expect that the person who asked the question will probably take the word of someone who has been around longer than I have before they listen to me. And btw, because of this, when someone does find my answers or analyses useful, despite my newbness, I get an unexpected ego boost.

Weird, that's not something I've ever done. If I do look at someone's join date, I never retain that sort of information and just move on. All I care about is if the person in question seems to know what they're talking about and if I agree with what they say, or they have something to give to the discussion that I haven't seen before and works. I'd doubt that it has much to do with aristocrat/democrat, but I'm always the outlier so let's see how other responses turn up.