Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Insights in the Aristocratic and Democratic attitudes on membership

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Insights in the Aristocratic and Democratic attitudes on membership

    Membership to groups can be exclusive or not, in Socionics the two views are in my opinion represented by the Aristocratic and respectively Democratic [1] attitudes. Aristocratic inclusion is an either/or operation, "you are either with us or not", in extreme cases it can be "either with or against". Why does this happen? What I observe as a rule in the Aristocratic attitudes is consistency, unity and totality [2], these can alone guarantee the integrity of the group (in this view) and total prevention of undesirable incidents at a social scale. I can see two situations when this integrity can be threatened:

    - conflict of practical interests of two or more groups. If the member belongs to both and neither is his "true" group, the unity with each is broken. You can't belong to us but withdraw in conflict, or even worse, take the other side. It just doesn't work like that, the membership would be merely symbolic, in reality meaningless. Membership means a persistent sense of common interest.
    - differences in ideology between two or more groups. When ideology defines the Aristocratic group, this group is synthetic and can include members with different interests, however they can't be allowed to have a different ideology than the group, not even partly, because that breaks the group principle of integrity (the ideology is correct entirely), the result is that you don't respect the definition and you are therefore excluded.

    I assume few would have the difficulty in associating the two views with the Delta and respectively Beta Aristocratic attitudes. The interesting part to me is that counter-intuitively, the Delta type of consistency is not internal, but actually external and contingent, therefore related rather to Te than to Fi, internal (one's view) is only the sympathy. I can now associate extreme Delta sort of attitude with groups like family business, Mafia, while the Beta one with totalitarian states (Nazi DE, Soviet Union, N Korea) or radical religion. Nationalism, IME, can be of both kinds.

    It should be noted that Beta types are highly individualistic, which at a glance comes in contradiction with the idea of Aristocratic type, but it is not. As stated above, ideological groups are synthetic and can include people of different interests and sympathies; as long as their thinking is correct, they can't step wrong but in "trivial" matters, the ones that are not addressed by the ideal. If say this ideal consists only of believing they are the descendants of Atlantis, then they are allowed to do anything but doubting this, everyone who are perceived to doubt or dispute it being banished.
    ---

    Now what about Democratic attitude? Can't it from groups? Yes, it can [3], but unlike the Aristocratic one, these groups are perceived fragmented, they have goods and bads, or some may be appropriate/useful today but others tomorrow. The groups, the way such people perceive them, are not integer or definitory, they are merely organizations of people who have something in common. Being slightly (or sometimes) different, in action or thought, is perfectly allowed, since they focus on different aspects, the ones they are interested in and the group satisfies. Having this different view, multiple membership is natural, all relationships being of the same tier, in case of conflict of interests or ideas, they find legitimate to adhere to the one that is the most satisfactory or entirely withdraw, when the conflict does not address their concerns, therefore the concept of "treason" can not be applied.
    ---

    [1] - Aristocratic = Beta, Delta; Democratic = Alpha, Gamma.
    [2] - "you're an <identity> before everything", "you were born <identity>", etc.
    [3] - I can't even conceive Gamma without unified effort and collaboration, which are very efficient.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    What are you basing this off?

    I mean, is there some kind of a pool of people you have in mind?

  3. #3
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    What are you basing this off?

    I mean, is there some kind of a pool of people you have in mind?
    I mentioned examples of concrete groups that I recalled. What I'm describing there is the attitude itself, not instances specifically. I'm not suggesting that this is the only manner how Aristocratic and Democratic attitudes manifest [1], nor that the respective types will literally and consistently manifest one way or another in one person. In Model A, concrete behavior is arbitrary, social factors are very important and changing views or pursuits [2] do not imply changing type.

    I base this explanation on statistical indirect patterns in the reasoning of people I know, typed by me, in the framework of Model A.
    ---

    [1] - although you haven't asked for it, I mention it as a different, but similar false implicature as yours. Its prevention is as important to me, people tend to overlook the non-social applicability of this dichotomy, which I simply don't address here, but I don't dismiss.
    [2] - for example switching from technology to art, or the other way around, does not imply a change of type, even if types are described through references to such potential activities. Same goes with mass switch in political support, for instance revolutions.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let's see. Which quadra you think is quite against this individualism, as in, taking measures to thwart it and bring it back to, say, cooperation?

  5. #5
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    Let's see. Which quadra you think is quite against this individualism, as in, taking measures to thwart it and bring it back to, say, cooperation?
    I could not say there is one, in an absolute manner. And BTW, I should correct when I mentioned that "Beta types are highly individualistic" but the truth is I found many Beta persons highly individualistic, in my observations.

    I think individualism and socialism [1] are emergent and depend on many factors. Emergent means that I don't view it as an actual attribute of a type concept, and as stated in my explanation, both come - when they do - from differences in cognition, in this case what identity is. In the case of Aristocratic attitude, it means this prioritary unity.

    Consider this: I take the two approaches as two manners of how membership can be viewed, by anyone, not just the types associated with the respective quadras, although the latter, based on their cognitive values, are at the core [2] prone to the respective attitudes. There are situations when one view is obviously more appropriate than the others for a reasonable person, and in case of threat, a socialist one is the only sensible choice, people are interdependent. Take for instance the simple case of a battle, which I think I exemplified before, defectors are intolerable because if they hadn't showed their support in advance, the others wouldn't have taken the decision to confront the enemy in the first place. They are together in this and they can't do everything they wish individually. This demonstrates that breaking this established unity - I depend on you, you depend on me here, is it understood? - implies an almost direct act of aggression, the consequence of many defecting being that more of the men who stand and fight will die, they can even be slaughtered.

    And I don't even think that unitary social views need to be restricted to multiple groups of people, it can be the entire humanity. Think of the fuss over the greenhouse effect, this effect would threaten us all, and if this threat is real, anyone who doesn't comply should be forced to. Individualism would be cnosidered retarded and destructive by the majority. In theory. But as we know, this is a complex matter in reality, people have different perceptions about the potential threat, some are skeptical about the arguments, others think they have other priorities, other focus on the offering of new opportunities for gathering power or profit, and so on. Imagine what great pretext for seizing power it would be if a huge asteroid would threaten the Earth, if it requires a global effort . But this is already politics.

    The web of social interactions is complex, above I exemplified cases when a Democratic type should adopt an Aristocratic attitude. But the other way around can be easily envisiones. An Aristocratic view over a group or an ideology of Democratic nature creates an apparently paradoxical situation. But the reason that was wrongly expected to determine a socialist view can very easily do the opposite: is that impossible for someone to take individualism as a necessary social norm, of for someone else to self-sacrifice for his Macchiavelian ideal? I think not, people are rarely consistent more than a certain extent.

    ---

    [1] - in our particular sense. This excludes any historical connotations.
    [2] - in the absence of external influences, a hypothetical ideal case that I guess can never exist.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  6. #6
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    (not 100% serious and off-topic) But to answer your question:

    Based on the values and the order of functions, and my overall impression on people I typed, I distinguish three types of "anti-individualists" based on three separate criteria:
    - Beta - when the criterion is law, order, standards, education, and similar things. Examples: Mordor, Vader's Empire, Nazis, Soviet Union, Apple, tcaudillg's followers, PETA, ISO, random "non-profit" regulatory organization, the one or two members of the International Organization of Random Martial Art Nobody Heard Of, people behind the rules that turned the Western fencing into the joke it is today, etc.
    - Gamma - when the criterion is maximum profit and fastest progress, be it material or intellectual. They also are involved in standards and shit, but have a different manner than Betas, they raise awareness and promote indirectly by means of exposure and popularity, as de facto. Examples: Microsoft, Google, USA, the Alpha group on the16types.info, the Nobel Foundation, the Guinness World Records Organization, the Roman Empire, random curators, random art critics, random lobbists, Napoleon's minions, Ashton's minions, people who write "New York Paris London Tokyo" on every perfume, etc.
    - Delta - not very different from Gammas, but with a focus on security and internal harmony rather than gain. Examples: The Shire, isolated Amazonian Indians, random rednecks, "<-Absurd, Kassie & Sons->", the blue people from Avatar, Flower-Power, The Greens, The Free Software Foundation, Anonymous ("We are legion"), hippies and junkies who protest at G5.

    Although I'm specifically targeting Rationals of the mentioned quadras, I don't dismiss Irrationals.

    As a related anecdote. I got this IEE guy at my workplace who almost each day annoys me with his social absolutes and calls to groupthink: "... because it is a good game" (although I told him that it sucks to me and others I know), "everyone does this everyone does that" or "Let's all wear beards for this month. Why? Because it's No-Shave November". I DO NOT AND I WILL NEVER GIVE THE SLIGHTEST FUCK ABOUT NO-SHAVE NOVEMBER, NO-PANTS DAY AND ANYTHING SIMILAR! EVER! And I'm sure I'm not the only one out there. Funny thing is that he understands the connotations of "groupthink" and "hipsterism" but that doesn't seem to affect him in practice.
    Last edited by The Ineffable; 01-15-2012 at 07:06 PM. Reason: examples refuse to stop coming to my mind
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •