Reinin dichotomies: Aristocracy is not superiority

[Joy]

Aristocracy is NOT about thinking you're better than other people... k?

[Creepy-pokeball]

Aristocracy is NOT about thinking you're better than other people... k?

OKAY!

[Wavebury]

Its about other people thinking that you're better than them.

[Expat]

Ok, trying to get this back into topic before I have to move it to Anything Goes.

Aristocracy is an inclination to think of people as belonging to a group - any kind of group. It can be a family, a sports club, a nation, a city, a department at a company. Almost nobody will say they're Aristocrats if directly asked -- it's best to observe the person yourself.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Ok, trying to get this back into topic before I have to move it to Anything Goes.

Aristocracy is an inclination to think of people as belonging to a group - any kind of group. It can be a family, a sports club, a nation, a city, a department at a company. Almost nobody will say they're Aristocrats if directly asked -- it's best to observe the person yourself.

I like watching people seperate into groups after they meet lol. It's quite predictable into how they will form but still utterly fascinating to take note of

[Slacker]

I didn't think I fit this till I heard Expat explain it. But I really do this. I don't mean to because I feel like I'm stereotyping. But, like, we have a large Dutch community here, and they have certain things that are simply common for that community. So my husband was looking for a truck, and if I heard the name of the person who owned it and it was Dutch, I would say, "well it'll be clean and well taken care of but he won't want to come down at all on the price." Because Dutch people are like that. And you know what? I was right.

But I do that thing all the time. Not in a negative way - it's generally more about observing pretty obvious positive or neutral traits of groups. I reject many stereotypes I've heard because I've observed that they aren't true. Still it makes me feel bad because it is a kind of stereotyping.

[XoX]

I do form stereotypes but when I'm one on one with someone I tend to forget about them. As in if I'm about to meet someone belonging to a certain group I may have a stereotypical image in my mind. It is like statistical clustering. I tend to register that certain kinds of people do behave in certain way (a bit like what socionics is doing). So is statistics aristocratic? Is socionics aristocratic? But when I actually interact with a person I tend to drop all stereotypes and interact peer-to-peer. As in if I have higher status or lower status or something I generally don't let it interfere with the interaction. I don't care if I discuss with Albert Einstein, George Bush, or some drunk from the street. If they make sense then they make sense. If they don't then their status don't mean anything. So even though I have many statistical stereotypes in my head I feel I'm more democratic.

My wife thinks I'm aristocratic because I often joke about these stereotypes etc. Like if she is about to meet someone from some group I can joke about how he/she is going go be like this or that so prepare for it. But as I said I drop these stereotypes when I interact with someone. I feel they are just things I register from people. Not something I actively use to define my interactions.

So am I aristocrat or democrat?

[Slacker]

that's how I am, xox, so I'm thinking it's aristocratic. When I'm dealing with someone one-on-one it doesn't register.

[Kristiina]

I think I'm better than most others people.

And people exaggerate aristocracy. So what if I place people into groups. Each person is in 20 groups at the same time (at least). And the more I learn about them, the more groups they are in. And each group is a bunch of tendencies.

Like for example. If I meet a black man from USA, I'll know that he's in the group "African American from USA". I'll assume that he thinks everyone's racist. If he greets me very openly, he'll suddenly be:
1)African American from USA
2)African American who feels openly about people of all races.
3)A friendly and open person. (assumption - probably very easy to be friends with)
4)A man in early 20ies (assumption - probably thinks a lot about sex)
5)Athletic body. (assumption - probably the kind of person who spends time in the gym)
ETC.

So very quickly that person will be in lots and lots of groups and it will make him unique. Aristocracy just makes it simpler for me to foretell how he might react in different situations. And it makes me look stupid when some of my earlier conclusions slip out. I might say, "So he's a black man from USA, oh he must assume everyone's somewhat racist!". I wouldn't mean it of course, but that's what media shows us all the time. (I've probably seen about 5 black people in Estonia during my entire life, if I don't include tourists in downtown, and 3 were my long-term friends.)

[oyburger]

After reading all of this, I think I can safely assume that I don't belong in this category.

[Slacker]

Kristiina - that's a good way of putting it. Each person is in 20 groups and each group has tendancies. Not everyone in that group acts a way but that tendancy exists. And a person might be in groups where a tendancy of one group would contradict a tendancy of another group. Which is fine because they're just statistical in nature, tendancies, not specifics.

It seems like everyone must do this to some extent. A lot of businesses around here advertise that they are owned by Christians. They must count on people making positive associations with Christians, right? Or "locally owned." That means we'd make assumptions about what it means for a business to be locally owned. Such as that someone who owns a local business is more likely to be aware of the needs of the community. Or in my town there are more liberal areas and more conservative areas - some parts of town have mainly very liberal residents and some parts have mainly very conservative residents. That doesn't mean that everyone in neighborhood A is liberal and everyone in neighborhood B is conservative. But if you're going to neighborhood A to distribute flyers for a conservative political candidate, you can predict that you might not have a lot of people interested.

[XoX]

that's how I am, xox, so I'm thinking it's aristocratic. When I'm dealing with someone one-on-one it doesn't register.

Ok. I'm aristocratic then That one is settled.

[Slacker]

The name "aristocratic" sucks, doesn't it. A bleeding-heart liberal like myself would rather be called "democratic" any day of the week. But a lot of these things are translated and the baggage assocated with the words isn't initended.

[Joy]

just like logical and ethical

[Logos]

So what exactly are these quadra-political categories?

[Joy]

check out "Easy-to-use behaviour tracker" in Gamma by Smilingeyes

someone should make a test based on these...

[Joy]

Does someone have a direct link to a site with descriptions of these dichomoties?

[Expat]

Does someone have a direct link to a site with descriptions of these dichomoties?

Yeah,

Transigent posted them all here:

http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=3398

With a link to the article in Russian.

Somewhere, I forget where, I read a sort of transcript of an exchange between Reinin and Lytov -- it seems that the latter is not really convinced of the validity of the concept.

I think that they do largely work - as do the Gulenko groups - but they can get blurred with subtypes, and should be used for typing if most of them point out in the same direction. One should be careful about ruling out types with base on one dichotomy in isolation.

[jcavosr]

I'm looking for good information on the aristocracy vs democracy dichotomy, but can't find the aforementioned links Joy and Expat mentioned. What to do?

[FDG]

When I meet a black girl, I might think:

- hot
- or not

[Phaedrus]

I am not sure of the connotations in English, but Ganin seems to translate the Russian word with "autocratic" instead of "aristocratic". Would that make a difference to people's associations?

[Ezra]

Right, after having read about Aristocracy from you lot, I know exactly what people are on about, but I won't say I'm Aristocratic just for it to fit SLE, because I am not Aristocratic.

[aka-kitsune]

I don't notice any conscious tendency on my part to group people.

Usually, I tend to deconstruct. I often see my environment in a way like movie androids are depicted: with an internal observation screen that points out details based on appearance, observed behavior, etc. Each time I interact with someone, I pick up these "details" and impressions about them, always collecting these kinds of observations. These go into an information cache/file that I keep mentally about them, always correcting, amending, annotating. Perhaps this is more like "classifying" using my own particular taxonomy. But I don't like to pigeonhole someone, ie: put them in a permanent box and expect them not to change. I expect for each interaction to continue revealing more insight about them, get to know them better, maybe even feel closer to them if I'm inclined.

Maybe unconsciously I do "group" when I observe people in general. I play a kind of matching game. "He reminds me of x", "She did that too". Like reaching back and finding other examples where I've observed the same or similar behavior, perhaps to predict future actions. Motivation is always something I'm intensely curious about. I always want to know "why"...

[Snakeingrass]

When I meet a black girl, I might think:

- hot
- or not

That's not type-related, that's what being a man is all about.

That said, I must agree with earlier posts, Aristocracy is all about having expectations towards people according to the groups they belong in. It's something that can annoy me to no end, even though I understand intellectually that it actually does work. Usually though, it only annoys me 'theoretically', meaning that I'm not bothered by practical application of aristocracy.

[anndelise]

democrats: "it's to be expected that aristocrats have expectations towards people according to the groups the people belong in"
aristocrats: "a person belongs to 20+ groups, each person being unique amongst which groups they belong in, so the possibilities of behavior/etc for each person will vary accordingly"

democrats: "socionics gives us an objective system of categorizing people so that we know what to expect from each person and/or relationship"
aristocrats: "socionics types are only one of many possibly categorizing systems; experiences and environments modify the types to varying degrees, depending on the person, the experiences, the environments, and the type involved"

[krieger]

I associate this dichotomy more with how a person's stance towards "interesting" material is...

Aristocrats will directly say that something is "cool", "amazing", "nice", "fun", "unacceptable", "outrageous"

Democrats are more likely to say that something is "interesting", "lucrative", "worth the trouble", etc...

What matters here is that aristocrats reduce the phenomenom to a value judgment, whereas the democrats appreciate the phenomenom itself and add the judgment to it as an appendage.

Aristocrats: concrete (+) judgment, abstract (-) perception
Democrats: concrete (+) perception, abstract (-) judgment

No doubt I have accidentally mixed some other traits into this, but I think this comes close to what it is about at it's core... Suggestions as to how these should be alternated are welcome.

[anndelise]

I associate this dichotomy more with how a person's stance towards "interesting" material is...

Aristocrats will directly say that something is "cool", "amazing", "nice", "fun", "unacceptable", "outrageous"

Democrats are more likely to say that something is "interesting", "lucrative", "worth the trouble", etc...

What matters here is that aristocrats reduce the phenomenom to a value judgment, whereas the democrats appreciate the phenomenom itself and add the judgment to it as an appendage.

Aristocrats: concrete (+) judgment, abstract (-) perception
Democrats: concrete (+) perception, abstract (-) judgment

No doubt I have accidentally mixed some other traits into this, but I think this comes close to what it is about at it's core... Suggestions as to how these should be alternated are welcome.

interesting...except that i can easily see ESFjs and ESFps saying things like "cool", "amazing", "outrageous", "awesome", "nice", "fun", etc.

[anndelise]

"Aristocratic" doesn't fit me at all.

It doesn't fit me in any literal sense of the term, as my values are primarily humanistic democratic. The same is true of every NiFe, FeNi, and FiNe I've ever known.

Nor does it fit me in the sense that others present it here.

Like most NiFe, I prefer unstructured group interaction: no expected behavior patterns, no acceptable standards of behavior, no prestige grading, position, or rank. In fact, I tend to be oblivious to such things, and consequentially tend to undermine them.

I don't respond well to the expectations of others. To give in to others' expectations is to risk losing myself. I am not willing to take the risk. I tend to bolt.

And to expect things from others is to risk not knowing who they really are. How can I possibly understand someone if I am trying to force them to fit some preconception?

would you say that autocratic might fit better?

(i'm still looking up what it means...but tc had said something about ganin using autocratic instead of aristocratic..or something like that)

edited: lol, nevermind, i looked up what it autocracy means. forget i asked

[krieger]

interesting...except that i can easily see ESFjs and ESFps saying things like "cool", "amazing", "outrageous", "awesome", "nice", "fun", etc.

Yeah, common sense would suggest that. Socionics tends to elude common sense sometimes, though.

In my experience, ESFj's tend to first describe phenomena as if they didn't affect them much, to then later tell what they thought of it as an "after thought" (eg. [describes some occurance], that was really fun). The value judgment is what in socionics is called "abstract", meaning that it isn't taken personally so much as it is just looked at, suggested, discussed, or even "analyzed".

[krieger]

Yeah, the fact that she can exagerate her judgments is an indication that she looks at them from an unattached perspective. If she was really invested in them and taking them personally to the highest possible pitch she would take her feelings bloody seriously and expect others to do them same. No warping in that case, that would be out of the question... And that's where we find the ENFj mentality: dramatics.