Aristocratic/Democratic dichotomy critique [rant]
I have always been a bit critical about the Reinin dichotomies, but the one that has consistently itched me the wrong way was the aristocratic/democratic dichotomy. It just doesn't match my observations and reeks of NT bias. Particularly this oppositions(from sociotype.com):
Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features &inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to(aristocrats)
Not inclined to use expressions that generalize group features & Perceive and define themselves, and others, primarily through individual/personal qualities(democrats)
What I see SFs do:
- say stuff like "in my country/family/religion, WE do things this way"(vs NFs that say "in my country/family, things ARE done this way")
- rarely questioning and actively pushing their belief systems onto others, "you must have an income in life", "you really should try this vegan sausage", "women should be there for their family", "we should be able to retire at 60"
What I see NTs do:
- divide the world into "the smart ones" and "the dumb ones" and spend their whole life trying to defend their position as a "smart one".
- give themselves to power to divide people into different thinking paradigms (the democrats, the liberals, the humanists, the religious, the atheists, the free thinkers) and won't accept to be challenged on them (I suspect that that's why they hate "SJWs" so much). They seem to see these classifications as integral and unchanging parts of who they and other people are. It never seems to cross their minds that STs or NFs will just pretend to adhere to a school of thought just for the perks associated to it. For example when I discuss politics with NTs, they really want think that people in parliament believe in left-wing or right-wing ideas, even when they know that politics are just demaguoges.They also seem not to accept/judge people who use individual abstract classifications that are different from theirs(NFs or STs would go "you perceive yourself as non-binary? Ok here you go, that's not my thing but just do as you want, i don't give a f***").
- have a weird conception of individual action: they think it should be representative of some absolute law all the time. Will interpret all your actions through their preferred ideology.
All in all, I think that democrats attribute group identities as much as aristocrats, it's just that the group identities are about thoughts/procedures instead of feelings/social behaviour. In "democratic" society, you have to comply with social pressures(SF) to appear "like everyone should be"(NT). SFs will pressure you into their NT ideology at any cost. You can't find meat in a "vegan restaurant" because that's against the owners principles("what? you don't care about saving the rainforest?"). You can't be a transgender, because "there was a reason you were born like that". You have to go to church, celebrate chrismas or whatever just because your family does. If you don't conform to the abstracted idealized thinking/social structure of your culture, you become an outcast. In "aristocracy", no one will decide your social life for you or judge your principles on ideological grounds as "wrong thinking" and impose theirs.
Even the labels in this dichotomy show this bias. To me, the "we are the ones who believe in democracy and egality while you don't" is just as much a preachy imposition of a thought framework as the "we are the pure/good ones, follow us" NF-stuff is to NTs. Some aristocrats believe in equality/democracy, some don't. It's a PERSONAL responsibility to chose those kinds of beliefs in aristocracy.
Socionics is a spook
I haven't been especially aware of aristocracy/democracy in socionics terms or any related concepts as they demonstrate themselves in type-related ways. I have different experiences than the ones set forth in the OP, but nitpicking seems like a drain, I'm really just here to encourage y'all to respond and/or share your own experiences cuz it's interesting.
You might be on to something in that Democratic types aren't particularly less judgemental or expect people to not conform to certain expectations. But I do think there's a difference in how Aristocratic/Democratic types approach this sort of thing. Most of your examples are too individual and not, I think, generally representative, but I think you're correct in noticing that Democratic types seem to expect people to think or act in a certain way -- not to be part of the right group, but to materially conform to certain expectations. I can't speak as well for Gammas, but Alpha NTs typically in my experience want people to behave and especially to think "properly", and will pressure others to adopt the NT's 'framework' of thought, when they can, "for his own good." The SFs, I think, are more focused on the proper behavior being expressed -- not in the sense of obeying formal procedures, which they seem to have a distaste for, but seeming sufficiently considerate, appreciative, or so on.
a two horned unicorn renegade
Thanks for your replies, it's still in embryonic form in my mind and I appreciate the feedback.
Isn't the supreme authority replaced by some supreme principles in their mind? Like the constitution, laws, God, "democracy" ?
Originally Posted by Heretic 007
Do you know these tales where there are two neighbours that fight over something, like a sheep or some apples that fall on the other side of the fence? The story goes that they cannot find common ground and have to go to a "smart one" who is gonna explain them what to do. I was always astonished by that. "Why can't they take a step back from their own interests, consider each others position and negociate a fair agreement for both sides? Everyone should be able to do that." It's like you can't decide what's fair yourself, you have to go to some kind of oracle that personifies "justice". Aren't these tales exactly about the "democrats"? About SFs being unable to take a step back and needing NTs?
What I SFs see do is create some sort of community, either closed-off(gammas) or universal(alphas) which tries to live in accordance with their "philosophy of justice"/supreme principles. They can't just live it by themselves alone, they have to push it onto others. This is not done through some authority that manages you, but through social pressure. Basically nagging, gossip, ostracism, and so forth. Social inclusion is only warranted when you adhere to an extraneous set of beliefs about how society should work. There is no tolerance for individuals to shape their own understanding/principles themselves, or for each interpersonal relationship to acknowledge these personal differences in views. That's why I think that democrats don't perceive others only through personal qualities, they will always check if you think "right".
That is exactly what I mean. In "democratic" society you will be "out of track" because the assumption is that we need a common language. It never seems to cross NTs/SFs minds that instead of using an universal principle/language, you could just treat each person as a person.
Originally Posted by Heretic 007
Fars I'm able to discern, the "Democratic"/"Aristocratic" dichotomy essentially boils down to the preferential processing of "is" (P) vs. "ought" (J) conditions. The reason for this is that, with regards to blocked pairs, the rationality of the "process" element determines the kind of metabolic «content» actually being processed, with the other "result" element serving as a ‹medium› for it. If the process element is *perceiving* (P), the block pair deals with the processing of "is" conditions; if the process element is *preceptive* (J), then the pair metabolizes "ought" conditions.
With regard to "Democratic" pairs, perceiving (P) elements are the metabolic «content» which is ‹mediated› by preceptive (J) elements -- converting physiological energy into conceptual information, and vis versa. For this reason I call these pair groups the "Transduction" axis.
The roles are reversed in "Aristocratic" pair groups, with "process" preceptive (J) elements as the metabolic «content» being ‹mediated› by "result" perceptive elements -- converting inner ideals into external behavioral, and vis versa. This is why I call this particular group of elements the "Conduct" axis.
A clear example of this distinction would be the role Ti plays in the context of the "Transduction" vs. "Conduct":
On the "Transduction" axis, Ti(N) serves as a ‹medium› for Ne(T) «content», yielding "descriptive ideas": ‹«Ne»Ti›
On the "Conduct" axis, Ti(S) is the metabolic «content» being ‹mediated› by Se(T) to yield "prescriptive codes": ‹«Ti»Se›
The former deals with "is" conditions ‹«P»J›, and the latter with "oughts" ‹«J»P›.
At this point, I don't use the classical "Democratic"/"Aristocratic" designations or definitions because, IMO, they kinda miss the mark on the essence of what this particular dichotomy is describing.