Dictators
I'm very interested in political evil and abuse of power at the moment. Is it a "banality", as Hannah Arendt said? Are dictators fundamentally different from 'normal' people? Maybe socionics can help us.
Please share your typings of the greatest villains in History! Maybe we can see which quadra is the most evil at the end
I rarely feel alone. I rarely talk to anyone, yet in my head i have the most amazing, the most fantastic discussions with the people in my life. In real life, what most people talk about is several orders of magnitude lesser than their inner experiences. Most people never reveal the singularity of their subjective experience.
Maybe I should learn to explore other people's consciousness. Maybe I should aim for a real space between me and others. Instead of cultivating monologues and fantasies. It's hard, but the alternative to this seems to be madness. ~ lkdhf qkb
Life is soup. I'm fork
I'll start with some polemic typings:
Germany
Hit.ler : Dominant ILE-Ne cp6 sx/sp
(I'm open to IEI too, basically a Fe valuing N dom. In the following text I try to explain why he could be ILE)
Goebbels: SEI
Himmler: SLI?
His regime was not organised around any will of power(power seemed more an instrument than a goal to him), but pure hate of Jews, which were seen as greedy merchants that controlled German society (this vision of the “jew” is a good allegory of gamma quadra; he projected his dislike of everything Se-Te on them). His goal, as often with unhealthy Ti-fe valuers, was to “exclude” the Jewish influence from German society, which needed to stay ‘pure’. This idea of purity was built up using tales built from scratch, like the concept of ‘aryan’ people, or the new ‘old’ German lore and folktales used in Nazi worship ceremonies to magnify the self-perception of the Germans.
His regime was characterized by heavy use of propaganda. Any real hardship based on personal and experienced overcoming of tough times and weaknesses of the German population (Ni+Fi) was erased from public discourse to create the illusion of a mighty folk. German History was rewritten, in the sole purpose of making Germans feel good, to make people forget their real sorrows and to exalt the crowds towards the utopia of going back to German roots (Ne+Fe).
It’s said that he developed his antisemitic ideas after being traumatized by Jewish people in his childhood. It’s classic Fi-Polr to leash out at strangers (here millions of innocents) for never healed wounds given by completely different people. His hole dictatorship is just the ILE version of the LII school shootings.
Russia
Lenin: LSI
Stalin: LSI
Italy
Mussolini: SEE
Funny quote:
ChinaIt is humiliating to remain with our hands folded while others write history. It matters little who wins. To make a people great it is necessary to send them to battle even if you have to kick them in the pants. That is what I shall do.
Mao Zhedong: LSI
Japan
Emperor Hirohito: EII
Burma
Aung San Suu Kyi: EII(not really a dictator but she didn’t have the spine to prevent the Rohingya genocide in her own country during her presidency)
North Korea
Kim Il sung : ILE? -> Kim jong il : beta ST? -> Kim jong un : EII?
Africa
Robert Mugabe: ESI?
Historical
Gengis Khan: SLE?
Last edited by lkdhf qkb; 01-01-2021 at 05:18 PM.
I rarely feel alone. I rarely talk to anyone, yet in my head i have the most amazing, the most fantastic discussions with the people in my life. In real life, what most people talk about is several orders of magnitude lesser than their inner experiences. Most people never reveal the singularity of their subjective experience.
Maybe I should learn to explore other people's consciousness. Maybe I should aim for a real space between me and others. Instead of cultivating monologues and fantasies. It's hard, but the alternative to this seems to be madness. ~ lkdhf qkb
Life is soup. I'm fork
most of them belong to the beta quadra. ******, goebbels, mao zhedong, lenin, robespierre were all EIE.
My takes
Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb
Last edited by Marep; 01-01-2021 at 09:59 PM.
It's more complicated than that, actually
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-thi...erm-in-Myanmar
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Aung-Sa...ohingya-people
Last edited by Marep; 01-03-2021 at 11:18 PM.
USA
all presidents by the fact of illegal presence and caring about interests of psychopatic minoritites with many money
Britain
all kings and queens by the law
> Russia
Lenin: LSI
Stalin: LSI
> Are "dictators" fundamentally different from 'normal' people?
sure
Lenin and Stalin have established most efficient and humanistic state of recent time
Stalin has made the most use to people, most strong and developed Russian state of the history where most people lived better than in any other time, did the most help to protected people of the world against hithlerists which were supported by USA and Britain
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
I've often read people correlating beta quadra with dictatorship. Yet the majority of betas I know don't exhibit any autocratic tendencies; and let's not forget that EIE belongs to the "Humanitarian" club.
From your perspective, how would you explain that most dictators are beta?
Is it that people with sociopathic/autocratic tendencies and valued Se + Fe have higher chances of gathering enough social power to become dictators? If so, that would mean that the determining factor for becoming a dictator lies ouside socionics(basically a personality disorder), and that the stereotype "beta = dictatorship" is nonsense. I've heard once that the "ideal beta political system" would be a country lead by philosopher kings under feudalism.
I rarely feel alone. I rarely talk to anyone, yet in my head i have the most amazing, the most fantastic discussions with the people in my life. In real life, what most people talk about is several orders of magnitude lesser than their inner experiences. Most people never reveal the singularity of their subjective experience.
Maybe I should learn to explore other people's consciousness. Maybe I should aim for a real space between me and others. Instead of cultivating monologues and fantasies. It's hard, but the alternative to this seems to be madness. ~ lkdhf qkb
Life is soup. I'm fork
Humanitarian<->admistrative axis should be much more interested taking control over masse than socialite<->scientific. First likes masses latter likes puppetry.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.
Unless you were Ukrainian.
All Heil Stalin.
and they wonder why North Korea still exists.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.
Mao I think was Ni ego, not LSI. Maybe Beta NF.
I think Lenin is usually typed SLE in the Slavosphere. @Sol, is that right?
Capitalism is antihumanistic dictatorship of a minority (<10%) with big money.
This minority owns factories, lands, licenses and other means to produce products and services.
All leaders of capitalistic states are dictators, as they serve to interests a minority against interests of a majority of people.
Democracy there exists mostly formally and is medias fake to fool the majority to hide that they live as slaves.
Most countries of today are mostly capitalistic. It's not early more "pure" capitalism of pre-1917 times, but it's not socialism which was in USSR too. Since 1960's end socialistic reforms are removed step by step to make political systems closer to the past; recent COVID's lie, betrayal and harm to people is among means for this.
In capitalistic states the main power and resources is factually controlled by a minority with big money and property who uses violence, lie and other supressive methods to use the majority of people for own interests.
Among evident differences is the quality of education what people get with different number of money. Lower education means lesser possibility to use your personal abbilities. This supression is done to keep the majority weaker to use it easier. Lesser than 5% get good education, where good also includes "wide". It's not smartest people, it's just because their families have more money (such clans may exist for centuries). While smartest ones from masses at best get good specialiced and limited education what keeps their possibilities to express their abbilities as very limited, anyway.
Masses are made to be predisposed to do not get good upbringing too, what you notice in recent decades of low instincts propaganda (consumerism, primitive sexual promiscuity, irrationalism), in the lie and the harm about children rights to do not get a control from parrents. While people should be studed to self-discipline and should develop good self-control to get good knowledges and skills, including for cooperation with other people - and that should be developed from early ages for better results. Elites' study system is most strict as this helps to make it more efficient and to make people stronger.
Before 20th century most people were not studed even to read books and to write. It was to keep them weak to use them. Now the education degrades to that times again. Robots will do that job and people are not needed to be educated for it. So most people are tried to be pushed back to hunger, poverty, 14-16 hour work times and early death before 40 yo age where they were last centuries up to ~18th century end.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
What @Sol says is true.
I had a good math and science education in high school, but when I was admitted to the University of Michigan, I got a remarkably revealing education on economics, history, social systems, riots and revolutions.
Looking back, it was almost as if they were saying, “OK, you’re in. Now this is how things really work.”
In high school, history stops at the end of WW II. Nothing about global hegemony after that. Economics teaching is even worse. Politics is not taught.
Today, I look at the government of China and what I see is a small group of people at the top, desperately trying to keep the whole system under control by limiting access to information and by being almost proactively punitive. They seem to have no other choice when dealing with such a huge population. Countries like China seem to gravitate towards LSI leaders because LSI’s make such good prison guards.
I’m afraid that the US is headed in the same direction.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 01-10-2021 at 02:10 PM.
Uni is higher level education and it needs significant money, what the majority has no, so it represents one of social stairs. With more money there you get not only better specialization, but better wide education too. It's interesting to note, that in USSR with its socialism and lesser social devision, uni education was lesser specialized than in USA and much of "West". This was said among reasons why Perelman could to succed, - he knew about more sides related to his speciality than western colleagues.
Mainly, I'm was more about closed studing communities and programs where I doubt you may pass without a recommendation of previous members and very high pay. They study children _from school years_ and then transfer to elites unis or their special programs. I don't know details, may suppose they are available in biographies of families which were long-time millionaires. In case you'll can to find such data for some of them, as mb those who have public media activity as politicians.
If you studed in a school with quality but very specialized education - it was a school for masses with good abbilities. Elite families get wide quality education. It's not alike what you get as _secondary_ subjects on common technical specialities in unis, where they are given primitively and formally. It's more alike older approach where you should be versatile - alike good in math and music. As an example, were original Olimpic games - where you had be good in different regions, not even only physically, compared to today nonsense where you need only to run fast or to jump high. A specialization is what made for servants which are attached to concrete duties. The ones who rule should be versatile to control servants with different specializations. Elites tagline is not be better than a servant in something, but to be better than a servant in _anything_. What also allows to have no weak spots where a servant may oppose and get your place, - to be versatile is a requirement to keep the power. You do not cooperate with servants, - you rule them and hence should be above them.
Also. The more specialized you are - the more you degrade in other regions, just same as with Jung types, - the lesser human you become in the whole sense of the term, lesser happy you may feel with parts which became sick. Check the term "professional deformation". Alike you'd developed strong right hand and had weak close to non-functional left hand - is it beautiful? No. It's a pervertion of your whole human nature. And it's what is done with servants, as the ones who rule do not care about their interests as people - they only should do what is ordered by the rulers and serve their interests.
A specialization is antihumanistic by its nature and source, and it traumatizes the psyche of people. In Jung types (which represent a layer of a specialization), besides problems of weaken nondeveloped or degraded regions, you also get a problem from the psyche's disbalance: the more expressed type you have - the more you are predisposed to neurotic disorders. If to add Socionics theory - you also get additional limitation for relations due to IR effects, - as worse accept a support and worse process needs of people with other functional values. A specialization itself makes you weaker and your cooperations with people worse.
> I’m afraid that the US is headed in the same direction.
It's enough to look is mass education becomes better or worse. USA has its primitivisation since ~1960s.
Now, with by COVID's explanations mass education will be degrading quicker than before - children should get it badly near monitors, same in lesser degree for students. And as it's harder to study it will be more limited and simplified.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
I don't know if it's because @Sol and I are both Te-doms, or because I'm a privileged democratic liberal, but I agree with everything Sol says here. Except the "You do not cooperate with servants, - you rule them and hence should be above them." statement. I completely disagree with that. But everything else sounds about right.
His description of a well-rounded individual sounds very classical. I happen to agree with it but I fail to meet its requirements.
My parents weren't rich when I went to school. Instead, I tested very well on admission tests. One of the great things about the US system of capitalism is that, while it exists to maintain the class structure and hence, some degree of social stability, it recognizes that revolutionaries sometimes arise from the 'lower classes", and if these revolutionaries are both smart and hard working and if they derive no benefit from the class structure, they will work to overthrow it. This happened with Mao in China. So admission to the ruling class is extended to all potential revolutionaries; those people who test well academically and can prove that they accomplished something real in high school.
These people may be given scholarships if they are poor, or may simply be admitted into the University if they can afford to pay. This defuses the danger by coopting the revolutionaries and it makes the US class system extremely stable against revolution.
Since my parents were not rich and I didn't feel like applying for scholarships, as my LII sister did, I was limited to attending public universities. The U of M is ranked as the #1 public University in the US, and so even though I went there for an Astrophysics degree, I was exposed to courses and professors who were on a completely different level from anything I'd seen before.
What I learned there changed my life.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 01-10-2021 at 04:40 PM.
I think Stalin was LIE not LSI
How so?
Dictators are Tyrants. In regards to them I refer you all to a quote that essentially made me an Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian:
"But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give to it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name?"
Can't believe I made that all work somehow but I did, go meTell me that isn't one of the most epic burns you can issue unto another human being and/or the entire species depending on your perspective? It's a universal burn, if you don't feel that one somehow in some way I'd argue you're not human. Prove me wrong.
Last edited by End; 01-11-2021 at 05:10 AM.
@End, explain to me how the ancap utopia doesn’t end with corporations BECOMING the new government within, say, a week.
Techno-Tyrants
Jack Dorsey - ENFJ Hamlet - Twitter
Jeff Besos - ISFP Dumas - Amazon
Mark Zuckerberg - INTP Balzac - Facebook
Tim Cook - ISTJ Gorky - Amazon
Sundar Pichai - INFJ Dostoevsky - Google
Mitchel Baker - INFJ Dostoevsky - Mozilla
Last edited by khcs; 01-11-2021 at 04:07 PM.
This is the comment you are looking for
Sure, any human who deals with people depends from them and hence cooperates with them.
I was about hierarchy principle - to rule supposes you should be better in general, not just in something. To rule is not only one of occupations, - it's a higher social status which has more of personal privileges, an example of what is better material support and better protection of leaders life. Also to rule by other people often needs to know that region better than average and to be smarter than average - as you may need to deal with more information, as your decisions have wider influence the consequences are more expressed and so you have lesser space for mistakes. As you need to pass through higher competing to come and stay there (as people are attracted by privileges and more possibilities to do what they want) you need to be smarter, to have better knowledge and skills than average.
Higher personal traits can be checked experimentally. Besides an education and upbringing methods, - some biology. Average IQ of aristocratic families should be higher than common, there should be more % of people with >120 IQ, with better memory, selfcontrol, mb health. The main negative personal trait of aristocratic families and among factors which pushed them socially higher is higher egocentrism, which made them to wish higher power to get more resources than other people, instead of sharing resources with them due to a compassion. They are more cruel, reduce an abbility to love and to value interests of other people, what they compensate by developing strict behavior norms which lead them to care about interests of other people (as they need this to deal with them). The good in egocentrism is higher criticism and more independent thinking, what may help to find new ways which can be better, to oppose to majority which may copy each other and past experiences in unreasonable degree.
> His description of a well-rounded individual sounds very classical. I happen to agree with it but I fail to meet its requirements.
It's common for today society. People get specialisations after schools or during schools.
The whole and humanistic approach - to be good in anything. The ideal to which should be pointed education and upbringing to make humans for life, but not semi-humans for particular tasks.
When people are overbalanced educated for particular jobs and occupations - it's antihumanistic approach.
It's possibly to do a middle variant - when a human is educated for one task and does it for some time. Then he is educated for opposite by skills task and does it to. Such he becomes developed in different regions as the result and it takes lesser time to prepare him for occupations. For example, some years are devoted to make a good programmer (T) and then some years to make a good music composer (F).
A human with balanced psyche will do wiser decisions, will not be weird in some of regions, will feel happier (due to lesser opposing between consciousness and unconsciousness), will may cooperate better with other people being more universal.
That we are attracted to duals and feel better when deal with them - points that we need what they have - we feel inner hunger to what stays inferior in us. Human psyche wants to be whole. The satisfaction of this need makes us to feel happier. While partial development predisposes to be partially inferior neurotics.
> ecognizes that revolutionaries sometimes arise from the 'lower classes"
The existence of classes is the problem. It leads that most people is hold below of their abbilities and feels lesser happy.
Higher classes is a social cancer which worsens the life of most people.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
One cannot avoid Parteo's Law. 20 percent will be responsible for 80 percent of the outcomes/successes and said 20 percent will almost certainly end up running everything. There are many solutions to this but the most obvious one is the one presented by Hans Hermann Hoppe. Covenant Communities.
In the Ancap "utopia" pretty much every conceivable society gets to exist (in theory by the by because we're not dealing with specifics in this example). You wanna live in a Catholic theocracy? Yeah, there's a few, take your pick. Want to live in Communist Workers "paradise" eh comrade? Yeah, also a few, pick one. None of these cover much geographical territory in comparison to what we're used to seeing as nations or empires but in the end patterns will emerge and MAD will take care of the question of whether or not everyone actually "gets along" somehow.
Whatever corps emerge within these communities will have, by definition, already agreed to abide by whatever covenant is being enforced and all the people living within it will gladly and zealously enforce it.
To borrow an analogy I used in another thread, say you were a secret Molochian in a Christian community who sought to subvert it somehow. You wouldn't be able to hide your proclivity to sacrifice babies to your "god" for very long and the instant the other people, whom you'd necessarily have to employ, found this out you'd get "physical removal" at best and "summary execution" at worst and also most likely. The same would go for the undercover Christian, but they'd have a bit of an easier time actually succeeding if he was smart about it. After all, it's far easier to convince a Mother to not sacrifice their child to a bronze effigy than to instead gleefully offer it up.
At least, I hope and pray that's true for 99 percent of humanity...
@khcs I wonder if you noticed how ugly and/or punchable (I'd vote both) their faces are. Yet more evidence that physiognomy is a real thing.
Also, I agree with your typing of Faceborg. Truly, I am ashamed to share his type. I am and we have done far better. Dude's not even capable of passing as human by any metric I'd care to mention!
Last edited by End; 01-13-2021 at 07:07 AM.
So the "an" in "ancap" is right out.
Lol.In the Ancap "utopia" pretty much every conceivable society gets to exist (in theory by the by because we're not dealing with specifics in this example). You wanna live in a Catholic theocracy? Yeah, there's a few, take your pick. Want to live in Communist Workers "paradise" eh comrade? Yeah, also a few, pick one. None of these cover much geographical territory in comparison to what we're used to seeing as nations or empires but in the end patterns will emerge and MAD will take care of the question of whether or not everyone actually "gets along" somehow.
True "anarchy" is not and never really was on the table. There will always be rulers and the ruled. Landlords and security guards won't just disappear if the government does for instance. Hell, parents will always be a thing and you can consider them your original (and most legitimate ceteris paribus) rulers.
The big questions in regards to rulers are "are the rulers close to those whom they rule ideologically and spiritually?" and "do they feel any sense of noblesse oblige?" The bigger the government, the bigger the geographical area said government has domain over, the more likely the answers to those questions becomes a resounding and emphatic fuck no. Case in point: America's ruling class. Hell, most any ruling class currently inflicting themselves upon the world. There's damn good reasons the world sucks and our governments and ruling classes are a major part of it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
