Aristocratic view of Democrats - discussion of Reinin dichotomy

[anndelise]

Grouped by distinctions (aristocracy) vs Not grouped (democracy). (does not necessarily equate to group/individual orientation)

How one aristocrat views the idea of democracy:
In a democracy, people are treated based on the majority rules. If 72% of the people hold one distinction, then that majority rules and the 22% left over lose their individuality.
Sometimes democrats will vote into place a Representative of the people. This Representative represents everyone, regardless of whether or not a handful of people voted for that Representative. Those people who chose not to associate themselves with that particular Representative are however still grouped under the Representative. Their individuality is lost.

Many Democrats like to consider themselves individual focused over group focused. My belief is that in many cases they are deluding themselves. They claim to perceive and determine self and others through individual personal qualities. Yet they don't make distinctions on whether a person is male/female, parent/student/beggar, satisfied/dissatisfied, bikes/runs/walks/drives, etc. Instead treating a male the same as a female, a parent the same as a student and both the same as a beggar, a dissatisfied person the same as a satisfied person, etc.

While an Aristocrat will create the groupings mentioned above and thus treat a dissatisfied male parent who is also a student who chooses to walk to bike to work differently than a female beggar by choice who is satisfied with her lot in life and walks from region to region. Which one is more individualistically focused? I say that the Aristocrat is more focused on the individual.

In the case of the Aristocrat, the groupings help in treating the person as an individual.
In the case of the Democrat, there are supposedly no groupings, yet majority rules. (How there can be a majority group without a minority group I have no idea, perhaps that's why majority rules, cuz then they wouldn't have to take into consideration there being a distinction between at least two groups…much easier to treat them as a single entity I suppose.)

In a setting in which there will be a number of people working in close proximity, Democrats treat everyone the same (remember, no distinctions) and expect the same work styles etc from everyone, regardless of individualistic differences.
An Aristocrat, on the other hand, is aware of the distinctions between individuals, and thus attempts to place individuals who are "best at" a particular skill in the position of using that skill, while placing another individual who is better at a different skill in the position of using that skill. Thus treating the "team" as individuals and placing them into an aristocratic hierarchy of positions "ruled by the best".

In final, I will post the basic differences as listed by definitions and Socionics' descriptions of Democracy and Aristocracy.
[table:0595e3ed73]
[mrow:0595e3ed73]Democracy[col:0595e3ed73]Aristocracy
[row:0595e3ed73]• Rule of the majority
• People rule directly (or)
• People rule indirectly through a system of representation
• Absence of arbitrary class distinctions
• Perceives and determines self primarily through individual/personal qualities.
• Perceives other people through personal qualities.
• Form relations/attitudes towards a person based on individual/personal characteristics.
• Recognize advantages/qualities of people that are independent of their personal/individual qualities.
• Relations not based on a person's belonging to one group or another (will treat a female the same as a male)
• Relations not based on a person's relations to the representatives of a group.
• Not inclined to perceive people as representatives of a certain group that possess a special quality inherent specifically to people in that group.
• Not inclined to use expressions that generalize "group features" of people.
• Groups are created from individuals drawn together by common interest, common business, common idea, common sympathy.
• Not a basis for constructing a social hierarchy.
• Not interested in social hallmarks of a person.
• What's in one's head does not determine belonging to any group.
• Communication is the same regardless of group.
• Cannot isolate something that other people do not have.
• Groups are not real, they are pretend.[col:0595e3ed73]• Rule by the best
• Belief in own superiority
• Class based systems
• An elegant person with a gracious lifestyle and strong sense of duty.
• Rule by the best individuals
• Power invested in those believed to be best qualified
• Perceives and defines self and others through group belongings.
• Attitudes formed under the influence of their attitude/relation with the group the person belongs to.
• Realizes certain "qualities" friends have/share.
• Frequently uses expressions like "group", "representative", "ours", "all [insert group] are [insert quality], etc.
• Create new groups summarizing joint/cumulative features.
• Perceives people based on grouped distinctions.
• It is easier to perceive the information from the person knowing what group they belong to.[/table:0595e3ed73]
(Notice all the contradictions within the democracy descriptions.)


And finally, I find it interesting that it was a Democrat (who supposedly don't group people) that spent her life on a system that groups people.

[anndelise]

On the other hand....
there is a distinction between the beta aristocrats and the delta aristocrats.

see, democracy vs aristocracy defines only part of the grouping style.
Ti/Fe groups people according to "objective" rules of relationships (Ti).
Fi/Te groups people according to "subjective" rules of relationships (Fi).

so we wind up with
alpha = democratic majority rules by "objective" relationships
beta = aristocratic best rules by "objective" relationships
gamma = democratic majority rules by "subjective" relationships
delta = aristocratic best rules by "subjective relationships

[Mea]

On the other hand....
there is a distinction between the beta aristocrats and the delta aristocrats.

see, democracy vs aristocracy defines only part of the grouping style.
Ti/Fe groups people according to "objective" rules of relationships (Ti).
Fi/Te groups people according to "subjective" rules of relationships (Fi).

so we wind up with
alpha = democratic majority rules by "objective" relationships
beta = aristocratic best rules by "objective" relationships
gamma = democratic majority rules by "subjective" relationships
delta = aristocratic best rules by "subjective relationships

Umm, what does it mean? "objective" rules of relationships and "subjective" rules of relationships?

[anndelise]

i was just in the process of figuring that i needed to explain that better....

democracy is "ruled by the majority"...so the group with the most {whatever} are the ones' who "should" get the positions
alpha democracy would base that {whatever} on "objective" standards
gamma democracy would base that {whatever} on "subjective" standards

aristocracy is "ruled by the best"...so the person who is best suited to the position "should" get the position
beta aristocracy would base the "best" on "objective" standards
delta aristocracy would base the "best" on "subjective" standards

[FDG]

Extremely good ann, extremely good.

I want to add that aristocracy means being aware of those distinctions too. It could also mean trying to confuse people by pertaining to all the groups altoghether, although the divisions would still exist.

[anndelise]

Extremely good ann, extremely good.

I want to add that aristocracy means being aware of those distinctions too. It could also mean trying to confuse people by pertaining to all the groups altoghether, although the divisions would still exist.

i wouldn't say "trying to confuse people" but yes, to make communication simpler, aristocrats may group a group of people together in a word while still holding in mind the divisions. an example are the terms democrats and aristocrats. There are two different types of democrats and two different types of aristocrats, and even those types would be further divided based on such things as subtype differences, differences of experiences, differences of personal values, etc. But to make communications simpler, I'm having to use a broad grouping of democrats vs aristocrates. Using these groups of groupings could easily be mistaken for democratic "grouping".

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

It seems politicized.

i'm not suprised consider aristocracy vs democracy are political concepts

an interesting thing (to me) is how the reinin dichotomies described democracy and aristocracy.
there seems to be an attempt to make democracy look far better than aristocracy. As if there was a history of political upheavals and a democratic government is attempting to be promoted. Unfortunately, in the process of trying to make democracy look like a good guy and aristocracy like a not so good guy, the descriptions within each wind up contradicting themselves in a few places...particularly in regards to individualism. On the plus side though, there is mention towards the end of the descriptions something about how there is no resolution (or it shouldn't be resolved) to the question "which is more important, society or the individual?".

[discojoe]

I LIEK BOTH

[anndelise]

I LIEK BOTH

i think that when it comes to technicalities, both sides agree that one can't exist without the other

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

It seems politicized.

i'm not suprised consider aristocracy vs democracy are political concepts.

Well here you seem to be "making a case" for aristrocracy, the way you said the descriptions seem to be trying to make a case for democracy. If they're political concepts which a person can make a case for through argument, then it's not anything that is intrinsic to the person is it? In other words, you consciously choose one or the other based on reasoning.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying.

Recent discussions included arguments over "groups vs individuals", suggesting that grouping someone into a majority was an aristocratic style of grouping...and arguing that democrats are the individualists. Yet myself and other aristocrats argue that we ARE individualists and that it is the democrats who aren't. (I don't see how "majority rules" considers the individual involved.)

Since I consider myself to be focused on individuals, this was something I had to look into, perhaps this particular dichotomy would force me to question my typing of myself. But when I read the descriptions, and I read the definitions of aristocracy and democracy, I saw conflicts with how these concepts were being described and referenced. In myself, I see a clear aristocratic style of grouping. Did I choose to be like this at some time in my life? I have no idea. All I know is that this has been how I've grouped people/things/concepts from as far back as I can remember.

Yet, while having the aristocratic style of grouping, I am also focused more on individuals than I am groups. How I consider myself to be both aristocratic AND individual focused I explained in my first post, and then expressed that there was still a difference between a delta aristocratic style of grouping vs a beta aristocratic style of grouping.

As for political concepts and personal intrinsicness....
how do you think political concepts came into being?
why do you think political arguments get so heated?
I think there's a good chance that those political concepts came into being and get so heated BECAUSE they are so personally intrinsic.

[anndelise]

Here is the info I got it from: http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=8991

DEMOCRATISM - ARISTOCRATISM
DEMOKRATIZM - ARISTOKRATIZM


Democrats (I and III quadra):
Demokraty (I i III kvadry):

1. Democrat perceives and determines himself primarily through individual/personal qualities. In perception of other people personal qualities of people are primary (In terms of personality: are they interesting, pleasant, unpleasant: their wit, ideas, appearance, tastes etc.). because of this individualism is largely a part of, inherent in democrat "I am I".
2. They form their relations/attitude toward a person based on their individual/personal characteristics (Authority, intellect, personal achievement etc.). They recognize advantages/qualities people that are independent of their personal/individual qualities. The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, or their relations to the representatives of these groups.
3. They are not inclined to perceive people with which they associate, as representatives of a certain "group of contacts" they have that possess a special quality inherent specifically to people in that group.
4. Democrat is not inclined to use expressions that generalize "group features" of people (For example, "a typical representative") in their speech.

Aristocrats (II and IV kvadry):
Aristokraty (II i IV kvadry):

1. The aristocrat frequently perceives and defines themselves an other people through group belonging (The division into groups can occur based on almost any criteria: professional, the floor they live on, age, nationality, place of residence etc.), for example: "I'm a representative of..." "This ? from such and such". Colectivism is more inherent in the aristocrat.
2. Their attitude toward another person forms under the influence of their attitude/relation with the group to which the person belongs. To the aristocrat is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time "You are either with us or them ?against us"
3. Aristocrat separates their "circle of contacts" by a sign, realizes certain "qualities" their friends have.
4. In speech aristocrat frequently use expressions like "group", "typical representative", "ours", "all [insert group] are [insert quality]", etc.

Notes

1. Most briefly the essence of each of the attributes can be expressed as: a primary collective "we" (Aristocrats) or an individual "I" (Democrats) and corresponding values.
2. it is possible to notice that the aristocrat is in a larger degree - social, an the democrat ? individualistic. Therefore the dispute of what is more important ? society or the individual, cannot (Shouldn't) be resolved.
3. From the point of view of social psychologists, the perception of the aristocrat more strongly involves mechanisms of social recognition: casual attribution (The degree of the attributes given depends on uniqueness and social conditionality of behaviour) and effect of the "halo/aura" (It is utilize when the individual doesn't have or has barely any information on a person). Both of them ? are a part of stereotypification (Perception/recognition through a stereotype) [1, with. 128].

Hypotheses

Aristocrats:

Ethical intuitive types create new groups ("Inhabitants of sleeping areas", "The typical representative of a new generation of goalkeepers") ? summarizing joint/cumulative features I inherent in their majority.
Logical sensor types use groups which have been created by the ethical intuitivists ? thus being handed over to be processed by their strong logic while already being the basis of a system of personal relations.

Democrats:

In the core of the democrat, the group is created from individuals drawn together by a common interest, business, idea (For the logical intuitive) or on the basis of mutual sympathy (Ethical sensor). Thus the group is not directly in the core of the democrats basis for constructing a hierarchy in society.

Influence of this attribute on determination of the type of personality:

1. Hierarchy and status are frequently described as concepts inherent in structural logic. According to out observations this is entirely false. White logic of the first quadra will adhere to formal requirements, but will not begin to reconstruct all behaviour in accordance to a new order. So will act the aristocrat, as is most obvious in the white logic of the second quadra. The confusion can arise because of this. If we were to observe, we would see that other aristocrats are no less inclined to such "status games", for example "I demand that they relate to me as the director" (EIE), "I cannot associate with those on a higher position then me" (IEE).
2. Division of people on "one's" and "not one's" is frequently attributed to aristocracy. Actually, that division holds true for anyone with white ethics, including democrats (SEE in particular ESI). If we expand the concept, "one's" ? this is that with which close relations are established, there is a mutual connection or sincere attachment. For the IEE an EII sincere attachment and belonging to a group are combined: "one's" and "not one's" for them means whether they "belong" or do "not belong" to a group.
3. Switching from "you" to "you (As in "you" but with respect)" is not always significant from the point of view of manifestation of the attributes. According to the standards of etiquette, rules of behaviour, elders it is accepted to address with "you (as in with respect)", and different informal situations, regardless of the rules, switches to "you (plain)". For instance if a child's mother is the child's teacher then if the child call her "you (plain)" in class it will not be an indicator of aristocracy. It is possible to give more example of this. The important thing is not how they are addressed but the reason for doing so.

Examples

Democrats:

"I'm not interested in social belongings of a person or other social hallmarks they may have" "What's in "one's head" does not determine belonging to any group. People are unique." "That? which represents the person/individual is what's important" "When I communicate with somebody it's the same whether they are a man or a woman" "it is difficult to determine in what group somebody belongs, I cannot isolate something that other people do not have" "I am the representative only of ideas" "I can notice groups, but they are not real, the groups are pretend"

Aristocrats:

"I perceive people based on belonging to a group, I place everyone on a shelf ("A good mother", "лапочка" ...)" "If it is possible to determine to what group the person belongs, then that it is reassuring. It is easier to perceive the information from the person knowing to what group they belong" "I separate people based on professional capabilities. First: to what social and economic group the person belongs to. Second: the way the conduct themselves, their individual qualities" "to you I come as a typical representative of a translator" "Here, in our work place they hired a new secretary recently and she is everything but a secretary. It's because she comes from the "sleeping" regions... oh no, please don't misunderstand me, I'm not an aristocrat! I'm not!" "For me this religion is nothing, but it is necessary for simple people" "You are my friend, but my friends don't steal toilet paper from McDonalds!"

Here are the definitions I used

The term aristocracy refers to a form of government where power is hereditary, and split between a small number of families. It is derived from two Ancient Greek words, "aristos" meaning the "best" and "kratein" "to rule" and so aristocracy originally meant "rule by the best". Aristocracies have most often been hereditary plutocracies (see below), with a belief in their own superiority. Aristocracies often include a monarch who although a member of the aristocracy rules over the aristocracy as well as the rest of society. Aristocracy can also refer to the highest class in society even if they do not rule directly.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy>

"aristocrat" can also refer to an elegant person with a gracious lifestyle and strong sense of duty. This last meaning can be seen as taking the term back to its original roots.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy>

• democracy - "rule by the people". Democracy and aristocracy are incompatible as forms of government.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy>

aristocracy
One entry found for aristocracy.
Main Entry: ar·is·toc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: "a-r&-'stä-kr&-sE, "er-&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French aristocratie, from Late Latin aristocratia, from Greek aristokratia, from aristos best + -kratia -cracy
1 : government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
2 a : a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified b : a state with such a government
3 : a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility
4 : the aggregate of those believed to be superior

Pasted from <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/aristocracy>

democracy
4 entries found for democracy.
To select an entry, click on it.
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy -- C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Pasted from <http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy>

[FDG]

Extremely good ann, extremely good.

I want to add that aristocracy means being aware of those distinctions too. It could also mean trying to confuse people by pertaining to all the groups altoghether, although the divisions would still exist.

i wouldn't say "trying to confuse people" ".

uhm, the thing is, that's what I actually do purposefully

[machintruc]

I don't think socionic Democracy is equal political Democracy ;

Democracy means individuals make society, and Aristocracy means society directs individuals. I think this dichotomy resembles more Individualist/Collectivist, because I'm a LII and I'm pretty conservative, but individualistic.

[FDG]

I don't think socionic Democracy is equal political Democracy ;

Democracy means individuals make society, and Aristocracy means society directs individuals. I think this dichotomy resembles more Individualist/Collectivist, because I'm a LII and I'm pretty conservative, but individualistic.

mah, i disagree

[machintruc]

I don't think socionic Democracy is equal political Democracy ;

Democracy means individuals make society, and Aristocracy means society directs individuals. I think this dichotomy resembles more Individualist/Collectivist, because I'm a LII and I'm pretty conservative, but individualistic.

mah, i disagree

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=10500

[anndelise]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying.

That you can't separate by quadra. ...[]... Anyway, what I'm saying is that you can decide to be one or the other, a democrat could become an aristocrat and v.v.

I suppose one could decide whether one wants to support a political democracy or a political aristocracy.
But would the grouping style the dichotomies describe come naturally or not?

[quote]

Recent discussions included arguments over "groups vs individuals", suggesting that grouping someone into a majority was an aristocratic style of grouping...and arguing that democrats are the individualists. Yet myself and other aristocrats argue that we ARE individualists and that it is the democrats who aren't. (I don't see how "majority rules" considers the individual involved.)

If you mean about Xox, I think the argument was actually that Xox values Fe>Fi based on his emphasis on the group>individual, not based on aristorcracy vs. democracy (though I could have missed that argument).
xox said a few times that the group>individual grouping style indicated aristocratic grouping style. Expat as well stated at least once, possible more that the group>individual thing was related to being aristocratic>democratic. This bothered me as I, too, do the aristocratic grouping style, yet consider myself focused on individuals.

elsewhere, Expat and I agreed that it was likely an Fe>Fi thing that was causing the group>individual thing, and we both agreed that we were more individual oriented than group rule oriented. (but then, towards the end of the thread is when Expat said it was an aristocratic thing) (hence prompting my research bit)

Since I consider myself to be focused on individuals, this was something I had to look into, perhaps this particular dichotomy would force me to question my typing of myself. But when I read the descriptions, and I read the definitions of aristocracy and democracy, I saw conflicts with how these concepts were being described and referenced. In myself, I see a clear aristocratic style of grouping. Did I choose to be like this at some time in my life? I have no idea. All I know is that this has been how I've grouped people/things/concepts from as far back as I can remember.

Hmm. I'd have to look at them again. Based purely on how you described them, I don't like either one.

Just keep in mind, the first part was how I, personally, view the differences between the two.
The list of descriptions of each came from the definitions and descriptions I found. If you'd like, I can even post what info I pulled out of each paragraph, that way you can better determine where I may have made a mistake in the summary list.

My INFp friend was the one that pointed out that beta uses "objective" standards/rules over subjective ones (a slight sneer on the idea of using subjective standards/rules...hehehe). This fit in with part of Expat's and my discussion of how Fe seems to use Ti rules. Sneg also inadvertently provided some support for the objective vs subjective rules/standards in one of his posts. And then towards the end of the descriptions there is a part that attempts to show that there is some kind of difference between Fi and Fe, and that in some ways the Fi aristocracy/democracy were similar to each other, but different from the Fe aristocracy/democracy, thus giving further support to the quadra differences of each.

Yet, while having the aristocratic style of grouping, I am also focused more on individuals than I am groups. How I consider myself to be both aristocratic AND individual focused I explained in my first post, and then expressed that there was still a difference between a delta aristocratic style of grouping vs a beta aristocratic style of grouping.

As for political concepts and personal intrinsicness....
how do you think political concepts came into being?
why do you think political arguments get so heated?
I think there's a good chance that those political concepts came into being and get so heated BECAUSE they are so personally intrinsic.

Could be, but then why would anyone ever change their political views? People do change their views.

I admit, I'm the last person to ask this.

[FDG]

I know aristocractic anarchists. Why, because they think they are better than everybody else, but they also can't be bothered to reign!

[FDG]

Collectivistic as in, society is more important than the individual?

[anndelise]

I don't think socionic Democracy is equal political Democracy ;

Democracy means individuals make society, and Aristocracy means society directs individuals. I think this dichotomy resembles more Individualist/Collectivist, because I'm a LII and I'm pretty conservative, but individualistic.

yes, society is made up of a collection of individuals. The various interactions and connections that an individual has with their environment (which includes other individuals) is how aristocrats group people, and thus how they individualize their communications with those individuals. Notice that the democrat descriptions expresses that the communication stays the same regardless of the person's "group". How is treating everyone the same being more individualistic?

anyways, the point of what I wrote is that the Democratic/Aristocratic dichotomy does NOT correlate to group vs individual. That there is far more to it and that when I, XoX, and others (probably due to my influence) was suggesting that XoX was group>individual, that we were being too simplistic. BOTH Dem/Arist consider themselves individual>group. The differences is in how people/information/etc are grouped, how they view the grouping style of the other, and whether the "rules of grouping" are objective or subjective.

[anndelise]

Did you look at my notes on their notes? If you replace Democratic with Selfish or Individualistic and Aristocratic with Altruistic or Collectivist, what do you think then?

for starters, various nfs have argued that people aren't as altruistic as they think, including nfs
and many nfs (including me) have acknowledge that deep down inside we are selfish.
so the selfish/altrustic thing never seemed to fit to me.

on the other hand, the individualistic vs collectivist argument still applies to the individual vs group argument. Both Dem/Aristo consider themselves individualistic and the other not. after all, what is a collection if not made of individual people/items? And while I may make distinctions about a person and thus place them into a "group" such as male/female, parent/student/beggar etc etc...yes, I'm placing parts of them into a "collection", but when I deal with the person, I'm aware of every "group" they are members of and refine my communications with them with that information in mind. That is how I consider myself to be individual oriented.

Democrats on the other hand don't do that. Even the descriptions state that "The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, or their relations to the representatives of these groups." and also ""What's in "one's head" does not determine belonging to any group." and also ""When I communicate with somebody it's the same whether they are a man or a woman."" From my own pov, i can't see any way that those last two examples of democracy could should individualism. But I am pretty sure that some democrats see what they do as being focused on individuals and that what aristocrats do as not.

[Logos]

How is treating everyone the same being more individualistic?

But the question is one of treating everyone the same in respect to what? And how do we respond to those differences between individuals? How do democrats and aristocrats differ in their interactions between individuals and how do they differ in their interactions within groups?

[Joy]

YOU CANNOT USE THE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OR ENGLISH MEANINGS OF THE NAMES OF THE DICHOTOMIES TO DESCRIBE, UNDERSTAND, OR EXPLAIN THE DICHOTOMIES.

[Joy]

There is no correlation between socionics democrats and political democrats.

[anndelise]

How is treating everyone the same being more individualistic?

But the question is one of treating everyone the same in respect to what?

I have no idea, I'm not a democrat. Perhaps YOU can tell ME.

And how do we respond to those differences between individuals?

I have no idea, as I said to Diana, the descriptions of democrats say stuff like:

• "The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, or their relations to the representatives of these groups."
  ""What's in "one's head" does not determine belonging to any group."
  ""When I communicate with somebody it's the same whether they are a man or a woman.""

So, on the one hand, the democrat descriptions say stuff like "the group is created from individuals drawn together by a common interest, business, idea or on the basis of mutual sympathy." yet they claim not to consider the common interest, business, idea, nor sympathy as grouping while claiming that they'll communicate with each of those people the same, regardless of their gender, interest, business, idea, etc.

How do democrats and aristocrats differ in their interactions between individuals and how do they differ in their interactions within groups?

I don't know the mind of a democrat, I only know what I do, and what other enfps have said in Delta threads. How even in groups of people, we prefer one on one interactions. We'll move from one person to another, ensuring that we spend time with each individual during the group party/meeting/whatever. Some alphas and betas have commented that they don't particularly care for the singling out of individuals and that the party/meeting/whatever should be a group endeavor. Some of the INFps considered themselves as part of the group even if they're sitting on the sidelines watching everyone. They felt that just because they weren't interacting with the group, that they didn't consider themselves part of the group.


After I wrote the above I noticed something:
Regarding group, note that I inadvertently jumped back and forth between myself and me as enfp. There are times when I identify with a group (in this case enfps). However, also note that I use qualifiers like "some". So even in a "group" I call alpha or beta, I'm further refining those groups into those of the group who said x from those who said y or gave no input.

another example of democratic vs aristocratic groupings:
Notice various conversations between Joy and I, in which she makes a statement that includes a group (no, she doesn't say all X, she just says "X"), and i'll come back with something like, some X don't, or some Y do to. In which case she'll come back saying she didn't say "all X" nor "only X". She doesn't refine her groupings like I do. To me, our conversations are a darned good example of aristocratic grouping style vs democratic grouping style.

[anndelise]

Joy, please don't yell in this thread. There is no cause for yelling.

[anndelise]

for those who want to nitpick, let's take a look at the socionics descriptions:

1. Democrat perceives and determines himself primarily through individual/personal qualities. In perception of other people personal qualities of people are primary (In terms of personality: are they interesting, pleasant, unpleasant: their wit, ideas, appearance, tastes etc.). because of this individualism is largely a part of, inherent in democrat "I am I".
Perceives and determines self primarily through individual/personal qualities.
Perceives other people through personal qualities.

2. They form their relations/attitude toward a person based on their individual/personal characteristics (Authority, intellect, personal achievement etc.). They recognize advantages/qualities people that are independent of their personal/individual qualities. The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, or their relations to the representatives of these groups.
Form relations/attitudes towards a person based on individual/personal characteristics.
Recognize advantages/qualities of people that are independent of their personal/individual qualities.
Relations not based on a person's belonging to one group or another (will treat a female the same as a male)
Relations not based on a person's relations to the representatives of a group.

3. They are not inclined to perceive people with which they associate, as representatives of a certain "group of contacts" they have that possess a special quality inherent specifically to people in that group.
Not inclined to perceive people as representatives of a certain group that possess a special quality inherent specifically to people in that group.

4. Democrat is not inclined to use expressions that generalize "group features" of people (For example, "a typical representative") in their speech.
Not inclined to use expressions that generalize "group features" of people.


Democrats:

In the core of the democrat, the group is created from individuals drawn together by a common interest, business, idea (For the logical intuitive) or on the basis of mutual sympathy (Ethical sensor). Thus the group is not directly in the core of the democrats basis for constructing a hierarchy in society.
Groups are created from individuals drawn together by common interest, common business, common idea, common sympathy.
Not a basis for constructing a social hierarchy.


Democrats:

"I'm not interested in social belongings of a person or other social hallmarks they may have" "What's in "one's head" does not determine belonging to any group. People are unique." "That? which represents the person/individual is what's important" "When I communicate with somebody it's the same whether they are a man or a woman" "it is difficult to determine in what group somebody belongs, I cannot isolate something that other people do not have" "I am the representative only of ideas" "I can notice groups, but they are not real, the groups are pretend"
Not interested in social hallmarks of a person.
What's in one's head does not determine belonging to any group.
Communication is the same regardless of group.
Cannot isolate something that other people do not have.
Groups are not real, they are pretend.

1. The aristocrat frequently perceives and defines themselves an other people through group belonging (The division into groups can occur based on almost any criteria: professional, the floor they live on, age, nationality, place of residence etc.), for example: "I'm a representative of..." "This ? from such and such". Colectivism is more inherent in the aristocrat.
Perceives and defines self and others through group belongings.

2. Their attitude toward another person forms under the influence of their attitude/relation with the group to which the person belongs. To the aristocrat is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time "You are either with us or them ?against us"
Attitudes formed under the influence of their attitude/relation with the group the person belongs to.

3. Aristocrat separates their "circle of contacts" by a sign, realizes certain "qualities" their friends have.
Realizes certain "qualities" friends have/share.

4. In speech aristocrat frequently use expressions like "group", "typical representative", "ours", "all [insert group] are [insert quality]", etc.
Frequently uses expressions like "group", "representative", "ours", "all [insert group] are [insert quality], etc.


Aristocrats:

Ethical intuitive types create new groups ("Inhabitants of sleeping areas", "The typical representative of a new generation of goalkeepers") ? summarizing joint/cumulative features I inherent in their majority.
Logical sensor types use groups which have been created by the ethical intuitivists ? thus being handed over to be processed by their strong logic while already being the basis of a system of personal relations.
Create new groups summarizing joint/cumulative features.

Aristocrats:

"I perceive people based on belonging to a group, I place everyone on a shelf ("A good mother", "лапочка" ...)" "If it is possible to determine to what group the person belongs, then that it is reassuring. It is easier to perceive the information from the person knowing to what group they belong" "I separate people based on professional capabilities. First: to what social and economic group the person belongs to. Second: the way the conduct themselves, their individual qualities" "to you I come as a typical representative of a translator" "Here, in our work place they hired a new secretary recently and she is everything but a secretary. It's because she comes from the "sleeping" regions... oh no, please don't misunderstand me, I'm not an aristocrat! I'm not!" "For me this religion is nothing, but it is necessary for simple people" "You are my friend, but my friends don't steal toilet paper from McDonalds!"
I perceive people based on grouped distinctions.
It is easier to perceive the information from the person knowing what group they belong to.

[Joy]

Joy, please don't yell in this thread. There is no cause for yelling.

np (:

I will not yell in this thread again. When I posted that I felt the need to do everything I could to be absolutely certain that the message came through loud and clear. If that doesn't work, I don't know what will.

(You do understand that the names of the dichotomies are very misleading now, right? And that the English meanings of the words should be completely disregarded when socionics dichotomies are the subject at hand?)

[Joy]

There is no correlation between socionics democrats and political democrats.

Yeah, I said that, then machintruc said that, then I agreed with him, then you said that twice. Now quoted one more time for good measure.

that said...

1. Democrat perceives and determines himself primarily through individual/personal qualities. In perception of other people personal qualities of people are primary (In terms of personality: are they interesting, pleasant, unpleasant: their wit, ideas, appearance, tastes etc.). because of this individualism is largely a part of, inherent in democrat "I am I".
Perceives and determines self primarily through individual/personal qualities.
Perceives other people through personal qualities.

2. They form their relations/attitude toward a person based on their individual/personal characteristics (Authority, intellect, personal achievement etc.). They recognize advantages/qualities people that are independent of their personal/individual qualities. The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, or their relations to the representatives of these groups.
Form relations/attitudes towards a person based on individual/personal characteristics.
Recognize advantages/qualities of people that are independent of their personal/individual qualities.
Relations not based on a person's belonging to one group or another (will treat a female the same as a male)
Relations not based on a person's relations to the representatives of a group.

3. They are not inclined to perceive people with which they associate, as representatives of a certain "group of contacts" they have that possess a special quality inherent specifically to people in that group.
Not inclined to perceive people as representatives of a certain group that possess a special quality inherent specifically to people in that group.

4. Democrat is not inclined to use expressions that generalize "group features" of people (For example, "a typical representative") in their speech.
Not inclined to use expressions that generalize "group features" of people.


Democrats:

In the core of the democrat, the group is created from individuals drawn together by a common interest, business, idea (For the logical intuitive) or on the basis of mutual sympathy (Ethical sensor). Thus the group is not directly in the core of the democrats basis for constructing a hierarchy in society.
Groups are created from individuals drawn together by common interest, common business, common idea, common sympathy.
Not a basis for constructing a social hierarchy.


Democrats:

"I'm not interested in social belongings of a person or other social hallmarks they may have" "What's in "one's head" does not determine belonging to any group. People are unique." "That? which represents the person/individual is what's important" "When I communicate with somebody it's the same whether they are a man or a woman" "it is difficult to determine in what group somebody belongs, I cannot isolate something that other people do not have" "I am the representative only of ideas" "I can notice groups, but they are not real, the groups are pretend"
Not interested in social hallmarks of a person.
What's in one's head does not determine belonging to any group.
Communication is the same regardless of group.
Cannot isolate something that other people do not have.
Groups are not real, they are pretend.

1. The aristocrat frequently perceives and defines themselves an other people through group belonging (The division into groups can occur based on almost any criteria: professional, the floor they live on, age, nationality, place of residence etc.), for example: "I'm a representative of..." "This ? from such and such". Colectivism is more inherent in the aristocrat.
Perceives and defines self and others through group belongings.

2. Their attitude toward another person forms under the influence of their attitude/relation with the group to which the person belongs. To the aristocrat is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time "You are either with us or them ?against us"
Attitudes formed under the influence of their attitude/relation with the group the person belongs to.

3. Aristocrat separates their "circle of contacts" by a sign, realizes certain "qualities" their friends have.
Realizes certain "qualities" friends have/share.

4. In speech aristocrat frequently use expressions like "group", "typical representative", "ours", "all [insert group] are [insert quality]", etc.
Frequently uses expressions like "group", "representative", "ours", "all [insert group] are [insert quality], etc.


Aristocrats:

Ethical intuitive types create new groups ("Inhabitants of sleeping areas", "The typical representative of a new generation of goalkeepers") ? summarizing joint/cumulative features I inherent in their majority.
Logical sensor types use groups which have been created by the ethical intuitivists ? thus being handed over to be processed by their strong logic while already being the basis of a system of personal relations.
Create new groups summarizing joint/cumulative features.

Aristocrats:

"I perceive people based on belonging to a group, I place everyone on a shelf ("A good mother", "лапочка" ...)" "If it is possible to determine to what group the person belongs, then that it is reassuring. It is easier to perceive the information from the person knowing to what group they belong" "I separate people based on professional capabilities. First: to what social and economic group the person belongs to. Second: the way the conduct themselves, their individual qualities" "to you I come as a typical representative of a translator" "Here, in our work place they hired a new secretary recently and she is everything but a secretary. It's because she comes from the "sleeping" regions... oh no, please don't misunderstand me, I'm not an aristocrat! I'm not!" "For me this religion is nothing, but it is necessary for simple people" "You are my friend, but my friends don't steal toilet paper from McDonalds!"
I perceive people based on grouped distinctions.
It is easier to perceive the information from the person knowing what group they belong to.

This is good. Thank you.

[Joy]

fwiw, I am definitely democratic > aristocratic

Diana, based solely on the post that I quoted, do you see yourself as democratic or aristocratic?

[Joy]

another example of democratic vs aristocratic groupings:
Notice various conversations between Joy and I, in which she makes a statement that includes a group (no, she doesn't say all X, she just says "X"), and i'll come back with something like, some X don't, or some Y do to. In which case she'll come back saying she didn't say "all X" nor "only X". She doesn't refine her groupings like I do. To me, our conversations are a darned good example of aristocratic grouping style vs democratic grouping style.

So that's the issue... makes sense.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

And how do we respond to those differences between individuals?

I have no idea, as I said to Diana, the descriptions of democrats say stuff like:

• "The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, or their relations to the representatives of these groups."
  ""What's in "one's head" does not determine belonging to any group."
  ""When I communicate with somebody it's the same whether they are a man or a woman.""

So, on the one hand, the democrat descriptions say stuff like "the group is created from individuals drawn together by a common interest, business, idea or on the basis of mutual sympathy." yet they claim not to consider the common interest, business, idea, nor sympathy as grouping while claiming that they'll communicate with each of those people the same, regardless of their gender, interest, business, idea, etc.

An example would be say, if someone made an assumption like, "Oh, this is a woman, I'd better dumb down what I say so it doesn't go over her head." in contrast to, here's Jill I'll talk about our common interest! (drawn together by a common interest etc.)

And here is where I run into a problem with the contradictions in the democratic descriptions.
Supposedly democratics don't take into considerations the common interests etc when communicating with others.
So then, if you're not grouping people based on their interests (because that is an aristocratic thing to do), how then can you talk to Jill about your common interests?

And note the description's focus on "common" and "mutual". This is an example of "majority rules". The common interests are the interests those two people share...or those three people, or those 10 people, or those 1,000 people. Notice how it's focusing on common and mutual and there seems to be nothing about those interests etc that are NOT shared. Are those ignored? Not even noticed? So yes, I can see how focusing only on the things that are shared as being seen as focusing on the individual...and yet, an aristocrat will at least focus on things that the aristocrat isnt' much interested in that the other person is, on the things that are going on in the other person's life that the aristocrat isn't sharing with them. So by focusing on more aspects of the individual rather than the "common/mutual" shared aspects, we're considered less individualistic???

I don't know the mind of a democrat, I only know what I do, and what other enfps have said in Delta threads. How even in groups of people, we prefer one on one interactions. We'll move from one person to another, ensuring that we spend time with each individual during the group party/meeting/whatever.

Fi>Fe + social>individualistic.

How is moving from interacting with one individual to another individual considered social>individualistc? We are treating those individuals as individuals and interacting with each one individually rather than treating them as a group and attempting to interact with the whole of a group at once. Below you suggest that the focus on group endeavor is Fe, but above you suggest that it's individualistic.

Some alphas and betas have commented that they don't particularly care for the singling out of individuals and that the party/meeting/whatever should be a group endeavor.

Fe>Fi.

Some of the INFps considered themselves as part of the group even if they're sitting on the sidelines watching everyone. They felt that just because they weren't interacting with the group, that they didn't consider themselves part of the group.

introverted focus rather than extroverted.

After I wrote the above I noticed something:
Regarding group, note that I inadvertently jumped back and forth between myself and me as enfp. There are times when I identify with a group (in this case enfps). However, also note that I use qualifiers like "some". So even in a "group" I call alpha or beta, I'm further refining those groups into those of the group who said x from those who said y or gave no input.

Yep.

another example of democratic vs aristocratic groupings:
Notice various conversations between Joy and I, in which she makes a statement that includes a group (no, she doesn't say all X, she just says "X"), and i'll come back with something like, some X don't, or some Y do to. In which case she'll come back saying she didn't say "all X" nor "only X". She doesn't refine her groupings like I do. To me, our conversations are a darned good example of aristocratic grouping style vs democratic grouping style.

Maybe. But do you notice that as a trend between democratic and aristocratic groups, or is it mostly just the way Joy communicates?

I notice this issue of lacking qualifiers the most when I'm trying to deal with alpha NTs (no, i'm not saying joy is an alpha NT) alpha SFs, gamma SFs, and not able to determine regarding Gamma NTs. Though I do recall a few conversations of Expats that I interrupted to point out the need for qualifiers. Oh, and one supposed ENFp...but I think that was just a matter of poor logic skills.

[edited to fix the last part...am trying to grade daughter's homework, write post, and pm at the same time ]

[Exodus]

While an Aristocrat will create the groupings mentioned above and thus treat a dissatisfied male parent who is also a student who chooses to walk to bike to work differently than a female beggar by choice who is satisfied with her lot in life and walks from region to region. Which one is more individualistically focused? I say that the Aristocrat is more focused on the individual.

This is another difference between Aristocrats and Democrats. Democrats are not so concerned with justifying the fact that they are better than "the other guys". They just naturally assume it. :wink:

It seems politicized.

i'm not suprised consider aristocracy vs democracy are political concepts.

Well here you seem to be "making a case" for aristrocracy, the way you said the descriptions seem to be trying to make a case for democracy. If they're political concepts which a person can make a case for through argument, then it's not anything that is intrinsic to the person is it? In other words, you consciously choose one or the other based on reasoning.

Now this is some truly Democratic reasoning. Loyalties change.

Sometimes the Democratic view is naive; group membership gives a lot of information about a person, even if it is probabilistic. Though the underlying, deeply personal motivations are rarely captured. That's why I think Socionics is more a democratic way of grouping people. Plus, the stereotypes are not nearly as bad as for MBTI (which is truly Aristocratic).

[Logos]

Democrat: I am different from others, but we also share many commonalities. I will acknowledge and play with our differences, but these differences do not somehow intrinsically entitle you to be given better or worse treatment. But I do not want to be treated any differently from others based upon some arbitrary classification. Nor do I think that you deserve to be treated differently for the same reason, so I do not treat others differently either.

The below description of Individualization comes from a system called StrengthsQuest, which I can explain later, but it captures some of the ideas of the democrat as well as possible distinctions between the aristocrat.

Individualization:
Your Individualization theme leads you to be intrigued by the unique qualities of each person. You are impatient with generalizations or "types" because you don't want to obscure what is special and distinct about each person. Instead, you focus on the differences between individuals. You instinctively observe each person's style, each person's motivation, how each thinks, and how each builds relationships. You hear the one-of-a-kind stories in each person's life. This theme explains why you pick your friends just the right birthday gift, why you know that one person prefers praise in public and another detests it, and why you tailor your teaching style to accommodate one person's need to be shown and another's desire to "figure it out as I go." Because you are such a keen observer of other people's strengths, you can draw out the best in each person. This Individualization theme also helps you build productive teams. While some search around for the perfect team "structure" or "process," you know instinctively that the secret to great teams is casting by individual strengths so that everyone can do a lot of what they do well.

[anndelise]

Democrat: I am different from others, but we also share many commonalities. I will acknowledge and play with our differences, but these differences do not somehow intrinsically entitle you to be given better or worse treatment. But I do not want to be treated any differently from others based upon some arbitrary classification. Nor do I think that you deserve to be treated differently for the same reason, so I do not treat others differently either.

The below description of Individualization comes from a system called StrengthsQuest, which I can explain later, but it captures some of the ideas of the democrat as well as possible distinctions between the aristocrat.

Individualization:
Your Individualization theme leads you to be intrigued by the unique qualities of each person. You are impatient with generalizations or "types" because you don't want to obscure what is special and distinct about each person. Instead, you focus on the differences between individuals. You instinctively observe each person's style, each person's motivation, how each thinks, and how each builds relationships. You hear the one-of-a-kind stories in each person's life. This theme explains why you pick your friends just the right birthday gift, why you know that one person prefers praise in public and another detests it, and why you tailor your teaching style to accommodate one person's need to be shown and another's desire to "figure it out as I go." Because you are such a keen observer of other people's strengths, you can draw out the best in each person. This Individualization theme also helps you build productive teams. While some search around for the perfect team "structure" or "process," you know instinctively that the secret to great teams is casting by individual strengths so that everyone can do a lot of what they do well.

My first post pointed out how aristocrats see themselves as also doing the above Individualization quote. Particularly the more "subjective" aristocrats aka Delta. But Betans seem themselves as doing the Individualization as well.

I think it comes down to ..... I can learn about and understand someone based on what they have in common with ME (democracy)
or
I can learn about and understand someone based on what they have in common with others (aristocracy).

In the first, the democrat remembers what a person is like, what their interests are, what their goals are, etc, based on how similar/different it is from the democrat.
In the second, the groupings only serve as a means to help the aristocrat remember the other person's interests, goals, etc.
It also serves to help broaden are knowledge/awareness beyond our own personal experiences. That dissatisfied single father who's taking college courses for [insert reason] is going to tell us different stories and express to us different experiences than that satisfied young woman who chose to walk cross-country, see the sights, gain experiences, and beg for food. Each story or experienced told to us gets categorized as one possible experience that others might share. So if I meet a satisfied joined father who's taking college courses for [insert same reason]...I can listen to his stories and find out in what ways he is similar and in what ways he is different from the dissatisfied single father above. If one of the father's tells me a story, I might mention that story to the other father and see what his reaction is to it. Believe it or not, most often they've had similar experiences and the fact that I somehow "know" so much about the things he goes through leads him to feeling validated....that he's not such an odd duck, that other people go through similar, and someone else solved it in a different way than he did, but now he's aware of an alternative solution if it happens again.

So while a democrat believes that the aristocratic groupings dehumanize a person,
the aristocrat sees it as being more humanized than treating both fathers the same.

I think, also, that the democrats see the aristocratic groupings and attempt to interpret it from a democratic pov. If the democrat groups people by similarities, and does not treat people differently regardless of the grouping, then it seems safe to say that it would be easy for them to believe that when an aristocrat groups people, the aristocrat would then treat those grouped people the same because of the commonality of the group. We are not democrats. Our methods are not your methods.

and this is why I say that dem/aristo is not related to individual/group orientation
both parties believe that they are individual oriented
and this thread shows how both parties can believe that, and both be "true"

[XoX]

I think it comes down to ..... I can learn about and understand someone based on what they have in common with ME (democracy)
or
I can learn about and understand someone based on what they have in common with others (aristocracy).

I took this separate so that it doesn't drown in there without people noticing it. I want discussion on this rule as it sounds simple and interesting.

[XoX]

I think it comes down to ..... I can learn about and understand someone based on what they have in common with ME (democracy)
or
I can learn about and understand someone based on what they have in common with others (aristocracy).

I took this separate so that it doesn't drown in there without people noticing it. I want discussion on this rule as it sounds simple and interesting.

Wouldn't this make typologies ultimately pretty aristocratic? Perhaps it is just how you approach typologies and not typologies themselves.

[anndelise]

This is another difference between Aristocrats and Democrats. Democrats are not so concerned with justifying the fact that they are better than "the other guys". They just naturally assume it. :wink:

yeah well, read the aristocracy list and it'll mention a sense of superiority...
obviously aristocrats believe theirs is the best method. :wink:

Sometimes the Democratic view is naive; group membership gives a lot of information about a person, even if it is probabilistic. Though the underlying, deeply personal motivations are rarely captured. That's why I think Socionics is more a democratic way of grouping people. Plus, the stereotypes are not nearly as bad as for MBTI (which is truly Aristocratic).

It wasn't until my second post that I realized how it was that a democrat could spend her life working on a project that grouped people if it was claimed that democrats don't group people.
And then I realized that Socionics uses the representative method of grouping people. The descriptions used describes one person who is then treated as a representative of a type. (I may have two single fathers I am working with, but I also know that neither is a representative of the other because of the differences between them...hence why I treat them differently.)

Recognizing the similarities of the Fe/Ti dem/aristos
and how they differ from the Fi/Te dem/aristos
also made more sense to me.
In Fe/Ti, the person is considered to be subjective and there are considered to be objective rules of relationships.
In Te/Fi, the person is considered to be objective and there are considered to be subjective rules of relationships.
(I'm still trying to figure out how to give examples that won't piss off some betans....because I seem to have issues with the concept of "objective rules of relationships".)

oh wait...sneg wrote one....I hope I don't make him upset by using it....

anndelise wrote:
in the situations with me, after xox attributed a motive to me, i'd ask him what have i ever done that would suggest that that would be a motive of mine...xox could only answer "this is how people are (rule) therefore i assumed you were like that"...notice the assumptions he makes about people's motives...same thing he accused sneg of doing.

You know, I haven't realized this until now, but my thing with generalizing people's motives in long threads centered around one person and also started by that person to "You're just doing it for the attention" is exactly the same thing as XoX-s "this is how people are (rule) therefore i assumed you were like that" thing.

In this case, Snegs pointed out (probably only part of his groupings) that there are people who start threads, people who participate in long threads centered around themselves, and a refined group that includes both... people who participate in long threads centered around themselves that was also started by themselves (I believe that there were likely other more refining groupings than what Sneg wrote, but only he can verify.) Then Sneg points us towards an 'objective' rule that he applied to the situation. In many ways, this can be seen as verifying what alpha democrats wrote about aristocrats (but notice also that the alpha democrat description includes 'objective' rules of aristocrats.)

This is different from how a Delta aristocrat would approach it. The rules of relationships are 'subjective'. Whether or not it was considered that someone was doing a thread "to receive attention" woud be determined based on that particular individual and his particular actions.

So, while Betans bitch about Deltans being too subjective, Deltans bitch about Betans not being subjective enough in their rules and determinations of other people.



And I think I began to ramble, but I think the last stuff is fairly decent, I don't know how to clean it up, so I'll leave the ramblings in.