Aristocratic view of Democrats - discussion of Reinin dichotomy

[Logos]

You do seem to be taking this Aristocracy vs. Democracy thing a bit too far. Both democrats and aristocrats "group" and "individualize." And the last few pages seem to be the driving force of the thread, to reveal the perceived idealistic hypocrisy of the democratic view. In short you could easily rename this thread "Everyone Groups" in fashion after that childhood potty training classic.

So what if we were to say that everyone does indeed group and individualize? One groups within the context of individuals, while one individualizes within the context of groups? Both occurs within democrats and aristocrats, but the emphasis and focus is quite different. One consciously groups or individualizes, while the other subconsciously does it. There. Does that suffice as an explanation?

[Creepy-bg]

"everyone groups"

[anndelise]

You do seem to be taking this Aristocracy vs. Democracy thing a bit too far.

what constitutes "too far"?

[Logos]

You do seem to be taking this Aristocracy vs. Democracy thing a bit too far.

what constitutes "too far"?

The point in which your analysis seems forced and wherein you make aristocratic mountains out of democratic mole hills. I do not know why you decided to question this minor quip which acts more as an introduction than a main point in itself. Perhaps as a means to sidestep? Now what constitutes the rest of the points I made which you did not address?

[anndelise]

The point in which your analysis seems forced and wherein you make aristocratic mountains out of democratic mole hills.

what aristocratic mountain(s) did i make out of a democractic mole hill(s)?

You do seem to be taking this Aristocracy vs. Democracy thing a bit too far. Both democrats and aristocrats "group" and "individualize." And the last few pages seem to be the driving force of the thread, to reveal the perceived idealistic hypocrisy of the democratic view. In short you could easily rename this thread "Everyone Groups" in fashion after that childhood potty training classic.

So what if we were to say that everyone does indeed group and individualize? One groups within the context of individuals, while one individualizes within the context of groups? Both occurs within democrats and aristocrats, but the emphasis and focus is quite different. One consciously groups or individualizes, while the other subconsciously does it. There. Does that suffice as an explanation?

The following attempts to address your "points".
So what if we were to say that everyone does indeed group and individualize?
If everyone does indeed categorize people then saying that one set of people don't categorize people contradicts that.
If a category of people are described as not individualizing, yet they express that they do individualize, and even go "too far" by describing to you how they individualize, then how can we continue to state that they don't individualize. Wouldn't it suggest at the least a possible need to review misunderstandings? (or would reviewing misunderstandings be taking it too far? )

One groups within the context of individuals, while one individualizes within the context of groups?
This statement will require time and effort from me to attempt to understand what is being said, and then attempt to see how it fits if at all with past and current observations.

Both occurs within democrats and aristocrats, but the emphasis and focus is quite different. One consciously groups or individualizes, while the other subconsciously does it.
How then would we deal with situations in which we observe person B categorizing people, yet person B swears up and down that s/he doesn't? Which portion of reinin's dichotomy would the person fit into? If everybody categorizes even people, then everybody risks being labled as aristocrats wouldn't they?

There. Does that suffice as an explanation of why I didn't address them? They just brought up more questions into my head.

[Logos]

The point in which your analysis seems forced and wherein you make aristocratic mountains out of democratic mole hills.

what aristocratic mountain(s) did i make out of a democractic mole hill(s)?

There are points in which you seem to be playing the role of the aristocrat too hard and read aristocratic things too much into everything. You are politicizing the labels (not necessarily within the political context) to an extent that I did not think entirely possible. But it does not matter, so let us just drop it.

The following attempts to address your "points".
So what if we were to say that everyone does indeed group and individualize?
If everyone does indeed categorize people then saying that one set of people don't categorize people contradicts that. If a category of people are described as not individualizing, yet they express that they do individualize, and even go "too far" by describing to you how they individualize, then how can we continue to state that they don't individualize. Wouldn't it suggest at the least a possible need to review misunderstandings? (or would reviewing misunderstandings be taking it too far? )

You are thinking too hard about this. People do not fit neatly within these categorizes so nicely. But perhaps it would be best to get rid of aristocrat and democrat, grouping and individualizing, and attempt to find a new way of imagining these categorizes. Aristocrats = Stratifiers, Democrats = Equalizers; those who perceive and act within stratified societies and those who attempt to overcome or ignore this stratification. Everyone groups and individualizes, but the question is one of how we choose to interact within the context of this stratified societal environment.

One groups within the context of individuals, while one individualizes within the context of groups?
This statement will require time and effort from me to attempt to understand what is being said, and then attempt to see how it fits if at all with past and current observations.

Take your time.

Both occurs within democrats and aristocrats, but the emphasis and focus is quite different. One consciously groups or individualizes, while the other subconsciously does it.
How then would we deal with situations in which we observe person B categorizing people, yet person B swears up and down that s/he doesn't? Which portion of reinin's dichotomy would the person fit into? If everybody categorizes even people, then everybody risks being labeled as aristocrats wouldn't they?

And if everybody individualizes, then everybody risks being labled as democrats, would they not? The issue is not that person B "groups" and is therefore an aristocrat, but how person B chooses to respond to that grouping? Do they attempt to deconstruct and ignore it or do they respect the individual as they relate to that group or stratification?

There. Does that suffice as an explanation of why I didn't address them? They just brought up more questions into my head.

Good.

[olduser]

overly complex.

Aristocrat guy:

"I'm one of those night time people."
"Yeah, you know the sort, he votes republican, wakes up, cares about business, is forceful."

Democrat guy:

"I like to stay up late at night"
"Oh yeah Bill, He can be a really insensitive prick about what he thinks."


Beta: Give status and respect to people with objective standards of 'better,' which are usually defined by society. These include money, power, social status, beauty, etc.
Delta: Give status and respect to people with subjective standards of 'better' which usually include happiness of family, stability, moral fortitude, etc.

you people and your paragraphs. learn to fucking summarize.

[XoX]

Grouping and aristocracy don't seem to be the same thing. E.g. Ti apparently does inductive thinking which seeks to generalize and thus form groups. Ti has to be combined with Se (in the same block) in order to become really aristocratic grouping.

Betas should thus be most aristocratic having Ti as a value and Se as a value and both combined in same block.

Deltas are aristocratic too having Ti and Se in the same block but as neither of those is their value they are very prone to individualism within the perceived groups and generally creating "power structures" is not their goal or their value.

Alphas are strong in Ti and thus have a habbit of grouping (e.g. create typing systems). They however don't have Se and Ti combined nor is Se their Quadra value. So they don't use these groups in aristocratic way but instead use them just to understand their environment better. They don't even use the term "group" e.g. they don't say that people of certain type forms a "group" which has a certain identity of its own. They just use these groupings to understand the world.

Gamma's don't have Ti as a value but do use Se a lot and I guess this leads to despisal of groups but at the same time it promotes a kind of "individual aristocracy" which has aristocratic features but is about individuals. I guess they might for example arrange people into aristocratic hierarchy according to their perceived "competence" or "likability". They however never call these hierarchies groups but instead how they perceive and appreciate people on individual level. Gammas never seek to synchronize this hierarchy with other people or other Gammas really. It is just their personal view. Betas are more prone to "harmonizing" the views of people so that everyone has similar views on everyone else's position and role in the hierarchy. Beta hierarchical thinking works on group level not individual level and they see it as disruptive if different people have mutually conflicting "personal hierarchies".

[Creepy-bg]

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:2643600360]
[mrow:2643600360]Democracy[col:2643600360]Aristocracy
[row:2643600360]• 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:2643600360]• 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:2643600360]
(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.

wow I never read this post... you're a master at using the table code Ann! Simply beautiful

[Logos]

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:9c564b9155]
[mrow:9c564b9155]Democracy[col:9c564b9155]Aristocracy
[row:9c564b9155]• 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:9c564b9155]• 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:9c564b9155]
(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.

You have ridiculously harsh and irrational views of Democrats.

[Creepy-bg]

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:ee9b633c42]
[mrow:ee9b633c42]Democracy[col:ee9b633c42]Aristocracy
[row:ee9b633c42]• 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:ee9b633c42]• 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:ee9b633c42]
(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.

You have ridiculously harsh and irrational views of Democrats.

maybe but you have to admit it's a pretty post what with the bullet points all next to eachother and stuff.

[Slacker]

This is probably more useful for people looking to figure out which they are.

Although maybe the test would be:

1. Think the list sounds pretty good to you = you are Aristocratic

2. Think the list is unfair to the Democratic folks = you are Democratic



(I didn't actually read the whole list - ADD and all that) But I thought the discussion in the thread might be useful to Ezra.

[Logos]

You have ridiculously harsh and irrational views of Democrats.

maybe but you have to admit it's a pretty post what with the bullet points all next to eachother and stuff.

You're damn right!

[Blaze]

i question whether this dichotomy is really all that useful. both are based more in sensate IM domains, and logical and ethical functions, which if in the second position for an irrational anyway...

i just don't see it.

[Creepy-bg]

i question whether this dichotomy is really all that useful. both are based more in sensate IM domains, and logical and ethical functions, which if in the second position for an irrational anyway...

i just don't see it.

I question whether any of those Reinin dichotomies are usefull :wink:

[Logos]

i question whether this dichotomy is really all that useful. both are based more in sensate IM domains, and logical and ethical functions, which if in the second position for an irrational anyway...

i just don't see it.

I question whether any of those Reinin dichotomies are usefull :wink:

I'm honestly not sure that they are. The more that I think about them, the more useless they seem to become because it seems that 1/2 half of the battle in dichotomies is over the label.

[Slacker]

i question whether this dichotomy is really all that useful. both are based more in sensate IM domains, and logical and ethical functions, which if in the second position for an irrational anyway...

i just don't see it.

I question whether any of those Reinin dichotomies are usefull :wink:

I do too. They're interesting to look at if you know your type and are wondering how it shows up in you, but even then they're pretty hard to pin down. I think they are useless as far as typing goes and every time I see someone try to type based on them I cringe.

[Logos]

i question whether this dichotomy is really all that useful. both are based more in sensate IM domains, and logical and ethical functions, which if in the second position for an irrational anyway...

i just don't see it.

I question whether any of those Reinin dichotomies are usefull :wink:

I do too. They're interesting to look at if you know your type and are wondering how it shows up in you, but even then they're pretty hard to pin down. I think they are useless as far as typing goes and every time I see someone try to type based on them I cringe.

::cough::that one poster who thinks he is an ILI::ends cough::

[anndelise]

You have ridiculously harsh and irrational views of Democrats.

Perhaps because at the time I was (still am) sick of the stereotyping and pisspoor descriptions that democrats give of aristocrats. "We're better because we're individualists. Aristocrats aren't as individualistic or humanistic cuz they group people." (meanwhile ignoring the fact that the democrate JUST grouped people AND stereotyped them. )

As hotelambush pointed out earlier in this thread, democrats DO group people, and that it's perhaps naive of them to think that they don't.
The differences comes in HOW they group people.
Do we use some external factor when grouping them? (such as ...oh...i dunno...socionics types/groups)
Or do we use some internal factor when grouping them? (hence the..'they insist on make their own groupings and not following someone else's' part of the aristocratic description)

As I said earlier in this thread, aristocrats DO consider themselves individualists. I was even willing to question my own type because of this stupid dichotomy. Until I actually read the damned descriptions with a critical mind, and saw what seems to me to be contradictions and biases. The reinin descriptions, as well as the interpretations people on this forum give of it, show "a ridiculously harsh and irrational view of Aristocrats".

If you wanna know how "aristocrats" view "aristocracy", then read what they themselves write about it instead of "telling them" what goes on in their own minds *glances at Ezra and his other thread* :wink: :

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=260703#260703

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...cc77271#194204
(actually pretty much the 7-8 pages of this particular thread shows an "aristocrats" view of aristocracy/democracy ..I'm too lazy to list all the ones that attempted to give the pov of an "aristocrat")

and no, i'm not interested in arguing over whether my pov is "socionically proper by definition"

[Logos]

You have ridiculously harsh and irrational views of Democrats.

Perhaps because at the time I was (still am) sick of the stereotyping and pisspoor descriptions that democrats give of aristocrats. "We're better because we're individualists. Aristocrats aren't as individualistic or humanistic cuz they group people." (meanwhile ignoring the fact that the democrate JUST grouped people AND stereotyped them. )

I understand, but misconceptions are never solved with the creation of further misconceptions.

As hotelambush pointed out earlier in this thread, democrats DO group people, and that it's perhaps naive of them to think that they don't.
The differences comes in HOW they group people.
Do we use some external factor when grouping them? (such as ...oh...i dunno...socionics types/groups)
Or do we use some internal factor when grouping them? (hence the..'they insist on make their own groupings and not following someone else's' part of the aristocratic description)

As I said earlier in this thread, aristocrats DO consider themselves individualists. I was even willing to question my own type because of this stupid dichotomy. Until I actually read the damned descriptions with a critical mind, and saw what seems to me to be contradictions and biases. The reinin descriptions, as well as the interpretations people on this forum give of it, show "a ridiculously harsh and irrational view of Aristocrats".

If you wanna know how "aristocrats" view "aristocracy", then read what they themselves write about it instead of "telling them" what goes on in their own minds *glances at Ezra and his other thread* :wink: :

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=260703#260703

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...cc77271#194204
(actually pretty much the 7-8 pages of this particular thread shows an "aristocrats" view of aristocracy/democracy ..I'm too lazy to list all the ones that attempted to give the pov of an "aristocrat")

and no, i'm not interested in arguing over whether my pov is "socionically proper by definition"

Dear gods, deja vous. We've had this conversation before and many times now. And now you are jumping to conclusions about my assumptions and beliefs in this matter.

[anndelise]

I understand, but misconceptions are never solved with the creation of further misconceptions.

funny, i saw it as an attempt to point out that there were misconceptions going on....from both sides (aristo/demo)

Dear gods, deja vous. We've had this conversation before and many times now. And now you are jumping to conclusions about my assumptions and beliefs in this matter.

huh?
1) YOU were the one that rebrought up my "ridiculously harsh and irrational view of democrats".....
so I rebrought up the reinin "rediculously harsh and irrational view of aristocrats" as a reminder of what this thread had originally been about. so
2) none of that last part was directed at you, though I can see how it could have seemed that way. I had specifically glanced at Ezra and his other thread to try to show that my words were directed in that direction...not yours. (as well as providing a general disclaimer that I'm not interested in arguing with anyone over this)

[Logos]

I understand, but misconceptions are never solved with the creation of further misconceptions.

funny, i saw it as an attempt to point out that there were misconceptions going on....from both sides (aristo/demo)

Okay.

Dear gods, deja vous. We've had this conversation before and many times now. And now you are jumping to conclusions about my assumptions and beliefs in this matter.

huh?
1) YOU were the one that rebrought up my "ridiculously harsh and irrational view of democrats".....
so I rebrought up the reinin "rediculously harsh and irrational view of aristocrats" as a reminder of what this thread had originally been about. so

No, it was more a case of me feeling like I was thrown into the past when we were talking about this the last time. I know I rebrought it up, but it was only after your reply that I felt as if I was reliving it.

2) none of that last part was directed at you, though I can see how it could have seemed that way. I had specifically glanced at Ezra and his other thread to try to show that my words were directed in that direction...not yours. (as well as providing a general disclaimer that I'm not interested in arguing with anyone over this)

I did not think that it was.

[Expat]

I know I rebrought it up

Is that good English (it's a sincere question)?

[Logos]

I know I rebrought it up

Is that good English (it's a sincere question)?

Not at all, but I decided to just reuse her terminology of "rebrought." Good English would probably be "I know; I brought it up again."

[suedehead]

I'm kind of wondering where I fall on this dichotomy. I tend to view the majority of people that I run into as similar (strangers especially) and find a lot of strong identification along subculture/ideological lines to be pretentious, overdone, or simply difficult for me to relate to - I tend to perceive the reality that lies beneath all that. On the other hand...as embarrassing as it is for me to admit, there are often moments where I can feel an exaggerated sense of importance/personal integrity, which I understand is associated with aristocratic Quadras, correct?

Also, while I feel strongly about my personal preferences and hobbies, I tend to downplay their importance a bit in interaction and don't feel the need to draw too much attention to them unless asked.

Edit: I also see myself as an 'individual', but it's just...whatever.

[ashlesha]

ive always struggled with this dichotomy and don't relate to one stronger than the other.

[suedehead]

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.

Some of these distinctions seem obvious to me, although I'm curious as to how exactly you'd go about treating these people differently in casual interaction.

[ashlesha]

i think factors like age, gender, location, etc. influence everybody but that doesn't stop them from being unique individuals. for example two rich asian females will have similarities that two poor indian males don't have, but they will all be more different from eachother than similar..but those cultural influences are still relevant. i don't see it as a strict dichotomy between two opposing attitudes. i think my worldview is a blend of both.

edit: but then i just wrote this and was reminded of what i said here:

[Today 10:37 AM] lungs : well like we are all animals that put on clothes and walk around talking to eachother and doing scheduled tasks and..idk, we are driven by instinct and lust and we arent any different from others who cheered on gladiators in an arena or from primitive cannibals or whatever but its like civilization pretends that we are

[ashlesha]

Also, while I feel strongly about my personal preferences and hobbies, I tend to downplay their importance a bit in interaction and don't feel the need to draw too much attention to them unless asked.

how are you seeing a connection between this and aristocratic/democratic?

[suedehead]

how are you seeing a connection between this and aristocratic/democratic?

I was under the impression that aristocrats were more likely to view their hobbies/interests as some group that they 'belong to' along with other people who do it, instead of just seeing it as incidental or a distinction of secondary importance when it comes to relating to others.

[ashlesha]

I was under the impression that aristocrats were more likely to view their hobbies/interests as some group that they 'belong to' along with other people who do it, instead of just seeing it as incidental or a distinction of secondary importance when it comes to relating to others.

hmm. on the forum things like books and movies often get placed into socionics categories based on vibe and general feel and its not just something i see aristocrats doing. maybe there is a different flavor to the way aristocrats and democrats do it, but if there is then its a distinction that i have trouble grasping.

[Blaze]

looking at this thread since tom and i are getting out to socialize a bit more and i'm noting what i think could be aristocratic/democratic differences between how we perceive things. we're tapping into various groups of people through my women's motorcycle group, through meet-up events, and through established friends. the idea is to increase the friend-base since my kids are going to be leaving home over the next few years and i'm afraid of too much time on my hands and boredom.

my motorcycle group is an established social group with a pecking order. the main reason i am in the group is to ride motorcycles together, not as much as to socialize, although some of the socializing is a nice add-on. many of the women have husbands/boyfriends who ride and sometimes there are events where the husbands attend. so i've asked tom to attend some of these events with me.

i notice that this group of women is about 10 years older than i am, are christian bikers, not hardcore MC bikers. i don't really feel like i would have all that much in common with any of them except for riding, which is fine. i'd rather ride anyway. if there is a social event, i will go, kind of in an exploratory way, to hang out and see if i would meet anyone new or interesting. i would be open to talk to anyone, kind of not having very high expectations. best outcome would be if i make a good connection with one or two people or find things in common with one or two people. the downside of this is that i might be seen as being on the periphery of the group rather than solidly in the group. on the other hand, i can be on the periphery of a lot of different groups and feel like i know and can interact with a lot of different types of people.

tom sees it more like "this is an older women's christian motorcycle group and i don't fit here." even though there are other men at any particular social event. he kind of identifies groups of people who are likely to be a fit for him and those that are not. the upside is that he knows himself well and doesn't waste time on groups of people that he doesn't see himself as being a part of. if he does identify with a particular group, he's in the group and he's totally in. the down side is that he's not all that open minded about who he will talk to and what he will be willing to do.

so the above is for an established group of people who identify that way.

for meet up groups it's very different. since meet up is individual people gathered together to do the activity or event that's been planned, surrounding a common interest. the interest could be rock climbing, theatre-going, whatever. the thread that ties the people together is the planned activity, and friendships may or may not develop around that. so people who go to meet up tend to be kind of like a bag of mixed nuts, much less consistency between how people self identify, so in a way much more individualized that the motorcycle group. these events can be awkward since you may not know many people and the thread that's binding you (the planned activity) is kind of superficial or weak. i can do ok in these type of situations since i'll find something to talk about with anyone. tom doesn't like them so much because they are awkward and he feels like the people that go are desperate lonely hearts or some such. which might be true for some people there but not all. there's great convenience in having someone else make all the arrangements for an event, then all you have to do is show up. you can invite other people and just say "we're doing this at this place and time, hope to see you there."



so i guess what i'm saying is i see the motorcycle group as being structured, cohesive, organized, and aristocratic type of group. meet up groups are more loosely organized, less cohesive, more fluid, less demanding, more democratic. the first type of group might have a mission in addition to serving a social function, the second is more just for leisure or to have fun.

the point of all of this though is that tom and i really see things quite differently and when it comes down to deciding about what to do differences in perception and values definitely express themselves. where i feel like i am overall more tolerant and open to different things but less concerned with how i fit in, he is more definite about what he wants to do and doesn't want to do. having said that, at times he has taken me to group events that while not highly structured, are attended by people who all are of the same ilk and i do not see anyway at all to connect. usually there are obvious group rules that i do not agree with (such as women don't get to say anything).

anyway looking above at this thread it looked like years ago i was ready to throw out the dichotomy, but now i have some practical examples of how they might apply. or could be interepreted in a completely different way than socionics. what do you all think?