Political affiliation and socionic type

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Betas are the traditional leftists in the socio-sphere (or whatever) I don't see how people don't see this. Nothing really gets as pure left-wing as Betas. Deltas, the polar opposite- are the moral conservative right-wingers. Again, most "therapy" in the West consists of Deltas trying to tell Betas what to do. Gammas are traditional libertarians and alphas are democratic/a blend of everything else, really. Almost anti-political.

A lot of people think they are liberal when they are really conservative and vice-versa. It's kind of funny. The criteria they base their beliefs on is pretty superficial and shows little respect for the original meaning of the terms.

There are exceptions to this rule, don't get me wrong. But generally I believe it's true.

[Creepy-male]

[quote=BulletsAndDoves;542268]Betas are the traditional leftists in the socio-sphere (or whatever) I don't see how people don't see this. Nothing really gets as pure left-wing as Betas. Deltas, the polar opposite- are the moral conservative right-wingers.

Again, most "therapy" in the West consists of Deltas trying to tell Betas what to do. Gammas are traditional libertarians and alphas are democratic/a blend of everything else, really. Almost anti-political.

Lol. I think mental health in general (by nature of how the education for it is set up) inherently caters towards Deltas, especially the rationals. Spirituality and the sort of "informal" mental health gets carried by Beta Ps and finds a more rational approach through the Delta Ps (Rick sinking his teeth into the Enneagram )

Anyway, my current shrink (who is useless) is LSE. One of my LSE friends is studying to be a psychiatrist (or rather, to get into medicine, which requires really high grades due to all the Gammas wanting to be rich doctors). My EII friend (who actually might be ESI) likewise devours books on psychology, and AFAIK is aiming for some sort of work that isn't psychiatry.

Also, Alphas tend towards eclecticism. We mix and match and formulate our own ideas. (In my case, I can't be bothered caring who's controlling my life But my LII friend is decidedly somethingorother. Politics /shrug)

There are exceptions to this rule, don't get me wrong. But generally I believe it's true.

Good take.

Great post, man!

[Mattie]

Betas are the traditional leftists in the socio-sphere (or whatever) I don't see how people don't see this. Nothing really gets as pure left-wing as Betas. Deltas, the polar opposite- are the moral conservative right-wingers. Again, most "therapy" in the West consists of Deltas trying to tell Betas what to do. Gammas are traditional libertarians and alphas are democratic/a blend of everything else, really. Almost anti-political.

A lot of people think they are liberal when they are really conservative and vice-versa. It's kind of funny. The criteria they base their beliefs on is pretty superficial and shows little respect for the original meaning of the terms.

There are exceptions to this rule, don't get me wrong. But generally I believe it's true.

It's not really type related. I still don't get the "conservative" bend that people assign Delta sometimes. I don't think type has to do with it at all, it might show how we justify or explain why they are a certain political affiliation, but this is almost like saying type indicates all these other preferences, like religion. And it doesn't... You put a little back door in your post to say "Well, there are some exceptions..." But really, it's because it's non-correlative. Like, if you went and found all the Beta in Mississippi, and assuming that type is basically evenly spread out as it is hypothesized here, I doubt they would be the liberals that you believe. I honestly don't see where you get that Betas are more liberal in any sense, nothing about them seems indicative of one way or another.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If you were to get a certain Communist leader and a certain Fascist leader of the 20th century, it would be possible to have two Betas with one having a left-wing approach and the other a right-wing approach. Both leaders brought significant changes to their countries, so neither was conservative in that respect. But it is of course possible to make few changes and be left-wing or right-wing.

[redbaron]

I really don't think it's type-related.

[tiny_dancer]

Yeah, I know people that lean in both directions. My best friend is religious, though not overly so. Another EII I know is a nun. Another EII nearly punched his brother-in-law b/c he won't stop insinuating that his family is "missing" something b/c they're not religious, and every chance he gets he tries to indoctrinate his daughter with some sort of crap. Basically looks down his nose at them while praying that someday they'll "see the light." Pretty much every SLI I've met so far has been "Fuck religion."

My LSE friend's EIE mother is incessantly telling her she's going to hell b/c she doesn't take her children to church (and she has a tattoo - that's also a swift ticket to damnation around here). My best friend's beta parents are religious, but not in-your-face with it. My EIE-LSI aunt & uncle disowned their daughter for marrying someone of another religion. (Luckily, over time they got over that.) And there are other betas I know who are quite liberal - I met several at the Shambhala center here...

It depends on how you were raised and your own personal decisions.

[tereg]

Not that I think it's type related or anything, but I think that an ENFp's general view falls more in line with with the left than you think.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If your country had centuries of maintaining civil rights that I hope people on this forum would consider essential (e.g. that each person is equal before the law etc.), then to campaign to keep these rights would make you a 'conservative' in one sense...but in another country, it would make you a 'liberal'.

Even in the US in the 1960s, you'd be a liberal to advocate for black people to have the same rights as white people...despite the US constitution two hundred years earlier asserting equality as a founding principle.

[iAnnAu]

...


fuck religion.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

In the west of Scotland, it's traditionally the irish catholic community who supported the left wing, political party labour, and the protestants who've supported the right wing conservative party.

Over time this changed with protestants becoming left wing, and catholics becoming right wing.

This occured because after world war II, discrimination based on religion (against catholic, and pretty much therefore irish orgin) started to phase out, and combined with catholic schools becoming state run, made it easier for catholics to go to university and therefore receive an equal education to traditional right wing supporters. So now there are rich catholics and poor protestants, giving allegencies in opposite political directions.

What therefore makes someone left wing or right wing is predominantly self interest. Poor people will naturally favour more left wing policies. There are some rich people who are left wing, but usually these are people who can afford such a moralistic stance. It's easy to be moral and help others when you and your peers have got plenty to go round, and when this happens, traditional right wing parties become a little more left wing to gain these sympathy voters.

And in continuation, modern immigrants tend to be left wing and political party labour or more militant left wing, infact almost exclusively so, because they are typically less well off and more likely a subject of discrimination due to their religion, culture, perhaps even race (race - which in itself became a politically incorrect term for obvious reasons after world war 2, see germans), and left wing policies here typically help those in typically unfortunate circumstance.

On that, it makes me wonder if coloured immigrants will eventually blend in over time. It's easy to be of irish origin and catholic and hide this because of how you look. Being a different colour isn't something that can be concealed. It makes me wonder about discrimination based on culture as well as colour (perceived race). That is, culture becomes integrated, but can colour.

Interestingly, there was recently a lot of public resistance to immigrants being given too many chances. Often they got, and still do but to a lesser extent, preferential treatment over people born here, which is interesting because it's a polar opposite to how previous immigration was treated.

I wonder if it encourages a lack of enterprise among incomers, but it's left wing, and it seems it's a mixture of all the quadras except possibly gamma.

[The Greeter]

BulletsAndDoves, do you make these statements without bias? Or do you just associate all bad people or those people who have mistreated you as Delta?

Anyway, this is not type-related.

[electric sheep]

What therefore makes someone left wing or right wing is predominantly self interest. Poor people will naturally favour more left wing policies. There are some rich people who are left wing, but usually these are people who can afford such a moralistic stance. It's easy to be moral and help others when you and your peers have got plenty to go round, and when this happens, traditional right wing parties become a little more left wing to gain these sympathy voters.

This is not true in America. Some of the poorest people are some of the staunchest conservatives. They consistently vote against their self interest, unless you consider "keeping immigrants out" and "fighting socialism/communism/muslims" to be in their self interest.

About the op though, I think we can all agree that the aristocratic quadras identify more with their political parties/ideologies than the democratic quadras. As long as alphas can explore and invent, and gammas can invest and profit, they shouldn't really care about political ideology. Of course, I'm talking out of my ass, and I can't speak for all the individuals, but this is the narrative that socionics seems to create in the form of quadra progression. In another time or in another place, right wingers could be the betas (read: Nazi Germany). I agree with B&D for the current political climate in America. Again, it's not about the individuals, it's about quadra progression.

[1981slater]

Alpha = Socialism
Beta = Dictatorship
Gamma = Conservatives
Delta = Anarchism

[The Exception]

My views to tend to be fairly liberal, both on the social and economic axes.

FAQ ... The Political Compass

[Jarno]

I am an idealist who sees the necessity for a right wing government :-)

[Expat]

I don't think that specific political beliefs are type related, and that terms like "left-wing" and "right-wing" are particularly unhelpful in that regard.

I do think, however, that one's overall approach to political issues is related to type - assuming that the individual is concerned with politics in the first place.

Betas are most likely to have a political philosophy based on replacing the whole "system" with a new one. They are the ones likely to say, when more frustrated/enthusiastic/philosophical/etc that there's no point tinkering with the world as it is and that it's necessary to transform it radically. They are inclined to have a + idealized structure of what the world should be like in terms of politics, economics, society, etc and their political views/actions usually aim at achieving that idealized structure. Now, the precise nature of that + idealized structure will vary according to the individual: it can be anarchism, communism, fascism, nazism, some theocracy - or, also, radical libertarianism, an idealized form of direct democracy, radical environmentalism, etc. That is why those who just "know" how the world (or a country, etc) should be transformed in order to reach "perfection" are most often Betas.

Gammas are not inclined to even see things in those terms; they tend to see a given political, economic or social reality not as a static structure that needs to be replaced with another, but as a collection of dynamic processes. They are more inclined to political reform and improvement, rather than to radical structural change ("reform" as opposed to "revolution").

Deltas, when concerned with politics, tend to focus on improvement but at a more immediate, micro-management level - + not +. Beta and Delta political goals often seem to coincide, because what is actually happening is that they are talking past each other: Betas will at most see the "micro" improvements that Deltas focus on as a consequence of their radical structural upheaval, while Deltas will not even be aware of the extent of Beta goals. That is the context of Lenin referring to "useful idiots".

My perception of Alphas is that they will share the broad views of Betas, but with less inclination to actually impose one specific structure; they will be inclined to keep experimenting with it (that was the case even with the French Revolution).

[Expat]

Alpha = Socialism
Beta = Dictatorship
Gamma = Conservatives
Delta = Anarchism

That's not too bad imo, except that I'd call Delta "extremely decentralized government" rather than "anarchism".

[UDP]

I don't think that specific political beliefs are type related, and that terms like "left-wing" and "right-wing" are particularly unhelpful in that regard.

I do think, however, that one's overall approach to political issues is related to type - assuming that the individual is concerned with politics in the first place.

I agree.

[JWC3]

I Flip a coin and then do the opposite of what it tells me to cause I ain't about to let some coin bitch boss me around.

[07490]

Not that I think it's type related or anything, but I think that an ENFp's general view falls more in line with with the left than you think.

I agree with this.

[CheGuevara]

Alpha = Socialism
Beta = Dictatorship
Gamma = Conservatives
Delta = Anarchism

In general I agree:
N-INTj = Socialists
F-ENFj = Dictator
N-INTp = Conservative
N-ENFp = Anarchist

But there are some exceptions:
ESFjs can be conservative.
INFps are in no way dictators.
ENTjs are often liberal.
ESTjs are in no way anarchists.

I think it depends on the subtype a lot.

[Banana Pancakes]

I don't think it's type related, I would expect any quadra to embrace any system of government for various reasons. I think it's foolishness to say one quadra prefers one system or is more right/left wing than another. If you look at it from the viewpoint of quadra roles, however:

Alpha: Offering alternatives to the existing system for the sake of something new
Beta: Fighting the existing system, regardless of what it is. They WILL find a reason for revolution.
Gamma: Trimming the fat within the existing system and making it work as designed.
Delta: Embrace current system, possibly encouraging it to expand.

All the people I know with strong political affiliations are rationals.
The irrationals seem not to care.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Currere]

I don't think it's type related, I would expect any quadra to embrace any system of government for various reasons. I think it's foolishness to say one quadra prefers one system or is more right/left wing than another. If you look at it from the viewpoint of quadra roles, however:

Alpha: Offering alternatives to the existing system for the sake of something new

I would find this to be accurate. Although I wouldn't say the current system of government/society is completely broken, I do admit that I have this random urge/bias to embrace views contrary to the mainstream, almost just for the sake of it!

[Makuta]

Alpha(characterized by Utopia and new society paradigm)+ the state is the way of defending freedom of expression+equality of rights:
if leftist: pro-parliamentary government+ advocate of the UBI (as a continuation of social security's work)
if rightist: Pro-parliamentary government +advocate of the UBI (as a replacement of social security's work)

Beta (characterized by unquestionable loyalty to the belonging and massive propaganda, the state is extremely powerful):
if leftist: Marxists
if rightist: nationalists(+most of time colbertist)

Gamma (characterized by freedom of entrepreneurship and balanced use of the state) :
if leftist:social-democrat
if rightist: classical capitalism

Delta (characterized by individual initiative + minimization of state)
if leftist: Anarchy+communist (auto-gestation)
if rightist: libertarian

[ooo]

I'd call Delta "extremely decentralized government" rather than "anarchism".

that's just my idea of how a political system should work, lots of autonomous local "administrations", not subjected to any central authority, but that share the same humanistic values and respect each other's differences even outside of their environment.

[falsehope]

I believe in capitalism, this is the only thing working for me very well.
Discussing left / right is pointless as that's ambiguous concept, it is different in each country and it depends on the ideology each party in given country has.
Also I am not sure whatever the given quadra would be more oriented towards specific ideology, without taking precise measurements it's difficult to guess. It more depends on environmental factors than being in quadra I think so the quadra values would have very small impact.
Humans are intelligent and not animals, they make educated decisions based on then external factors and not just based on how they have been born.
So I think it would be better to think what quadra values given government has than what kind of government given quadra prefers.

[domr]

Betas are the traditional leftists in the socio-sphere (or whatever) I don't see how people don't see this. Nothing really gets as pure left-wing as Betas. Deltas, the polar opposite- are the moral conservative right-wingers. Again, most "therapy" in the West consists of Deltas trying to tell Betas what to do. Gammas are traditional libertarians and alphas are democratic/a blend of everything else, really. Almost anti-political.

A lot of people think they are liberal when they are really conservative and vice-versa. It's kind of funny. The criteria they base their beliefs on is pretty superficial and shows little respect for the original meaning of the terms.

There are exceptions to this rule, don't get me wrong. But generally I believe it's true.

You are correct about Delta and Gamma. However traditional left (socialists) = Alpha and Betas are imperialists.

Also I am not sure whatever the given quadra would be more oriented towards specific ideology, without taking precise measurements it's difficult to guess. It more depends on environmental factors than being in quadra I think so the quadra values would have very small impact.

Quadra values necessitate political ideologies. If different members of each Quadra had different ideologies then it would lead to conflict. Conflict would break up the Quadra. This is a contradiction. Thus we have proof by contradiction that all Quadra members must have the same ideology.

[WVBRY]

Quadra values necessitate political ideologies. If different members of each Quadra had different ideologies then it would lead to conflict. Conflict would break up the Quadra. This is a contradiction. Thus we have proof by contradiction that all Quadra members must have the same ideology.

Bullshit.

Quadra members fight with each other over politics: I see at all the time.

Quadra is not a prerequisite to getting along, politically or otherwise, if it was, why would we need Aushra Augusta and socionics to tell us the quadras exist?

In any case your "proof" is just theoretical. People of the same quadra fight all the time and while it might make sense in your head to think "well quadra members all get along and all societal disagreements are just a result of type" it doesn't play out in reality.

Sorry, but I think your argument is full of shit dude. This isn"t "proof by contradiction", and the fact you are asserting this with confidence is frankly appaling. It's more like proof you make assumptions about reality which you have not cared to examine.

[Bertrand]

yeah what makes the quadra are shared vital assumptions, not their conscious belief system; and politics (SEE-the politician: manipulates values through the lens of power) are really some form of ethical valuations placed on things and can differ widely, not just among ethical types but every person who is influenced by them, and the ethical types are in turn influenced by the logic they run into. the point here is the back and forth allows for almost unlimited possibilities when it comes to certain political opinions, as a consequence of if nothing else the advance of time itself. for example 100 years ago almost no on cared about drug use, the notable exception being alchohol, and now it is the complete opposite. regardless of quadra and so forth. so much is set by individual context, its hard to relate politics to anything, except to say that means may be observably constrained by quadra, but not ends. in other words Se types will be more likely to employ direct action, but to what end? could be almost anything, because within judging functions there is room for absolutely everything. again it speaks more to the structure (form) of such judgements not their content. sometimes politics instead focuses on the proper means to pursue some end, but these are almost always superficial distinctions that turn entirely on how important the end is. non violence thus becomes an all ecompassing end, and every limitation pursued in the name of limiting violent or aggressive means is really just a step toward that end. on the other hand, sufficiently scare a population and suddenly torture coercion and war are back on the table. and no type is truly above that, only specific individuals, and its simply the structure of the rationalizations that follow that characterize personality

pure quadra and systems of government are more like a simplified relationship of ideas that may function to demonstrate some underlying principles of the theory, but doesn't really exist in pure form in reality. at best you could say certain governmental structures are reified versions of internal structures. for example plato's republic was analogized from outside in, but the direction is unimportant, government in its constitution, but not its ends, can be represented as having a structure analogous to TIM or quadra values, but that seems to be more a consequence of how humans conceptualize structure in general (i.e.: there's a psychological relationship between how we run public entities and how our minds run our bodies). nevertheless its no coincidence that "democratic" and "aristocratic" are labels given to quadra, you could see a loose relationship in a government structure where one quadra or another prevails, but this is politics only in a limited sense of the word. the actual policies these structures take on could be varied and even diametrically opposed to some other identically organized structure across a geographical divide

in other words, authoritarianism is not identified with the left, there can be left-authoritarianism and right-authoritarianism [1]. rather a better way to think about it is (content) (form), authoritarianism is some form of wanting a logical-sensing structure, but the values that go into it could be anything. I agree in principle that beta can easily take the form of left authoritarianism not so much because of Fe Ti per se, but because they ethics/intuition and sensing/logic being blocked. in fact that is the definition of aristocratism. I also think a beta that makes a conscious decision to value democracy will pursue that end via aristocratic means and will be precisely unconscious of exactly those vital assumptions. this is why I say politics is driven by values most of all, and they can be anything. a group that knows itself well enough to establish its own vital structures as governmental structures might even be the exception not the rule. in other words, governments don't just straightforwardly mirror the vital assumptions of the population in constituting their governmental structures. in fact to do so would be an achievement beyond the norm, and is perhaps why the US was so successful because it managed to actually do that to some extent; and even then what quadra prevails, as a matter of fact, is likely a relatively slim plurality, so its never a perfect fit. I suppose this could be debateable, since one is likely to find a structure that mirrors one's owns assumptions as "common sense" (and thus naturally emerge) but people are just as quick to ignore such inklings under environmental pressure or tradition



[1] left and right in this context being identified as progressive vs conservative politics in traditional sense of the word, but no specific policies, left and right is a term relative to its context, what was left 100 years ago could be right today, probably most related to "openness" in the big 5 sense. another way to think about it is "change is good v people should fall in line with values as they stand now"

[domr]

Bullshit.

Quadra members fight with each other over politics: I see at all the time.

Quadra is not a prerequisite to getting along, politically or otherwise, if it was, why would we need Aushra Augusta and socionics to tell us the quadras exist?

In any case your "proof" is just theoretical. People of the same quadra fight all the time and while it might make sense in your head to think "well quadra members all get along and all societal disagreements are just a result of type" it doesn't play out in reality.

Sorry, but I think your argument is full of shit dude. This isn"t "proof by contradiction", and the fact you are asserting this with confidence is frankly appaling. It's more like proof you make assumptions about reality which you have not cared to examine.

My proof is rationale and your response didn't address my reasoning at all thus your response is the bullshit.

As for your response, you are citing anecdotal experience and you are not accounting for confounding variables. For instance I know an LIE that grew up in a very Delta household and so he has very delta values. That nurture/conditioning is overriding his quadra preference. This is the most typical mistake a person can make when using empiricism instead of rationalism.

[WVBRY]

My proof is rationale and your response didn't address my reasoning at all thus your response is the bullshit.

As for your response, you are citing anecdotal experience and you are not accounting for confounding variables. For instance I know an LIE that grew up in a very Delta household and so he has very delta values. That nurture/conditioning is overriding his quadra preference. This is the most typical mistake a person can make when using empiricism instead of rationalism.

Yes, my argument was anecdotal I agree with that. Since we don't have statistics on the matter, how do you want to claim any kind of proof? Formal logic, which you are using, only makes sense when it comes to interpreting known facts, or else it is baseless speculation. Staistics in themselves tell us little without knowing how they were obtained or looking at the context. And yet theoretical arguments are pure fantasy without facts.

What you are arguing is basically circular, though. Your whole argument is based on the idea that quadras exist in the first place, something for which we have no external proof. Your argument is "the fact that X should work this way or else X is invalid proves X exists". Replace "X" with socionics and there is my point. Also, in your example, the LIE has probably absorbed his family's values, which doesn't prove they are "delta values" or that they differ from his "real gamma values". You are assuming that an LIE should have X set of values rather than Y because his family is delta and holds Y values? Or is it because supposedly LIEs hold values Y rather than X? But what makes this so?

Now where did all that come from...

[domr]

Yes, my argument was anecdotal I agree with that. Since we don't have statistics on the matter, how do you want to claim any kind of proof? Formal logic, which you are using, only makes sense when it comes to interpreting known facts, or else it is baseless speculation. Staistics in themselves tell us little without knowing how they were obtained or looking at the context. And yet theoretical arguments are pure fantasy without facts.

What you are arguing is basically circular, though. Your whole argument is based on the idea that quadras exist in the first place, something for which we have no external proof. Your argument is "the fact that X should work this way or else X is invalid proves X exists". Replace "X" with socionics and there is my point. Also, in your example, the LIE has probably absorbed his family's values, which doesn't prove they are "delta values" or that they differ from his "real gamma values". You are assuming that an LIE should have X set of values rather than Y because his family is delta and holds Y values? Or is it because supposedly LIEs hold values Y rather than X? But what makes this so?

Now where did all that come from...

Examples of Quadra Ideologies:

Alpha: Silicon Valley
Beta: Wall Street
Gamma: Hollywood
Delta: [Traditional Family Values] Maybe Capital Hill?

Political Ideology or values are derived from the valued functions. This is easiest to see with Alpha. Alpha value SiFe and TiNe. TiNe is abstract formal logic, rationalism. These are the scientists or the researchers. SiFe is Humanitarianism. Combine this together and you get the worldview of wanting to discover underlaying nature of the universe (TiNe) and use that knowledge to develop systems will benefit humanity (SiFe). This creates the stereotypical silicone valley google-esq culture.

[WVBRY]

Examples of Quadra Ideologies:

Alpha: Silicon Valley
Beta: Wall Street
Gamma: Hollywood
Delta: [Traditional Family Values] Maybe Capital Hill?

Political Ideology or values are derived from the valued functions. This is easiest to see with Alpha. Alpha value SiFe and TiNe. TiNe is abstract formal logic, rationalism. These are the scientists or the researchers. SiFe is Humanitarianism. Combine this together and you get the worldview of wanting to discover underlaying nature of the universe (TiNe) and use that knowledge to develop systems will benefit humanity (SiFe). This creates the stereotypical silicone valley google-esq culture.

You're not addressing my argument. There is no proof of this big theory of everything you are posting about. Your argument is circular logic.

Btw, as an aside, SiFe is not described as "humanitarianism" by socionists, that is NeFi if anything. SiFe is described as valuing comfortable social settings, pleasant atmosphere, fine food, cheeriness around eating and drinking and bonvivant type pleasure seeking.

[domr]

You're not addressing my argument. There is no proof of this big theory of everything you are posting about. Your argument is circular logic.

Btw, as an aside, SiFe is not described as "humanitarianism" by socionists, that is NeFi if anything. SiFe is described as valuing comfortable social settings, pleasant atmosphere, fine food, cheeriness around eating and drinking and bonvivant type pleasure seeking.

The argument is based on the axioms. P/J, S/I, L/E. The argument is not circular but based on axioms. And yes you have to accept these axioms as being self-evident, which if you are on here, then you already have.

Socionics is an incomplete system. They never axiomized the system and never explained how the blocks work. I have which is why I know that SiFe is humanitarianism. NeFi is virtual ethics, i.e. moral policing.

[WVBRY]

[Sisyphean]

TIL that it's self-evidently true that I'm a Leftist Imperialist Gordon Gekko. I thought I liked none of those things

[Bertrand]

humanitarianism at its broadest is N blocked with F (and in the ego). as far as domr's categories go: they are all spins on gamma structures. they're all organized in a Se Te way, with hollywood perhaps deviating the most, but even then, not really, with executives backed by investors like the weinsteins actually running shit. this is an endless argument though because its a matter of interpretation, domr capable of no doubt offering up an endless amount thereof. what he's actually done is zoom in on gamma and try to further divide it 4 ways as if mainline US institutions entirely encompass all 4 quadra when it mainly is dominated only by 1, and has vague elements of others only. its just another form of amerocentrism, wherein everything is seen to be contained within the american point of view. real differences in quadral institutions are so alien as to not even be on the radar. stuff like native people of america, or weird hippie communes. these never catch the public eye precisely because of how they are not gamma (or at the very least Se, which is why they're called central) oriented. these institutions no doubt employ people from all quadra, but by no means do they represent the vital values of these people. its more like they've all been corralled into a capitalist pen

[domr]

Shitpost.

I'm doing legit research in fixing the system. You are quoting 20 yr old + research as gospel. It's the same shit the MBTIers do with MBTI theory.

[domr]

TIL that it's self-evidently true that I'm a Leftist Imperialist Gordon Gekko. I thought I liked none of those things

Gordon Gekko is more SLE. LSI is more like Steve Jobs. Imperialist is still correct.