Political affiliation and socionic type

[domr]

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 the US entirely ecompasses 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

IE is Spirutalist.
SE is Humanists.

I is abstract. Humanitarianism is as sensory as it gets, seeing the physical condition of a person. I feel weird having to post this because it should be so obvious but this is a prime of example of what i mean by socionics being an incomplete theory.

[Bertrand]

t e r r y o l o g y

[Spermatozoa]

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.

I would support that so long as the group associations truly were voluntary (i.e. you have the right to accept or reject anyone, or to not be a part of any group at all) and you didn't try to undermine people who choose to join another group, take their property etc.

Anarchy-Communism is a contradiction in terms though, because if you allow people to express themselves and associate freely, they will assort into groups according to their biological imperative. So the only way you can make people equal (the stated goal of communism) is by taking away their freedom to make choices. That is why equality should be abandoned as an ideal.

[ooo]

I would support that so long as the group associations truly were voluntary (i.e. you have the right to accept or reject anyone, or to not be a part of any group at all) and you didn't try to undermine people who choose to join another group, take their property etc.

Anarchy-Communism is a contradiction in terms though, because if you allow people to express themselves and associate freely, they will assort into groups according to their biological imperative. So the only way you can make people equal (the stated goal of communism) is by taking away their freedom to make choices. That is why equality should be abandoned as an ideal.

I don't understand the relationship between a total equality and the need to ban one's freedom of choice. we're all driven by our instincts, totalitarian regime or anarchism or democracy or what have you, but instincts shouldn't and are not the only thing we base our civil world on. actually a wtv form of political system, even an anarchist one, is intended to create and defend the limits beyond which our personal instincts don't interfere with what is the greater good, that exists everywhere, even in a totalitarianism. you're just forgetting about culture and progress, which are not fancy decorations but should be the sort of spring behind our civilized world.

[Ave]

I don't understand the relationship between a total equality and the need to ban one's freedom of choice. we're all driven by our instincts, totalitarian regime or anarchism or democracy or what have you, but instincts shouldn't and are not the only thing we base our civil world on. actually a wtv form of political system, even an anarchist one, is intended to create and defend the limits beyond which our personal instincts don't interfere with what is the greater good, that exists everywhere, even in a totalitarianism. you're just forgetting about culture and progress, which are not fancy decorations but should be the sort of spring behind our civilized world.

What makes you think there would no inequality if we abolished the state?

[Ave]

I would support that so long as the group associations truly were voluntary (i.e. you have the right to accept or reject anyone, or to not be a part of any group at all) and you didn't try to undermine people who choose to join another group, take their property etc.

Anarchy-Communism is a contradiction in terms though, because if you allow people to express themselves and associate freely, they will assort into groups according to their biological imperative. So the only way you can make people equal (the stated goal of communism) is by taking away their freedom to make choices. That is why equality should be abandoned as an ideal.

" It is probable that we habitually overestimate the extent to which inequality of incomes is mainly caused by income derived from private property, and therefore the extent to which the major inequalities would be abolished by abolishing income from property. What little information we have about the distribution of incomes in Soviet Russia does not suggest that the inequalities are there substantially smaller than in a capitalist society. Max Eastman (The End of Socialism in Russia, 1937, pp 30-4) gives some information from official Russian sources which suggest that the difference between the highest and lowest salaries paid in Russia is of the same order of magnitude (about 50 to 1) as in the United States; and Leon Trotski, according to an article quoted by James Burnham (The Marginal Revolution, 1941, p.43) estimated as late as 1939 that "the upper 11 or 12 per cent. of the Soviet population now receives approximately 50 percent of the national income. This differenciation is sharper than in the United States, where the upper 10 percent receives approximately 35 percent of the national income."

From F. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, p. 107, notes. Routledge Classics.

[Spermatozoa]

" It is probable that we habitually overestimate the extent to which inequality of incomes is mainly caused by income derived from private property, and therefore the extent to which the major inequalities would be abolished by abolishing income from property. What little information we have about the distribution of incomes in Soviet Russia does not suggest that the inequalities are there substantially smaller than in a capitalist society. Max Eastman (The End of Socialism in Russia, 1937, pp 30-4) gives some information from official Russian sources which suggest that the difference between the highest and lowest salaries paid in Russia is of the same order of magnitude (about 50 to 1) as in the United States; and Leon Trotski, according to an article quoted by James Burnham (The Marginal Revolution, 1941, p.43) estimated as late as 1939 that "the upper 11 or 12 per cent. of the Soviet population now receives approximately 50 percent of the national income. This differenciation is sharper than in the United States, where the upper 10 percent receives approximately 35 percent of the national income."

From F. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, p. 107, notes. Routledge Classics.

All people are equal, but some people will always be more equal than others.

[Spermatozoa]

I don't understand the relationship between a total equality and the need to ban one's freedom of choice. we're all driven by our instincts, totalitarian regime or anarchism or democracy or what have you, but instincts shouldn't and are not the only thing we base our civil world on. actually a wtv form of political system, even an anarchist one, is intended to create and defend the limits beyond which our personal instincts don't interfere with what is the greater good, that exists everywhere, even in a totalitarianism. you're just forgetting about culture and progress, which are not fancy decorations but should be the sort of spring behind our civilized world.

There is no such thing as "the greater good". The greatest threat to humanity has and always will be a False Messiah - an individual who thinks they know what is best for everyone else and wants to make the world a better place, who seeks to unite humanity under one banner and who has the power to make their delusions real. We cannot make a heaven on earth, but reward will come in the hereafter to those who are patient.

I am not afraid of people who try to seperate humanity. We can survive that, we always have. What I am truly afraid of is a movement that tries to force us all to live together in some perverse, unthinking harmony, assimilating and controlling every person's essence whether or not he or she wishes it. In the name of "tolerance" and "equality", communism robs us of our individuality and our soul. I expect intelligent people to strive for more than the mediocre prize of being the same as everyone else. But maybe I am the idealist here after all, and all you really care about is power.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Never forget that. Over 100 million people have already died in the fruitless quest to make your dream real.

[ooo]

What makes you think there would no inequality if we abolished the state?

...what makes you think I think that?

There is no such thing as "the greater good". The greatest threat to humanity has and always will be a False Messiah - an individual who thinks they know what is best for everyone else and wants to make the world a better place, who seeks to unite humanity under one banner and who has the power to make their delusions real. We cannot make a heaven on earth, but reward will come in the hereafter to those who are patient.

I am not afraid of people who try to seperate humanity. We can survive that, we always have. What I am truly afraid of is a movement that tries to force us all to live together in some perverse, unthinking harmony, assimilating and controlling every person's essence whether or not he or she wishes it. In the name of "tolerance" and "equality", communism robs us of our individuality and our soul. I expect intelligent people to strive for more than the mediocre prize of being the same as everyone else. But maybe I am the idealist here after all, and all you really care about is power.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Never forget that. Over 100 million people have already died in the fruitless quest to make your dream real.

lol oh jeez, and...are you saying that Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc have been the greatest threats to humanity?

further, I fail to see how I'm seeking power by wanting a fair environment, while your divisionism and mentality alà "the fittest/strongest wins" would be less power-seeking, total nonsense.

and, who are you even taking me for by blaming 100 million deaths on me?!

ps, btw, never forget: Red sky at night, shepherd's delight; red sky in the morning, sailor's warning.

[Ave]

...what makes you think I think that?

Because you said "I don't understand the relationship between a total equality and the need to ban one's freedom of choice". Doesn't this mean you see total equality and total freedom as possible? I know this doesn't involve the state, per se, but you talk alot about anarchy, so I figured you were for abolshing the state to make people more equal and free at the same time. I'm sorry if I misconstrued your views, but that was my understanding.

[Spermatozoa]

lol oh jeez, and...are you saying that Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc have been the greatest threats to humanity?

further, I fail to see how I'm seeking power by wanting a fair environment, while your divisionism and mentality alà "the fittest/strongest wins" would be less power-seeking, total nonsense.

You don't seem to understand what would be required to create "a fair environment" in practice. So either you are naive (which I hope), or just indifferent to any human suffering that might be created in the name of "the greater good".

and, who are you even taking me for by blaming 100 million deaths on me?!

I am not blaming you for any of this. However, you are clearly ignorant of communist history. Most left-wingers today haven't heard of the Holdomor, Mao's Great Leap Forward, or even the Reign of Terror; you should research all of them. My point is that people have tried to create a truly equal society before and every time it led not to peace but suffering.

We need to come to terms with the fact that not everybody is going to end up rich, smart, hot or whatever else, and stop connecting a person's value so closely to material things. Make the most of the hand you've been dealt instead of envying other people. You never know, they might not be happy either.

[ooo]

Because you said "I don't understand the relationship between a total equality and the need to ban one's freedom of choice". Doesn't this mean you see total equality and total freedom as possible? I know this doesn't involve the state, per se, but you talk alot about anarchy, so I figured you were for abolshing the state to make people more equal and free at the same time. I'm sorry if I misconstrued your views, but that was my understanding.

yes true true, I wanted to be cheeky. yes I think those things, I think that that's possible and that the freer we are, the more equal, or the other way around. But the point is just that I don't think anarchy could happen today, or next year, it's an utopy to think that it'd work, that we'd be able to self-administer and respect each other equally, in this current world now, reason why we need a system that regulates what's to do, how and why, even if the system often makes profit only for itself. the point is that we still live inside a slave-master mentality, it's really hard to think outside of these confines, sell/buy, winner/loser, in/out, right/left. but it's this same mentality that creates the winners and the losers, wrong and right and so on. to be local, independent, decentralized from any bureaucratic imposition, yet inside a cooperative, fair trade net of similar communities, just means to recognize each one's uniqueness and allow it to grow, to preserve the particular traditions of a place, of its inhabitants, that individually are free to do and think what they want, outside of the assembly line of the world. what I aim for is collective consciousness tbh. it's about pretty simple foundations, but we don't seem to have them developed enough, myself in primis, to sustain any soon to be political dynamics.

You don't seem to understand what would be required to create "a fair environment" in practice. So either you are naive (which I hope), or just indifferent to any human suffering that might be created in the name of "the greater good".

I am not blaming you for any of this. However, you are clearly ignorant of communist history. Most left-wingers today haven't heard of the Holdomor, Mao's Great Leap Forward, or even the Reign of Terror; you should research all of them. My point is that people have tried to create a truly equal society before and every time it led not to peace but suffering.

We need to come to terms with the fact that not everybody is going to end up rich, smart, hot or whatever else, and stop connecting a person's value so closely to material things. Make the most of the hand you've been dealt instead of envying other people. You never know, they might not be happy either.

why are you even blaming me to want to create a fair soicety, when you just profess to want to create an admittedly savage one that just follows instincts? further nonsense.

don't come to teach me history pls or how to install a fair environment, when you just want the same with the difference that the winner/loser game you profess appeals to you more.

[Rebelondeck]

If left to their own devices, I've thought that NFs would tend to the left while STs more to the right, with the NTs and SFs in the middle where they could fall either way. However, political leaning seems more influenced by family and or social pressures - much like religion or tribalism....

a.k.a. I/O

[Sisyphean]

Don't forget genetics, Rebel.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...be-hard-wired/

[domr]

You guys don't seem to understand the basics of Socionics.

Alphas and Gammas are democratic while Beta and Delta are aristocratic so from this alone we will have a huge difference in ideology.

As I said above. Alpha is made from TiNe and SiFe. TiNe is mathematics, computer science, and theoretical physics; it's a system to analyze the world and recreate it virtually. SiFe is humanitarianism and sociology; it's a drive to remove the suffering from people. Together Alpha wants to make huge breakthroughs in our understanding of the world and use those advancements to remove pain and suffering from humanity. This is easiest seen in Bill Gates (LII) and his Bill and Malinda Gates foundation. Coupled with the fact that we know these people are democratic, i.e. they want a flat organization structure, we can derive that Alpha is your typical hippie socialists / communists. They want small local communities where people work together to help each other and they don't like inequality or suffering. This is supported by another LII, Karl Marx.

Gamma is very different. They value NiTe and FiSe. NiTe is the scientific method. They want to come up with new ideas, experiment and see what works. That's why the LII is the stereotypical computer scientists while the ILI is the stereotypical engineer. FiSe is hedonism or hedonic calculus (e.g. Neilson Ratings). Give FiSe any basket of senses and they will calculate the utility those senses create. So FiSe is the arts & humanities, these are your artists. Combing these 2 blocks together we get a worldview of wanting to creating gadgets (NiTe) and use those things to gadgets to put on plays and performances that generate happiness (FiSe). Coupled with the fact these types are democratic, against flat organizational structure, we get the political ideology of libertarianism or anarchy. They want the freedom to live as they please and they don't want people to infringe on their freedom.

Now remember all democratic types have TiFe, NiTe, SiFe, FiSe, in their 4 blocks so the mind of a democrat is torn between collectivism (Alpha) and individualism (Gamma). You'll see lots of political ideologies because of NT and this very sensory understanding of humans because of SF. I agree that political affliction is largely influenced by family but you will still see glimpses of this analysis in these people.

To recap:

IL = Scientists
Alpha IL = Researchers
Gamma IL = Developers

SE = Humanists
Alpha SE = Philanthropists
Gamma SE = Hedonists

The combination of Hierarchy + Valued Blocks = Political Ideology.

[Bertrand]

I'm not sure there's one true sentence in that post. Maybe the thing about alphas being democratic, but even in that, there seems to be embedded an equivocation on democratic

[domr]

I'm not sure there's one true sentence in that post. Maybe the thing about alphas being democratic, but even in that, there seems to be embedded an equivocation on democratic

That's evidence that your understanding of the underlying theory is far below mine.

You need to understand at a fundamental level what the difference is between the 4 clubs and the 8 intellects. If you think IE is humanitarianism, e.g. imaginative, abstract, theoretical ethics is humanitarianism, rather than SE, sensory, concrete, practical ethics then that's a problem.

[Bertrand]

humanitarianism is more about psychological states, politics in terms of who "should" get what is more applied ethics, i.e.: sensory ethics. management i.e.: sensing logic is logistics. and research is theoretical and technological development. there is of course overlap and border states. Jesus said "render unto Caesar", SEE is caesar. collapsing humanitarianism into politics is precisely the point where humanitarianism ceases to be humanitarian and a big problem with the church in the US, particularly because of how the bible is re interpreted as a political document and thus you end up with churches as small businesses run to promote certain social agendas, with the actual psychological and spiritual elements almost entirely absent. that people don't even recognize the humanitarian aspects are missing is the problem. your post is symptomatic of that particular cultural view. in a word, it is shallow

[domr]

humanitarianism is more about psychological states, politics in terms of who "should" get what is more applied ethics,

i.e.: sensory ethics. management i.e.: sensing logic is logistics. and research is theoretical and technological development. there is of course overlap and border states.

Jesus said "render unto Caesar",

SEE is caesar.

collapsing humanitarianism into politics is precisely the point where humanitarianism ceases to be humanitarian and a big problem with the church in the US, particularly because of how the bible is re interpreted as a political document and thus you end up with churches as small businesses run to promote certain social agendas, with the actual psychological and spiritual elements almost entirely absent. that people don't even recognize the humanitarian aspects are missing is the problem. your post is symptomatic of that particular cultural view

5 different ideas in 1 paragraph. Seriously? No wonder you can't understand simple and direct rational.

[Disturbed]

By type, ILE-Ti seem to support free-market capitalism and believe that it could work more than most people (I agree with them) and also see that traditional gender stereotypes were wrong. Delta NFs seem to be pretty authoritarian, both morally and on economic issues (favoring the welfare state and all sorts of regulations) no matter how financially secure. IEE, whether man or woman, seem to be pretty bitter about SLE-Ti and ILE-Ti womens' traits and behavior and they seem to not really like EIE much either; I think IEE valuing Te/Fi not valuing Ti/Fe and not valuing Se and having weak Si are more likely than most to have not seen ways in which women are just as strong and to have just thought commonly believed "gender norms" instead of realizing they were the opposite of reality and truth. They don't care about details much, so they just take in what is presented as fact without really understanding it. The Delta quadra is a really fucked up quadra because of the combination information elements they value (the SLI seems more "let off the hook" than the other three 3 types). Because valuing both Ne and Te and Valuing both Si and Te don't go together as well for the person who values both. Ti and Ni don't work as well together as Ti and Ne do (and Ti and Se don't work together as well as Te and Se do, but Se and Fe work together better than Se and Fi work together), but since Betas value Fe and Ti and Se and don't value Fi they can read peoples' emotions as the situation requires, they can express fewer judgments, they can apply their make up better, they look more physically and sexually attractive than Deltas do on average and so they can get people on their side and use people more easily and feel less shame over it than Deltas, who are more likely to be on their own as individuals. Many deltas are good, useful people some are beautiful, but they really seem to have it pretty hard and like they're just never able to win, to get what they want out of life (or if they do sometimes, then not as much as they'd like, though the SLIs seem to be an exception). ESI also seem to have it pretty hard.

[Muddy]

By type, ILE-Ti seem to support free-market capitalism and believe that it could work more than most people (I agree with them) and also see that traditional gender stereotypes were wrong. Delta NFs seem to be pretty authoritarian, both morally and on economic issues (favoring the welfare state and all sorts of regulations) no matter how financially secure. IEE, whether man or woman, seem to be pretty bitter about SLE-Ti and ILE-Ti womens' traits and behavior and they seem to not really like EIE much either; I think IEE valuing Te/Fi not valuing Ti/Fe and not valuing Se and having weak Si are more likely than most to have not seen ways in which women are just as strong and to have just thought commonly believed "gender norms" instead of realizing they were the opposite of reality and truth. They don't care about details much, so they just take in what is presented as fact without really understanding it. The Delta quadra is a really fucked up quadra because of the combination information elements they value (the SLI seems more "let off the hook" than the other three 3 types). Because valuing both Ne and Te and Valuing both Si and Te don't go together as well for the person who values both. Ti and Ni don't work as well together as Ti and Ne do (and Ti and Se don't work together as well as Te and Se do, but Se and Fe work together better than Se and Fi work together), but since Betas value Fe and Ti and Se and don't value Fi they can read peoples' emotions as the situation requires, they can express fewer judgments, they can apply their make up better, they look more physically and sexually attractive than Deltas do on average and so they can get people on their side and use people more easily and feel less shame over it than Deltas, who are more likely to be on their own as individuals. Many deltas are good, useful people some are beautiful, but they really seem to have it pretty hard and like they're just never able to win, to get what they want out of life (or if they do sometimes, then not as much as they'd like, though the SLIs seem to be an exception). ESI also seem to have it pretty hard.

I can imagine that a lot of ILEs are banking money off things like twitch donations and bitcoin. Not surprising that they would be one of the types most supportive of free market capitalism.

[RBRS]

x