Aristocrats vs Democrats.

Golden Rose · Mar 6, 2015

I'm a rational Delta aristocrat, still approaching the dichotomies but I can relate strongly to this:

Amaterasu said:
I created an expression that helps me understand beta vs delta aristocracy: beta aristocracy perceives the group ("hierarchy") the individual is in, and determines the qualities of the individual on the basis of that. Delta aristocracy perceives the qualities ("potential") of the individual and then places them in the appropriate group.

Essentially they do the same thing, but in inverted directions.

I'm strongly against group think and mass categorization, even defining myself as an aristocrat sounds odd but I feel like it fits perfectly with both my sociontype EII and, even if it's a completely different system, me being a sexual 4. I think Delta aristocracy is the reverse of the canonical, stereotypical kind as it sees groups and labels with contempt and prefers to focus on the individual and personal qualities of someone, digging under the surface and defining their own 'labels' and 'groups' by simply valuing independent thinking and focusing on what defines a person rather than biting into commonly accepted social labels.

I consider Delta and especially Fi-dominant Aristocracy as counter aristocracy, to steal other systems' terms, as they aren't following the typical protocol but rather helping preserving individuality by noticing someone's potential first and foremost and only mentally labeling them when it comes to defining someone's peculiarities in order to understand them better and compare them to the self. This is usually my personal take in this kind of situation.

Aristocrats, do you frequently use "Who are you to judge/lecture me?" thing on people?
Do unwarranted familiarities grate on you?
Yes and Yes.

Anyone knows me personally (or not) has heard that specific phrase a zillion times as I'm very aware and protective of my identity, although it was often swayed by trauma, mental illness and moods but still in a strongly personal way that resonated with me and myself only. I was never unreasonable but any objection had to make sense in a way that was congenial to my own views, values and feelings while structured and explained by a more deliberate objective description allowing me to apply to myself, rather than a generic "one size fits all" Fe-ish bogus stereotyped source.

This is why I can see myself as a Delta and an Aristocrat.

I reject unwanted assumptions and familiarity, I see individuals for who they are and only at a later time translate my understanding of them into orderly categories that don't trap the individual but rather enhance their own potential. Strong "me vs them" mindset too.

Word Dispenser · Mar 6, 2015

Democrats, is it true that you'll have no problem in choosing a shady homeless person over a respectable looking man as your source for directions on the street? Do you lean to undue familiarity?

Well, before I met my husfiend, definitely, but he is a bit paranoid about my open nature, which is completely understandable.

I once actually took a free taxi ride in the pouring rain, which was decidedly shady, or even stupid... Luckily, there are decent people out there, and I tended to run into them.

Even as young as 4 years old-- I was missing my parents at Walmart (They were actually tricking me to see what I'd do.) .. Well. I stood out on the sidewalk in front of walmart, searching the parking lot for my parents, and cried until a shady looking stranger walked up to me, offered his hand, and walked me into Walmart to take me to the front desk. My parents came running from the car in pursuit, snatched me quickly from the bum-looking man, and I got quite a lecture.

Do you support the theory that Aristocracy is usually more pronounced in rational types and Democracy in irrational types?

I suppose that could make sense. I'm uncertain.

Do you think that it's accurate to say that Aristocracy is more articulated in Beta while Democracy being a Gamma thing?

Certainly not!

Mizmar · Mar 6, 2015

I guess I'm a democrat based on that comparison.

To_august said:
Democrats, is it true that you'll have no problem in choosing a shady homeless person over a respectable looking man as your source for directions on the street? Do you lean to undue familiarity?

I'm kinda shy about approaching anyone for directions, but I don't think I would be particularly shy about approaching a homeless person. I don't necessarily find homeless people "shady".

I don't recall ever having problems arising from undue familiarity.

alittlebear said:
Looking at these traits, I am quite Aristocratic. I can turn it off, though, when it gets in the way of me seeing a person as... a person. Take my dorm neighbor. She's in a campus group me ad my room mate so not approve of, and part of me, every time I see her, goes "Oh, there's Molly*, that girl who goes to Meatloaf Central*." Also, of course I choose friends according to what cliques they belong to? That's going to influence how they see me, and if it's a clique that's higher in social status than the one I'm in I'm going to be hesitant to start a friendship with them because it's going to be very unbalanced.

I find this post fascinating because it's so different from my outlook. I've never picked friends based on what (if any) clique they happened to belong to. I have a hard time seeing cliques as all that relevant. I might have some vague awareness of their existence, but I don't read much into them--they just seem like uninteresting superficialities. I've never assumed a person's clique influenced how they saw me. Individuals of the same clique can all seem so different from one another that I assume each member sees me differently. By "higher social status" do you mean that based on wealth, or that based on popularity? I've always been oblivious to the former and, just not that concerned with the latter.

Pressed Flowers · Mar 6, 2015

I don't "choose friends based on cliques" in that I go out of my way to pick someone and put them in my clique... okay, I go that a little bit. And cliques are just a big part of how I see things, because they do have so many intangible impacts on relationships to others and I have no choice but to be very conscious of those things - in my mind, at least. And by "higher status" I do essentially mean "popularity," but there have been some instances where I mean by wealth. One example of this when I was very young (maybe eight) is when I went to Bring Your Child To Work Day. When all the children were put together to watch a (terrible) movie, I got to interact with them, and one girl was bossing around another girl because her dad was the boss of that girl's dad. While I just made sure not to mention my dad's position (he was nobody's boss at the time), I was also aware that there was some sort of boundary I could not penetrate into the relationships of these boss' children.

But to me these things are just natural. I was always aware that not everyone was as conscious as me of cliques, but if didn't realize that some people were completely... unaffected by them. They seem so real and important in my world.

Jeremy8419 · Mar 6, 2015

Some of the R questions are slightly inane on the Zwhatever site I took it on. This particular one was stated in such a way that made me think... "either they are asking if I am stuck up or if I am prejudice..."

Typhon · Mar 8, 2015

Fwiw, after some reflection on the topic, I identify with the democratic dichotomy.

Jimmers · Mar 12, 2015

Irrational Gamma and Democratic. I often resist belonging to any one group and only in rare circumstances have I not talked to someone because of the group they belonged to. I've let go many friends who were fine being my friend when it was one on one, but not when they were in the presence of another group. It became clear to me that they were too good for me when they were around other friends. As far as I know, I haven't done that to anyone.

I am opposed to groups that reward on anything less than merit.

Consolidated Potato · Mar 12, 2015

Irrational, Aristocrat. Not Beta or Delta.

I do frequently think to myself, "Who the f**k are you to tell me what to think about people, you small-minded nimrod?" when being lectured on the "realities" of society.

Although would I try my hardest not to discriminate between a dirty-looking homeless person and a respectable looking man, I'm not stupid enough to think that makes a real difference. The dirty-looking homeless person may be honest, while the respectable looking man may be a thug/conman in a suit. I would place my trust by examining their face and their expression. Any sense of malice would lead me to immediately dismiss that person on the basis of being untrustworthy regardless of how they're dressed.

Inveniet · Mar 13, 2015

I could ask a homeless person for direction yes if I thought he had them
and I didn't think he where a threat or inconvenience.
Sadly most people on the lower rungs of society has a energetic low that can be pretty draining.
They lack so much and have so poor patterns that if you stay too long in their precence
it will rub off on you too. Insecurity twist men into beasts that want to tear down everyone
and everything that reflects their own sad state of being.
I do lend a hand if I genuinely believe that I can make a difference, if I have to surplus to deal with them.
But alas I'm not strong enough to shoulder every broken life I cross paths with.
I don't think I'm better than anyone else, but I do recognize that I have a greater energetic surplus than many.
I can do things that they can't, they could too if their frequency of being wasn't so twisted towards darkness.
When the inner light runs out and hope is lost sight of, then man is naught better than a beast.

Gee wonder if I even answered the question... xD

ALongTime · Mar 14, 2015

OK, delta rational and supposed aristocrat here. I say supposed because I have some scepticisms, but maybe that's my misunderstanding and you can help.

I can relate to identifying myself as part of groups and categories, for example I'll say things like 'I'm a delta', 'I'm a PerC member'... and these things become part of my identity. But only groups I choose or agree to be placed in, I'm an individualist as well, but an individual who chooses to identify with groups.

I also never feel a sense of group responsibility, if people make invalid generalisations on a group, even if true for some members, and I'm not going to apologise for any negative actions of the group if it doesn't apply to me. I feel very strongly about this.

I have respect for valid authority, for example I'll listen to someone who knows more than I do. But if it isn't a just authority then I'll be more inclined to want to defy it.

I see people as equally valuable but each with their own unique things they can offer. People as individuals are equal and deserve equal respect, but in groups there can be a justified hierarchy. That said, I aim to treat all people with an equally high level of respect regardless of their status, and get annoyed when others don't.

I would definitely support rule based on merit over mob rule, and while I think they're both important I see order in society (provided it's just) as more important than personal freedom.

I'll answer the questions:

Aristocrats, do you frequently use "Who are you to judge/lecture me?" thing on people? Do unwarranted familiarities grate on you?
Yes, I do if they're in no position to make those judgements. Unwarranted familiarities can appear false, and I tend to be polite and professional in my tone, especially at work when dealing with people I don't know well.

Democrats, is it true that you'll have no problem in choosing a shady homeless person over a respectable looking man as your source for directions on the street? Do you lean to undue familiarity?
You see I wouldn't judge a homeless person as being unrespectable given no other information. Homeless people have been failed by society, therefore I would judge that against people in authority for allowing that to happen, and have more respect for the homeless person if this respectable looking man looked like he was in a position of authority. That would be my instinctive judgement. I would then probably rationalise it even further and conclude that this initial judgement was an unfair generalisation on people in authority.

Do you support the theory that Aristocracy is usually more pronounced in rational types and Democracy in irrational types?
Not really, because I don't think it's that pronounced in me.

Do you think that it's accurate to say that Aristocracy is more articulated in Beta while Democracy being a Gamma thing?
Could be, I can definitely imagine aristocracy in betas more than deltas. Would that theory be based on Fe values and the need to form a unified group being more compatible with aristocracy?

To_august · Mar 14, 2015

ALongTime said:
Do you think that it's accurate to say that Aristocracy is more articulated in Beta while Democracy being a Gamma thing?
Could be, I can definitely imagine aristocracy in betas more than deltas. Would that theory be based on Fe values and the need to form a unified group being more compatible with aristocracy?

It is something I encountered on different sites and I think this train of thought can be connected with that Beta has valued Se and unvalued Fi. Because of this they tend to separate people on the basis of power dynamics. Us versus them turns into "You're either with us, or against us" and friend-or-foe sort of attitude. It leads to more strict group hierarchy and more visible aristocratic tendencies, in a conventional understanding of this term, within Beta groups and their worldview.

It's vise versa for Delta - Fi valued, Se unvalued. They also divide people into "us" and "them", but "us" are meant to be the people who share similar hopes, dreams and aspirations within a group, who are kindred spirits and congenial souls in a way. Those who don't share these qualities can be seen as the ruck or mouse people, but either way it lacks hierarchical and pushy aspects that Beta has, so may be not so obviously perceived as aristocratic.

...
I feel like I have to clarify one of my first questions, namely about a homeless person. The question is not about how one feels about homeless people or whether their state is the result of mistreatment they faced in life.
Think about them as if they are archetypes. They have no facial features, they are not individuals, there's nothing finite about them except their social status. Homeless person archetype to the right and an ordinary-looking man archetype to the left and you got lost looking for the road to the museum and need to ask for directions one of them. The choice is totally up to you and you have both options equally available and approachable.

It stems from preposition that Democrats do not pay attention to classes people belong to. They will easily choose a homeless person, because they don't see the difference between two options, or more precisely they see, but they don't think it bears any importance. Democrats understand groups and classes, identify them, but they don't deem them important. They tend to treat both people belonging to their inner circle and people whom they can refer to as members of "outside groups" equally. For example, if they are rude, they tend to be equally rude to everybody. Irrespective of whether their attitude is directed at people from their inner circle or at the "outsiders" it will not differ.

ALongTime · Mar 14, 2015

To_august said:
It is something I encountered on different sites and I think this train of thought can be connected with that Beta has valued Se and unvalued Fi. Because of this they tend to separate people on the basis of power dynamics. Us versus them turns into "You're either with us, or against us" and friend-or-foe sort of attitude. It leads to more strict group hierarchy and more visible aristocratic tendencies, in a conventional understanding of this term, within Beta groups and their worldview.

It's vise versa for Delta - Fi valued, Se unvalued. They also divide people into "us" and "them", but "us" are meant to be the people who share similar hopes, dreams and aspirations within a group, who are kindred spirits and congenial souls in a way. Those who don't share these qualities can be seen as the ruck or mouse people, but either way it lacks hierarchical and pushy aspects that Beta has, so may be not so obviously perceived as aristocratic.

Maybe it's the way the descriptions are worded, and people's perceptions of what an aristocrat is fits in more with people's perceptions of beta... the trait could be just as strong with delta but manifest differently.

I feel like I have to clarify one of my first questions, namely about a homeless person. The question is not about how one feels about homeless people or whether their state is the result of mistreatment they faced in life.
Think about them as if they are archetypes. They have no facial features, they are not individuals, there's nothing finite about them except their social status. Homeless person archetype to the right and an ordinary-looking man archetype to the left and you got lost looking for the road to the museum and need to ask for directions one of them. The choice is totally up to you and you have both options equally available and approachable.

It stems from preposition that Democrats do not pay attention to classes people belong to. They will easily choose a homeless person, because they don't see the difference between two options, or more precisely they see, but they don't think it bears any importance. Democrats understand groups and classes, identify them, but they don't deem them important. They tend to treat both people belonging to their inner circle and people whom they can refer to as members of "outside groups" equally. For example, if they are rude, they tend to be equally rude to everybody. Irrespective of whether their attitude is directed at people from their inner circle or at the "outsiders" it will not differ.

You see I would find it hard to make a decision like that without making it in to some sort of ethical choice... it might even come down to that I'd ask the person I like least because I don't want to trouble the person I like. So it's difficult to answer explaining my reasoning without factoring that kind of thing in.

I guess I'm finding it most hard to reconcile aristocracy with Fi. Just to quote wikisocion, Fi themes: "like/dislike, decency and niceness, morals, good/bad, etiquette, humanism, attraction/repulsion, empathy, compassion, attitude towards other human beings, how others are treated, think about other's humanity "let's hear his side," judgements determined by people doing things" - so I would expect my judgements to come from Fi rather than the person's status. And if you consider EII's as having Fi+ it's more difficult to judge people harshly, seeing people's good rather than coming up with reasons of why you'd want to exclude them.

Now if you changed the question slightly in to being one person who shares (quoting your post) "similar hopes, dreams and aspirations within a group, who are kindred spirits and congenial souls in a way", vs someone who doesn't... then yes I would value the person who does more, but who wouldn't? Or would democrats really not care?

To_august · Mar 15, 2015

ALongTime said:
You see I would find it hard to make a decision like that without making it in to some sort of ethical choice... it might even come down to that I'd ask the person I like least because I don't want to trouble the person I like. So it's difficult to answer explaining my reasoning without factoring that kind of thing in.

I guess I'm finding it most hard to reconcile aristocracy with Fi. Just to quote wikisocion, Fi themes: "like/dislike, decency and niceness, morals, good/bad, etiquette, humanism, attraction/repulsion, empathy, compassion, attitude towards other human beings, how others are treated, think about other's humanity "let's hear his side," judgements determined by people doing things" - so I would expect my judgements to come from Fi rather than the person's status. And if you consider EII's as having Fi+ it's more difficult to judge people harshly, seeing people's good rather than coming up with reasons of why you'd want to exclude them.

I see how this should be primarily an ethical choice for Fi. In that case, does person's status don't prod you in any particular direction in case you have to make a choice but you don't know anything about the person in question, can't tell whether you share something in common with them or not and have no other information to rely on? Have to admit that I would more likely to choose an ordinary-looking man in that situation, simply because "homeless person" archetype is linked with different murky and/or uncertain connotations, while generic ordinary man is neutral and hence is a safer choice. This of course bearing in mind that I don't know anything about those individuals in terms of their personal background and I don't have opportunity to base my choice on something more substantial such as their looks or attitude.

Now if you changed the question slightly in to being one person who shares (quoting your post) "similar hopes, dreams and aspirations within a group, who are kindred spirits and congenial souls in a way", vs someone who doesn't... then yes I would value the person who does more, but who wouldn't? Or would democrats really not care?

I'm also curious to hear opinion on that from democrats, as it seems like a general human thing to me, but I can be biased.

aendern · Mar 15, 2015

To_august said:
Aristocracy/Democracy is arguably one of the most misunderstood Reinin dichotomies, so it would be interesting to hear opinions as to how people relate to it.

I agree! I've never even heard of the dichotomy until you posted about it.

I find it hard to choose which of these I more closely fit.

My gut reaction was "democrat" because I very much think that individuals are independent of the groups they subscribe to (sometimes they don't even subscribe by choice).

But I don't act like a democrat a lot of the time. To answer your question about the homeless person, I had to give lots of aristocratic explanations. Which made me think, WAIT A MINUTE, maybe I'm an aristocrat.

I will answer both of them, okay? And maybe you can decide--you probably know them a lot better than I do (cuz as I said, I know nothing about them)

Aristocrats, do you frequently use "Who are you to judge/lecture me?" thing on people? Do unwarranted familiarities grate on you?

I don't think I've ever said that even 1 single time in my entire life.

What's an unwarranted familiarity? Like when someone hugs you when they meet you for the first time? Yes, that does grate on me.

I think that's what you meant because the dichotomy is very much a "should people retain their separateness or should they try to blend into one cohesion?" and the "unwarranted" familiarties falls under the cohesion bit. Which I'm not sure how I feel about. Maybe I'm ambivalent.

(I guess it's a very Te vs Fe dichotomy? Then again, maybe it's Pi vs Pe)

ALTHOUGH, I dislike it when people call me "sir" or Mr. + LastName. If I could go by a first-name basis with everyone (and vise versa), I would greatly prefer that. I find arbitrary formalities very stupid.

Democrats, is it true that you'll have no problem in choosing a shady homeless person over a respectable looking man as your source for directions on the street? Do you lean to undue familiarity?

I would think both would be very bad choices for whom to ask for directions.

I would assume the homeless person was
1) too mentally ill to give directions
2) high/drunk out of his/her mind

I would assume the "respectable looking man" was
1) not a native of whatever area I was in (so can't give directions)
2) would prefer I didn't bother him for directions

So, it's a bit of a bad example question (if you're an Aristocrat, I suppose--I wonder how a democrat would answer it).

Do you support the theory that Aristocracy is usually more pronounced in rational types and Democracy in irrational types?

So I'm an irrational type and strongly favor democratic governments. But I think I naturally think like an Aristocrat when judging others at first.

Secondarily I will think about how they are independent from my generalizations about them. I will definitely do this step, just not first. I don't immediately think of people as individuals. And actually, if I don't like someone, I may purposefully ignore this step so that I can prevent myself from finding reasons to hate them less. (Aren't I awful?) I think it's very much a low-order Fi thing. Someone who was Fi > Te (instead of Te > Fi) would probably do the reverse--think of people as individuals and loathe defining them into the boxes that I so gladly confine people to.

Do you think that it's accurate to say that Aristocracy is more articulated in Beta while Democracy being a Gamma thing?

Don't know enough about the quadras to answer this.

To_august · Mar 15, 2015

emberfly said:
What's an unwarranted familiarity? Like when someone hugs you when they meet you for the first time? Yes, that does grate on me.

I think that's what you meant because the dichotomy is very much a "should people retain their separateness or should they try to blend into one cohesion?" and the "unwarranted" familiarties falls under the cohesion bit. Which I'm not sure how I feel about. Maybe I'm ambivalent.

(I guess it's a very Te vs Fe dichotomy? Then again, maybe it's Pi vs Pe)

ALTHOUGH, I dislike it when people call me "sir" or Mr. + LastName. If I could go by a first-name basis with everyone (and vise versa), I would greatly prefer that. I find arbitrary formalities very stupid.

Unwarranted familiarity is meant in a sense of... random person approach you saying: "Hey, you, what times is it?" It shouldn't be necessarily demonstrated in a physical sense, like hugging or touching, though it definitely can be part of it, but can be shown through speech and addressing you like they are an old friend of yours.

The theoretical background for this dichotomy is that Democrats have ethical and sensing elements blocked together. For example, ESI has FiSe in the Ego and FeSi in the Id; ILI has FiSe in the Super-id block and SeFi in the Super-ego (their ethics is always blocked with sensing and logic is always blocked with intuition).
Aristocrats, on the contrary, have logical and sensing elements blocked together. For example, LSI has TiSe in the ego and TeSi in the Id (their logic is always blocked with sensing and ethics is always blocked with intuition).
Below is how this positioning is usually interpreted:

Aristocrats have the logical and sensing IM elements in the same blocks of Model A.

Here is a possible interpretation of this:
Material assets are systematized and automated. Systems and production have a material expression. Ideas exist for people and societal relationships. People and relationships are valued for their personality and potential.

Democrats have the ethical and sensing IM elements in the same blocks of Model A.

Here is a possible interpretation of this:
Material assets exist for people and societal relationships. Systems and production are intangible or out of sight. Ideas and vision exist for technology and systems. People and relationships are valued for their effect and their comfort.

emberfly said:
So, it's a bit of a bad example question (if you're an Aristocrat, I suppose--I wonder how a democrat would answer it).

Yep, the question is contradictory. That's why I've been asking

In several articles I came across it is a commonly used assumption that hence democrats do not put people in the boxes, they wouldn't treat anybody on the basis of any preconceived categories and don't give a damn about who's in front of them in terms of their social status.

ALongTime · Mar 15, 2015

To_august said:
In that case, does person's status don't prod you in any particular direction in case you have to make a choice but you don't know anything about the person in question, can't tell whether you share something in common with them or not and have no other information to rely on?

I was thinking about this today and I think, possibly, it might initially before I'd analysed it and it could give the starting point, or if I was being lazy and going with my gut instinct. This is something I can see might have influenced me more when I was a lot younger, before I'd fully developed my ethical views on everyone being valuable despite their differences.

Or maybe this is me trying to make it fit because I want it to fit.

Ksara · Mar 15, 2015

To_august said:
Aristocracy/Democracy is arguably one of the most misunderstood Reinin dichotomies, so it would be interesting to hear opinions as to how people relate to it.

Recently I've read a bunch of articles on this dichotomy, which contained too much speculations and whatnot, so as to unburden my mind:

Aristocrats, do you frequently use "Who are you to judge/lecture me?" thing on people? Do unwarranted familiarities grate on you?

Democrats, is it true that you'll have no problem in choosing a shady homeless person over a respectable looking man as your source for directions on the street? Do you lean to undue familiarity?

I believe I relate more to the democrat side of things. To me people are just people. I don't care what club they belong to, if they are in a higher social position or if they are a celebrity. They are still just people and I'll treat them how I'd like to be treated. So what if I met the CEO of a successful company, I'm not going to treat them any different because of that. As I got to know them I would probably identify the guy based on how he comes across to me. A hard worker, or a nice guy, or not my kind of person.

What's interesting is when people try to lable me as belonging to a group, I reject it haha. My sister likes to proclaim I'm a hippie, I reject it because this then attaches to me other individual aspects of the group and connotations associated to the word itself that does not describe me. It can paint an inaccurate picture of who I am. I am someone who is concious of their effect on the environment and wants to live a healthy and balanced life...I do not associate with the hippie group. The individual aspects we may share are accidental.

Another one, my partner says because I'm the older sibling in my family I'm supposed to act like one. That is take on responsibility, set a good example, tell off my younger siblings when they do the wrong thing. I reject I should do these things because I'm the eldest (hey I didn't choose to be born first so why do I have to conform to these rules?). What I do is based on my merit. I take responsibility when I beleive it is my responsibility. I don't care about setting a good example, I don't live the way I do for others, or because I'm the 'older sibling'. I live life by what I think is important and this may coincidently look like I'm setting a good example. I neither care to tell my siblings off for doing the wrong thing. They are free to make their choices (just as I want to be free to make mine), I will however offer advice or try to help them understand how their actions come across to others. I will make them aware of the consequences because I care, not because I'm the older sister.

With your homeless person vs the respectable looking man. Well probably neither, If I can look up directions myself I will. If I must choose it won't be because of one is homeless the other respectable looking. It would be who I feel most comfortable talking to, that is who seems the most frendly. This is an individual thing as either person could appear friendly and easy to approach. If it's the homeless person, then I'll ask them, if it's the respectable guy I'll ask him.

I'm not sure what you mean by leaning to undue familiarity.

The aristocrat question, yeah I've thought that. Really if I have made a decision then it's my decision, and my consequences I am to live with. Unless someone is offering helpful advice (which I'll take because I don't know everything) then it isn't their place to be making my decisions.
I think this question was more intended for people considered of lower rank judging someone of a higher rank? For me it's just anyone who is not me haha.

ElliCat · Mar 18, 2015

I didn't want to relate to the aristocractic traits, but the more I think about it the more I realise I actually do. >_<

To_august said:
I see how this should be primarily an ethical choice for Fi. In that case, does person's status don't prod you in any particular direction in case you have to make a choice but you don't know anything about the person in question, can't tell whether you share something in common with them or not and have no other information to rely on? Have to admit that I would more likely to choose an ordinary-looking man in that situation, simply because "homeless person" archetype is linked with different murky and/or uncertain connotations, while generic ordinary man is neutral and hence is a safer choice. This of course bearing in mind that I don't know anything about those individuals in terms of their personal background and I don't have opportunity to base my choice on something more substantial such as their looks or attitude.

If there's not some ethical dilemma going on inside my mind, it would probably come down to a gut feeling of who is most "like me". I don't know. To be honest I tend to avoid these kinds of situations.... I'd rather buy a map and figure it out myself. XD

To answer the original questions:

Yes I'm sure I have thought, "who are you to lecture me?" Not because of any kind of social standing, but I guess some kind of personal classification according to whether I think they make good decisions or not. Someone who has in the past shown little inclination for deeper thought and/or has made unwise decisions, who then turns around and starts preaching about how they know better than me, is not someone I want to be hearing from.

Unwarranted familiarity, well, I don't know, I kind of just want people to stay away in general, although how much of that is social anxiety I'm not quite sure.

emberfly said:
Someone who was Fi > Te (instead of Te > Fi) would probably do the reverse--think of people as individuals and loathe defining them into the boxes that I so gladly confine people to.

I wouldn't say I'm 100% opposed to labels. I do see people as individuals first, but then I have my own labels that I use to very loosely categorise them. Which isn't to say that I start seeing them merely as those labels, but it's more like, "that's Person A, she's [personality trait] and believes in [blah blah blah]".

ALongTime · Mar 18, 2015

ElliCat said:
I didn't want to relate to the aristocractic traits, but the more I think about it the more I realise I actually do. >_<

This is becoming more and more my take on it as well, now I'm consciously thinking about it as a result of this thread. It's as if I Fi-judge aristocratic traits to be wrong, but I can see it in myself especially if I look at how I am as opposed to how I think I should be.

These aristocratic judgements happen very quickly and on almost a subconscious level, before I analyse the situation more deeply and think "no, you shouldn't really judge people like that". It's not really an ethical dilemma though, because with leading Fi I'm usually very confident about my ethical judgements, I'll know I'll come to the right conclusion eventually.

ElliCat · Mar 19, 2015

ALongTime said:
This is becoming more and more my take on it as well, now I'm consciously thinking about it as a result of this thread. It's as if I Fi-judge aristocratic traits to be wrong, but I can see it in myself especially if I look at how I am as opposed to how I think I should be.

These aristocratic judgements happen very quickly and on almost a subconscious level, before I analyse the situation more deeply and think "no, you shouldn't really judge people like that". It's not really an ethical dilemma though, because with leading Fi I'm usually very confident about my ethical judgements, I'll know I'll come to the right conclusion eventually.

DING DING DING! Ten points to the man in pink and yellow!

As an aside, this is probably why I get so annoyed with people who deny that racism, sexism, etc is a problem, and claim that putting it down to "unconscious biases" is a cop-out. I'm fully aware that I have all sorts of horrible subconscious biases. To me the important thing is what you do with them. I'd rather become conscious of them and try to work against them, rather than live in my own fantasy world where I am perfect and beyond all societal conditioning. But maybe I should stop before I drag this too far off-topic...

Aristocrats vs Democrats.

How do you relate to Aristocracy/Democracy?

I’m Alpha, rational base and relate to Aristocracy

I’m Alpha, rational base and relate to Democracy

I’m Alpha, irrational base and relate to Aristocracy

I’m Alpha, irrational base and relate to Democracy

I’m Alpha and can’t choose and/or don’t understand this dichotomy.

I’m Beta, rational base and relate to Aristocracy

I’m Beta, rational base and relate to Democracy

I’m Beta, irrational base and relate to Aristocracy

I’m Beta, irrational base and relate to Democracy

I’m Beta and can’t choose and/or don’t understand this dichotomy.

I’m Gamma, rational base and relate to Aristocracy

I’m Gamma, rational base and relate to Democracy

I’m Gamma, irrational base and relate to Aristocracy

I’m Gamma, irrational base and relate to Democracy

I’m Gamma and can’t choose and/or don’t understand this dichotomy.

I’m Delta, rational base and relate to Aristocracy

I’m Delta, rational base and relate to Democracy

I’m Delta, irrational base and relate to Aristocracy

I’m Delta, irrational base and relate to Democracy

I’m Delta and can’t choose and/or don’t understand this dichotomy.

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities