Aristocracy and democracy

From Wikisocion

Aristocracy / Democracy is one of the 15 Reinin dichotomies.

[edit] Aristocratic and democratic types

• Aristocratic types are all Beta and Delta types, namely, LSI, EIE, IEI, SLE, EII, LSE, SLI, IEE.
• Democratic types are all Alpha and Gamma types, namely, LII, ESE, SEI, ILE, ESI, LIE, ILI, SEE.

[edit] Theoretical properties of aristocratic and democratic types

• 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.

When analyzing this dichotomy from the perspective of model A, Augusta listed all the blocks in this dichotomy (so     with    ,     with     etc for Aristocracy and     with    ,     with     etc for Democracy), attributing specific traits to each block which she extended to characteristics of each dichotomy as whole. They are not all obviously connected to a focus or lack thereof on groups as per the most common definition of this dichotomy and as listed in the "typical characteristics" section below.

A possible explanation for this trait regarding group thinking goes as follows. Aristocratic reasoning merely structures logically(   ) characteristics they have observed (   ) in several individuals, being thus a logical "connecting of the dots" applied to people. From a purely logical     perspective applied to     perceptions and goals, it makes perfect sense to assume that, if you perceive an individual as belonging to a group posssessing some traits you have already concluded are characteristic of that group, said individual will exhibit those traits. For example, if in your experience so far (   ) all persons belonging to a particular division in a company have been unhelpful, it makes sense to conclude logically (   ) in a purely impersonal way that that is a characteristic of that division, and extrapolate that to further persons from that group. From the point of view of primitive societies or situations of non-organized warfare and conflict, such a reasoning may even be crucial for survival since it allows you to estimate who your enemies are before they attack you.

By contrast, the Democratic reasoning focuses on observations     on a case-by-case basis, that is of the individual they happen to be interacting with at the moment (   ). A focus on     does not lead to creating logical structures, but to forming stable connections to persons on individual-to-indvidual basis, and in that case there is no point to, and no inclination for, considerations of whether the observed reality     of the person fits into a broader logical structure of a group (   ).

This explanation seems more obvious in connection to the Beta quadra; far less so in the case of Delta since the     +     block is subdued. Another way of explaining this for Delta might be through the     +     block; on the basis that the realization of someone's potential (   ) is realized via connections with others (   ), and that one of Delta's characteristics is the formation of groups towards worthy and productive goals.

[edit] Typical characteristics

[edit] Aristocrats

1. Inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to; however, such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions.
2. Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
3. Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
4. Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
5. In collective hierarchical structures (as in work, organizations, etc) inclined to pay little attention to a person's official position in that structure.

Example: in beta, feeling energized by identification with a group, as in a team within a company, sports team, and the like; and seeing others foremost through the prism of the other teams they belong to. In delta, the teams are usually more individual, like a group of friends. In addition, it's important to note that members of delta stress the unique individuality of each person, but they are still aristocrats by this dichotomy.

[edit] Democrats

1. Perceive and define themselves, and others, primarily through individual/personal qualities: interesting, pleasant, unpleasant, good-looking, etc, not in connection to any group they may belong to.
2. Form their relationships/attitudes toward other persons based on the latter's own individual characteristics, not with base on their relationships to groups of any kind, nor on their relationships to representatives of such groups.
3. Not inclined to perceive their acquaintances as representatives of a certain "circle of contacts" that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people of that circle.
4. Not inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
5. In collective hierarchical structures (as in work, organizations, etc), inclined to take much consideration of a person's official position in that structure.

Example: an individual building up his circle of personal connections, within an organization, that totally bypassses or ignores the organization's formal structure, but not with that circle being perceived as any kind of group or unit by any of the persons involved.