So this is a thing from Socionics. I find the idea of the general principle intresting and worth studieing and the refinement of the general principle sometimes to be true aswell.
The final conclusion they come to, describes a phaenomenom that is definitly happening in life, I am just not quite sure yet, if it is solely confined to the types they mention.
For the following general principle it is not necessary to know differences between mbti and socionics, cause it looks at the first two strong functions of the types and ignores whether they are in- / or extroverted. In both systems, mbti and socionics, create the same pairings for each type.
However in the refinement of the theory, only the Socionics type system applies.
The general principle:
Refinement of the principle in Socionics:Aristocrats have logic in the same blocks as sensing and ethics in the same blocks as intuition.
Here is a possible interpretation of this:
Material assets are systematized and automated. Systems and production have a material expression. Ideas exist solely for people and are meant to solve societal and moral problems. People and relationships are valued and explored for their personality and potential.
Democrats have ethics in the same blocks as sensing and logic in the same blocks as intuition.
Here is a possible interpretation of this:
Material assets exist for people and societal relationships. Systems and production are intangible and abstract. Ideas and vision exist to be implemented in technology and systems. People and relationships are a means to achieve recognition and a comfort lifestyle.
For better understanding, the socionics quadras:When analyzing this dichotomy from the perspective of Model A, Augusta listed all the blocks in this dichotomy (so Ti with Se, Fe with Ni etc for Aristocracy and Se with Fi, Te with Ni 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 ( Ti ) characteristics they have observed ( Se ) in several individuals, being thus a logical "connecting of the dots" applied to people. From a purely logical Ti perspective applied to Se perceptions and goals, it makes perfect sense to assume that, if you perceive an individual as belonging to a group possessing 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 ( Se ) all persons belonging to a particular division in a company have been unhelpful, it makes sense to conclude logically ( Ti ) 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 uses observations Se on a case-by-case basis, as applied to the individual they happen to be interacting with at the moment ( Fi ). ( Fi opposes the impulse to create logical structures, but encourages forming connections to individuals.)
This explanation seems more obvious in connection to the Beta quadra; far less so in the case of Delta since the Se + Fi block is subdued. Another way of explaining this for Delta might be through the Ne + Fi block; on the basis that the realization of someone's potential ( Ne ) is realized via connections with others ( Fi ), and that one of Delta's characteristics is the formation of groups towards worthy and productive goals.
So, if that applies to the aforementioned types in that way Socionics predicts it, I think is left open for discussion. Especially if one is more inclined in trusting the mbti system.Aristocrats
Construct informational pairs (sort of the +/- thing, when each element is sort of tainted with another) such as Te bw Si, Ti bw Se, Te bw Ne, Ti bw Ni, Fe bw Ni, Fi bw Ne, Fe bw Se, and Fi bw Si.
- 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.
- Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
- Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
- Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
- 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.
Typical phrases: "someone like that", "that type of person", "the man on the street", "some sort of X"
Construct informational pairs (sort of the +/- thing, when each element is sort of tainted with another) such as Te bw Ni, Ti bw Ne, Te bw Se, Ti bw Si, Fe bw Si, Fi bw Se, Fe bw Ne, and Fi bw Ni.
- 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.
- 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.
- Not inclined to perceive their acquaintances as representatives of a certain "circle of contacts" that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people of that circle.
- Not inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
- 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.
Furthermore if the idea of the general principle expresses in reality like they said, is open for discussion too.
But the idea of the general principle is nevertheless true and it would be intresting to be pursued.