User Tag List

Results 1 to 6 of 6

  1. #1
    Senior Member sulfit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    6w5 sp/so

    Default Socionics Aristocratic and Democratic trait

    Continued from the socionics quadra discussion. I wanted to start a new thread on this topic and explore this concept separately.

    Here is the problem that I have with this trait. Socionics Aristocratic types are said to view people in terms of their group affiliations which also impacts their impression of the person. Democratic types are said to form their opinions of a person separately from a group belonging. However, isn't consolidation and fracturing into groups and "us vs them" mentality inherent to all human beings? If one inspects the course of human history, many of the major events are the consequence of competition or cooperation between groups of individuals. If one goes even further, into the times when humans lived in tribes, the traits assigned to socionics Aristocracy, such as being able to tell the group affiliation of another human being you've just met and draw appropriate conclusions, were imperative to one's survival. If you were to bump into a member of a tribe hostile to your own, and were blind to what this means, this would put all of the so-called democratic type into disadvantage.

    So how is this dichotomy supposed to work? Am I misunderstanding something or is it simply described inaccurately? I think that all human beings are mindful of group affiliations to some extent and capable of adjusting their opinions of each other accordingly.

    Another point was brought up in the Reinin study article: Aristocratic traits overlap with Enneagram traits of social instinct, which is another problem of applying this trait in typings. If I meet someone who is sensitive to group affiliations, how am I supposed to figure out whether this is due to socionics aristocracy or enneagram social instinct?

    Extended Reinin Study

  2. #2


    Yeah, I have to say I find this dichotomy nebulous at best and useless at worst.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    8w9 sx/so
    ILI Ni


    Well, I'm social last and I'm very clearly aristocratic. I don't think people are naturally inclined to view people in an us versus them mentality necessarily. If anything I wonder if that reveals your personal aristocratic bias? When I describe people, I always do so by ascribing them traits that link them together to their interests and put them in certain communities they feel they belong to. Like I mentioned in the other thread, I wouldn't say that someone is a member of the football team but I would say they like football. This automatically puts them in the group that likes football as opposed to not liking football. I'd wager that a democratic type would instead say, this person is a good football player. There's a fine nuance between the way these sentences are expressed. The latter example cannot put a person in a group of any kind unless you would make it into good and bad players but I am uncertain if such a grouping is really inherent to the sentence itself since it says nothing about any kind of personal preference. You can be a good player without liking football.

    @Faceless Beauty and @Flatlander you are both democratic types so maybe you can explain how you see things.

    Anyway, I think claiming that social types people view people in groups is probably not necessarily a good way of understanding the social instinct either. Rather, social types are aware of group dynamics which I think is a little different. Then some social types may seem themselves as a part of a group or even representing the group itself, but the real question then becomes, do they do this because they're social types or because they're aristocratic? I think your logic is fallacious because it doesn't consider whether the cause and effect you describe is truly the real cause and effect.

    Come watch with me as our world burns.
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  4. #4
    Senior Member PimpinMcBoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012


    I can't necessarily say that I really prefer one over the other in all honesty.

    I think this rather reinin dichotomies sound like a good idea on paper, but it's generally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Really I'd associate Fe ethics with Aristocraticness (specifically Betas) and Fi ethics with Democraticness, but whatever.

  5. #5
    jump sleuthiness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    54 so/sp
    IEI Ni


    As a preface, how I perceive the stackings:



    the realized self

    Consider Grof's basic perinatal matrices:

    To address your second question, I think subtype identifcation can be a crux. For instance, where INTp-Ni and INFp-Ni appear comparably subdued, INTp-Te and INFp-Fe actively express themselves in accordance with their type's supporting function. These, of course, as observable traits, along with manner of speaking and walking, body type and mannerisms, facial structure, wardrobe, personal interactive skills, timing, energy, interpersonal coagulation factor not only into type, enneagram position and stacking deduction but ought to be taken into account through the above and other lenses when determining quadrae affiliation.

    thinking of you

  6. #6
    Fair and Square Flatlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    582 sp/sx


    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    @Faceless Beauty and @Flatlander you are both democratic types so maybe you can explain how you see things.
    In the first place, I'm not big on social thinking, but I can try.

    In making friendships, the Internet is a great friend to me. Text is the best medium I've found for getting to know a person - you aren't confronted with their person, their clothing and appearance and so forth, but rather all you have is an IM box and a personal conversation through which to really delve into someone. If you get deep enough, and examine enough of their thinking, you can find out who they really are as an individual and how you connect, or don't. I may join social (or quasi-social) sites like this one, but I end up friends with an eclectic batch of individuals who often have no contact with each other - unless that changes while I'm not watching - and I talk to them individually. Participation in groups is typically minimal.

    I may compare people with each other in individual contexts to do something like, say, figure out what I think their personality type is, or understand how they differ. However, unprompted I rarely think to do so, instead preferring to consider them and whatever they have going on as individual issues and come up with ideas about them in their own right. I consider it more psychological, and more logical, to examine first the depth of their individual ideas and problems and traits to reach an understanding, outside of the context of personality typing, where I'm adding all this up to figure out a label.
    Thinking must serve the thinker.

Similar Threads

  1. Personality and artistic traits?
    By Kenji Moori in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-07-2015, 08:56 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-11-2014, 03:24 PM
  3. Typing With Socionics: Celebrities and Characters
    By 527468 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-31-2009, 07:40 PM
  4. extreme introversion/extrovertion and secondary traits
    By Ilah in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-24-2008, 11:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO