This doesn't mean analysts must exist, but just that society depends on them. Analysts aren't obligated to serve society. If anything, that's what I'm opposing here.
Characteristics ring of the qualitative unit.Not really. We can identify insane people by characteristics other than the specified attitude towards murder.
A bridge is an object, not a subject. Synthesizers are self-objectifying, yet they are still asking for respect.1) if analysts can build bridges, and synthesizers are bridges, analysts can build synthesizers? Are they growing them in a lab or something? Are synthesizers evil because they're don't have souls, having not been born in the usual way? If so, why aren't the analysts who grew them also evil?
2) Or do you mean that analysts can also be bridges? If so, why is it OK for analysts to be bridges, but synthesizers not to be? Is it that the sole source of goodness among human beings is whether they perform whatever special activity it is that analysts do and synthesizers do not? If so, then surely that would be the thing to nail down, here, no?
It's pretty easy to distinguish between an analyst and a synthesizer. An analyst is someone who can imagine in advance of experience (correspondence). A synthesizer is someone who can only connect ideas after experience (cohesion).
The most questionable circumstance I can think of is the case of children because some would argue children are inherently synthetic. They depend on their parents, and they learn from experimentation...
...but I'm not sure about this assessment. The real question is whether or not a child is curious. Does a child seek out necessity-contingency relationships to complete systems, or does a child just stubbornly gravitate towards what's emotionally appealing?
If a child seeks out relationships, that means a child is thinking for one's self in the experimentation process. If a child gravitates, that means a child is taking particular possibilities for granted.
You have to be very observant in social circumstances, though, when testing for this. A lot of children will just piggyback and extrapolate on top of others, not thinking for themselves, but appearing to do so. You'll notice I used the word "relationship" before. Synthesizers will exploit this and claim by socializing, they're seeking out relationships, but in reality, they're not. What synthesizers are doing is playing games, not actually creating value by which relationships can be established, but rather only taking other people's discoveries and putting them together.
Synthesizers will also aim to enslave analysts in encouraging (or teasing) analysts to be productive, but not actually being productive themselves. Synthesizers will also give analysts superficial complements and harsh ridicule in accordance with performance, but they won't actually associate with analysts on a personal level. They won't include analysts in their activities despite how analysts contribute so much.
I think synthesizers look at analysts as computers in this sense. On one hand, synthesizers take advantage of how analysts can be made anxious easily into doing work, but on the other, synthesizers have no interest in being casual with the anxious.
Synthesizers just don't care. They're very cruel people.