Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Negativist and trust issues?

  1. #1
    Hermit Soul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    TIM
    Ni Land
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Negativist and trust issues?

    Are negativist types more prone to having trust issues as compared to positivist types?

    I've been close to certain negativist types such as ESIs and SLEs and I noticed both these types can be very guarded and emotionally closed off and have difficulty letting people in.
    They seemed to place a huge value on loyalty and when someone wronged them, they just totally stopped trusting people altogether.
    Both these types are negativist types, so it makes me wonder if negativist types are more prone to having trust issues?

    I'm a positivist type and I can get trust issues too but my trust issues isn't as bad as negativist types. If someone wronged me, I'll write that person off, but I'll continue to befriend other people around me hoping that I'll encounter a trustworthy person. I wouldn't just totally stop trusting people altogether.

  2. #2
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    4,170
    Mentioned
    576 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Cutting everyone off because of the actions of a few is a failure or impairment of the generalized classification system, and I would say that is related to poorly seeing options (-low Fe) and having difficulty with making flexible classification categories (low Te).

  3. #3
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think negativism exacerbates what is already an issue because of Ne with ESI and Fi with SLE. Casting out Fi is self explanatory with SLE and with ESI its more about not wanting to expand the domain of relationships via possibilities and instead rely on the concrete pre-existing relations. With both of them this manifests as a kind of wall. Each are a little different but trust would be just what we call letting the wall itself down. I don't think SEI or IEE has the same issue with trust per se, although at some point everyone has been betrayed and anyone can develop a complex, so its not like there's never been a SEI with trust issues, but I don't think negativism is itself central to it, its more like polr in the context of the entire type combined with what people understand a "trust issue" to be. a lot of times people call a trust issue someone protecting their polr. in that sense you might have a SEI with a trust issue with respect to Te but doesn't occur precisely in a relational context although it can. I can think of negativism manifesting of criticizing people as not being trusting enough, in other words. this is to say negativism looks to what is lacking and if trust is lacking it may manifest in trying to promote trust not necessarily destroying it

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    402
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I fit a negativist type and trust has been an issue to me.
    I remember from a young age my mother not holding her words, I forgot about what, but I learned to never trust people. I was 5...
    I came to the point where when people promise me something, I don't believe them and rule it out of my head. If they do, I am actually suprised...

    I have spent my whole life trying to keep everyone at a comfortable distance, yet I realize that it makes me lonely. I have been thinking about the possibility of finding one person to get close to, but I won't go around looking for friends, or whatever.

    It may sounds weird to many people, but the truth is I don't open up to anyone, at least, I don't think I do. I decide what to throw out there, and I consider it a "public information" that has a certain goal.

    I fit Adam's statement of low Fe, and my Te is bad. Very bad. : P

  5. #5
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    4,170
    Mentioned
    576 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernRose View Post
    I fit a negativist type and trust has been an issue to me.
    I remember from a young age my mother not holding her words, I forgot about what, but I learned to never trust people. I was 5...
    I came to the point where when people promise me something, I don't believe them and rule it out of my head. If they do, I am actually suprised...

    I have spent my whole life trying to keep everyone at a comfortable distance, yet I realize that it makes me lonely. I have been thinking about the possibility of finding one person to get close to, but I won't go around looking for friends, or whatever.

    It may sounds weird to many people, but the truth is I don't open up to anyone, at least, I don't think I do. I decide what to throw out there, and I consider it a "public information" that has a certain goal.

    I fit Adam's statement of low Fe, and my Te is bad. Very bad. : P
    If you are ILI, as I think you might be, then your Te is very, very good. It might be overwhelmed by Ni, though. Ni tends to say, "Of the many possibilities I've seen, THIS is the one, most likely outcome." And if that one, most strongly-affecting outcome was bad, then your rational Te is going to be looking for the components of those multiple combinations of events which could lead to that outcome.

    I tend to catastrophize when I've previously seen events lead to bad outcomes, especially if I've seen this happen multiple times. It is a failure to really closely analyze the unique details of the events leading to the outcome I'm anticipating. This is actually why I'm driven to find out the fundamentals of situations. Which things are relevant, which can be safely ignored? It makes prediction much more accurate.

    A silly example of this would be a person who discovers that their car won't start. Do they check for fuel or spark? No. Previously, every time they've washed the car, it seemed to run better, so they go get a bucket of soapy water and a sponge.

  6. #6
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    4,556
    Mentioned
    379 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    If anything I've found this to be related to the person having PPD, paranoid personality disorder, which I have seen with people who were "positivist" types in socionics. Perhaps "negativist" types are more susceptible to it but this does not affect them exclusively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parano...ality_disorder

  7. #7
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    857
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have known people of every type with very negative attitudes, which are likely experience related. Now Ips tend to be the more suspicious of the intentions of others followed closely by Ejs. Ijs seem a little more trusting than Ejs but often don't trust their own judgements and this may appear as if it's directed at others. Eps seem to be the most open types and some equate openness to trust - or perhaps naivety. I have also known many versions of all types who do trust others and are trustworthy.

    a.k.a. I/O

  8. #8
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    ESI-Se
    Posts
    969
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermit Soul View Post
    Are negativist types more prone to having trust issues as compared to positivist types?

    I've been close to certain negativist types such as ESIs and SLEs and I noticed both these types can be very guarded and emotionally closed off and have difficulty letting people in.
    They seemed to place a huge value on loyalty and when someone wronged them, they just totally stopped trusting people altogether.
    Both these types are negativist types, so it makes me wonder if negativist types are more prone to having trust issues?

    I'm a positivist type and I can get trust issues too but my trust issues isn't as bad as negativist types. If someone wronged me, I'll write that person off, but I'll continue to befriend other people around me hoping that I'll encounter a trustworthy person. I wouldn't just totally stop trusting people altogether.
    It's been said that negativism and positivism aren't pessimism and optimism. But there's a damn strong correlation.

    Also note this: trusting people are people who are good at determining who is trustworthy.

  9. #9
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post

    Also note this: trusting people are people who are good at determining who is trustworthy.
    yes I think this is brilliant

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,404
    Mentioned
    714 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    there are no negativist types
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  11. #11
    Hermit Soul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    TIM
    Ni Land
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    there are no negativist types
    I mean types that are on the negativist dichotomy.
    http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/dichotomies/r3t3

    Since negativists are prone to viewing the glass as half-empty, it makes me wonder if they are also more prone to having trust issues, since they are more inclined to notice the negative traits in people they interact with.

  12. #12
    fka Avebury
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I sense accusations of heresy coming along....

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,372
    Mentioned
    255 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    dunno, I just go with my gut as the saying goes. You don't overthink something like trust. Your own ego + certain imbalanced emotions can cloud things, but it boils down to what you sense in the moment. Always pay attention to the inner banshee that screams HE'S A FUCKING SERIAL KILLER PSYCHO, RUN AWAY YOU NAIVE BECKY!!!!11 Friends can betray, enemies can do something surprisingly good for you. Though I trust/know from personal experience friends will betray a lot more often than enemies doing something good haha.

    It isn't really as neatly categorized as 'this person is trustworthy' and 'this person is not' it is a complicated system, depending on the topic/circumstance etc.

    Not to sound like Oprah, (or maybe I exactly what to sound like her) but the most important person to trust is always yourself. (the audience claps) This is a life long process for me. I can be my own anchor, my own best friend when I need to be. This is really dark but very possible- everybody else in the world really can abandon you, besides yourself. And so you are left with no other choice than to die, or be kind to yourself.

  14. #14
    photon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The description on wikisocion does suggest that they do;

    "Socially and intellectually more mistrusting and disinterested at first. Becomes more trusting and interested later."
    But there are a lot of reasons why you could be mistrustful of others. I do fit the description of a negativist most of the time, but that's probably because of my own negative past experiences with people.

  15. #15
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,541
    Mentioned
    121 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    when Gulenko discussed the differences between the positivist + negativist dichotomy in "Forms of Cognition", he actually touched on that correlation -

    In a psychological sense, this dichotomy can be approximately interpreted as trust/distrust.

    Each type of person behaves in life according to how they answer the following existential question: is human nature inherently good or evil? For Positivists, human nature is inherently good, so they are more likely to be trusting. This does not mean that they consciously consider themselves to be good, just that they conduct themselves as if others were. Negativists even under favorable conditions are inclined to expect the worst. Their degree of trust in others is therefore is much lower.

    The relation between Positivists and Negativists is illustrated well by the analogy of electric conductors. Electric-people (Negativists who have accumulated a negative psychological charge) discharge into conductor-people (Positivists), who tend to provoke them in just the right way to do so. All of which happens mostly automatically and unconsciously. The resulting emotional flash establishing temporary balance of psychological (electro-)potentials. This beneficial surge of emotional release, Aristotle in his "Poetics" called 'catharsis'—psychological purging via intense experience.
    awldjkwepierpgokqweølfqøerlkfdaergnhtm¨å¨æ''-we-fqpoeufasdøflthøljwtlhkjrøtlhhhhhhhhhhsapfoeporipr
    "WELL I'M SORRY THAT I LIKE TO HAVE OPEN COMMUNICATION IN MY RELATIONSHIPS" - Galen 2k13

  16. #16
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that's true but misleading since it depends on what people mean with trust issues, this is usually in the context of a relationship. trust/distrust in the gulenko sense is universal, for example -Ti is skeptical (i.e. "distrusting" toward logic, primarily). in other words negativism manifests as a baseline proclivity to find the error on the psychological level which is viewed primarily through base function. its not specifically about trust or distrust on the social level except for social types (the sort of ESI vigilance that protects LIE for example). so while, yes, its trust/distrust, not all trust/distrust occurs in the context of "trust issues" like how most people mean that phrase, which is a peculiar context trust/distrust can come in, namely a social or relational one. what bothers me about this is how "negativism" is equated to a "trust issue" as if it were a defect, when in my original post I pointed out how negativism could result in over time being more trusting, of the right people. if a person is trusting by default and is abused they are likely to develop just as many "trust issues" especially if they never figure out how to discern between who they can't trust (incompetence in the negative). thus the link between "trust issues" and negativism is not what its made out to be. positivism/negativism is about baseline trust, but says very little about what blossoms into a "trust issue" thus we should not paint with an over broad brush here because we're talking about the latter not the former. in short negativism in of itself is not a trust issue and may even lead out of them, although it is a definitionally higher level of baseline distrust in comparison to positivist types
    Last edited by Bertrand; 09-02-2018 at 04:11 PM.

  17. #17
    black mamba BOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Real Life
    TIM
    ISTp 0-D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,213
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Cutting everyone off because of the actions of a few is a failure or impairment of the generalized classification system, and I would say that is related to poorly seeing options (-low Fe) and having difficulty with making flexible classification categories (low Te).
    ...poorly seeing options is not low Fe, is low Ne. Fe has nothing to do with options, its related to emotionality.

  18. #18
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    4,170
    Mentioned
    576 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aki View Post
    ...poorly seeing options is not low Fe, is low Ne. Fe has nothing to do with options, its related to emotionality.
    You are right. What was I thinking? Or typppiinninni9g?

  19. #19
    black mamba BOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Real Life
    TIM
    ISTp 0-D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,213
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    OP maybe its related to Ne Role.
    Ne as Role Function

    The individual is uncertain of other people's motives, intentions, and abilities and prefers to give them clear commands and assignments and judge their intentions and potential by whether or not they fulfill these demands. He tends to openly express mistrust and skepticism towards all unexpected or novel behavior and developments, as well as towards information about things that he or she has not experienced directly. This mistrustful attitude usually goes away after the person has the chance to deal with the new thing, event, or behavior directly for a period of time and get used to it. He is able to orient himself quickly when he is in direct contact with events, things, or behavior, but when he is told about them far in advance or simply in the form of "random information that may come in handy some day," he usually doesn't know how to react to this information. The individual prefers to know what awaits him in specific areas in the near future rather than what awaits him "in general" and in areas that don't affect his central interests. The person is particularly aggravated when people are late for unclear reasons and behave in other independent and unpredictable ways. This gives them the feeling of hanging in the air and general uncertainty about the future. Being action oriented people, this is difficult to bear.

  20. #20
    photon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The relation between Positivists and Negativists is illustrated well by the analogy of electric conductors. Electric-people (Negativists who have accumulated a negative psychological charge) discharge into conductor-people (Positivists), who tend to provoke them in just the right way to do so. All of which happens mostly automatically and unconsciously. The resulting emotional flash establishing temporary balance of psychological (electro-)potentials. This beneficial surge of emotional release, Aristotle in his "Poetics" called 'catharsis'—psychological purging via intense experience.
    Why does Gulenko always bring physics into his examples? He described the signs of functions in a similar way, using the atomic particles to describe the difference between positive (in the centre) and negative (moves outside particles). He must be some sort of physician, but personally I freakin hate electrical physics and most people don't understand how electrical conductors work.

  21. #21
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    4,170
    Mentioned
    576 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by photon View Post
    Why does Gulenko always bring physics into his examples?
    Because he either is striving to have Socionics be associated with the respectability and discipline of Physics, or because he knows nothing about Physics.

    My guess is that it's a little of both.

    He's not the only author to do this. However, I look at attempts to relate brain processes to the structure of spacetime as being similar to this line of reasoning:

    My family has three people in it. That's a triangle. If you step back from a pine tree, you see that it has a triangular shape. It, too, is a triangle. Therefore, my family must be full of prickly saps.

  22. #22
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    4,170
    Mentioned
    576 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ @photon, all I know is that electrical conductors are really complicated. I don't even begin to understand them.

  23. #23
    photon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Because he either is striving to have Socionics be associated with the respectability and discipline of Physics, or because he knows nothing about Physics.

    My guess is that it's a little of both.

    He's not the only author to do this. However, I look at attempts to relate brain processes to the structure of spacetime as being similar to this line of reasoning:

    My family has three people in it. That's a triangle. If you step back from a pine tree, you see that it has a triangular shape. It, too, is a triangle. Therefore, my family must be full of prickly saps.
    He must know about physics to some extent. He's using it as an example because he's interested in the subject probably. I don't know much about it though so I can't tell how well he really understands physics. I haven't seen any socionics authors do this, like associate the theory with another very specific theory. Seems like an Ne-Ti thing to do.

    There is a difference with that line of reasoning. Everyone knows what a pine tree is, but not everyone knows what an electrical conductor is, never mind the exact mechanics of how it works. So he is not just associated it with something, he is using the process/mechanism (Ti) to describe the processes involved in socionics.

  24. #24
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko is really smart and i imagine he chooses his analogies carefully

  25. #25
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,541
    Mentioned
    121 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @photon I don't think gulenko is claiming to have in-depth knowledge of physics, it's just a way to illustrate how the dichotomy works by referencing a similar, best-fit phenomena (hence "analogy") but I understand why referencing a seemingly more complicated phenomena might cause confusion.

    just try to think of electrical conductors in the simplified way that Gulenko explains in his article - negativists "discharge" into positivists because positivists act as a positive outlet for their negative charge (refer to the quote below) but not every combination of negativists (electric currents) and positivists (conductors) will work well together; some positivists will behave more like semiconductors, resistors, or insulators to other negativists.

    When an electro-motive force (voltage) is applied to the conductor, the charges will move towards the terminal opposing their charge (i.e. negatively charged electrons will travel towards the positive terminal).
    (I don't claim to have in-depth knowledge of physics either, I just used google so my apologies for the lack of technical terminology, but essentially I'd recommend assuming Gulenko's referring to the basics unless he's explicitly stated otherwise - in which case I find that he tries to provide a simplified explanation to make it easier to digest. There's a lot of philosophers Gulenko references in "Forms of Cognition" that I'm unfamiliar with, but you can usually grasp the gist of what he's trying to convey if you read "around" the references since he usually explains why this-or-that are similar or different)
    Last edited by wasp; 09-05-2018 at 04:16 PM.
    awldjkwepierpgokqweølfqøerlkfdaergnhtm¨å¨æ''-we-fqpoeufasdøflthøljwtlhkjrøtlhhhhhhhhhhsapfoeporipr
    "WELL I'M SORRY THAT I LIKE TO HAVE OPEN COMMUNICATION IN MY RELATIONSHIPS" - Galen 2k13

  26. #26
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,096
    Mentioned
    201 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What´s the problem with Gulenko´s analogy guys, did you suddenly all become retarded?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  27. #27
    photon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wasp View Post
    @photon I don't think gulenko is claiming to have in-depth knowledge of physics, it's just a way to illustrate how the dichotomy works by referencing a similar, best-fit phenomena (hence "analogy") but I understand why referencing a seemingly more complicated phenomena might cause confusion.

    just try to think of electrical conductors in the simplified way that Gulenko explains in his article - negativists "discharge" into positivists because positivists act as a positive outlet for their negative charge (refer to the quote below) but not every combination of negativists (electric currents) and positivists (conductors) will work well together; some positivists will behave more like semiconductors, resistors, or insulators to other negativists.
    Ah thanks, that makes more sense. Didn't even get that idea from the description initially. Generally it's following the opposites attract idea. I can only really understand physics through chemistry, but I know what the electrical components (resistors, insulators, etc) are as well. The idea must be based on ITR.

    (I don't claim to have in-depth knowledge of physics either, I just used google so my apologies for the lack of technical terminology, but essentially I'd recommend assuming Gulenko's referring to the basics unless he's explicitly stated otherwise - in which case I find that he tries to provide a simplified explanation to make it easier to digest. There's a lot of philosophers Gulenko references in "Forms of Cognition" that I'm unfamiliar with, but you can usually grasp the gist of what he's trying to convey if you read "around" the references since he usually explains why this-or-that are similar or different)
    You seem to have knowledge of physics. I haven't read Forms of Cognition yet, I will eventually though! I would be unfamiliar with philosophers as well, but if he explained it then it should be easy enough to understand his points.

  28. #28
    spiritual aggressor/volcel Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    ILE-H/D 7(93?)
    Posts
    3,461
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm waiting for quantum socionics.

    Can you measure IE and VI at once with unlimited accuracy?
    You can suggest an alternative type based on video found in HERE

    extrospection > introspection



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •