Reinin dichotomies: Positivism and Negativism

[golden]

Because if the coworker were LSE she would not form a conclusion on conception but rather on Te, collection of objective data.

If the LSE believes she has already collected objective data, she may tell you her conclusion without spelling out all the data for you. Skipping to the conclusion is efficient and closes off unnecessary debate.

[Beautiful sky]

If the LSE believes she has already collected objective data, she may tell you her conclusion without spelling out all the data for you. Skipping to the conclusion is efficient and closes off unnecessary debate.

That may be more characteristic of SLI type; LSE love to explain, and as throughly as possible. As well as offering many suggestions, etc.

[golden]

Yeah but don't you think he does that in this thread by stating what LSE is (according to him) and what LSI is?

Not really, but I'm not deeply invested in DJ's type like you are, so I don't sift all of his words through my personal LSE colander.

[Beautiful sky]

Hate to break it to you, but can be just as stupid, biased, and unsubstantiated in its opinions as any other IE lol.

The way he describes the way he sees and approaches a problem is Te, in the OP.

[golden]

That may be more characteristic of SLI type; LSE love to explain, and as throughly as possible. As well as offering many suggestions, etc.

Well, on this forum, Abbie to me is a good example of one possible LSE style. She often gets straight to the point.

[Beautiful sky]

Well, on this forum, Abbie to me is a good example of one possible LSE style. She often gets straight to the point.

That is not Te to me and not according to Socionics. She's not typed correctly. I believe she's a Ti valuer, possibly SEI, because she values categories over Te.

[Beautiful sky]

No it isn't. I know how thinks, and DJ isn't like this.

How is it not?

[Beautiful sky]

Lol, thanks.

I am afraid you completely misunderstood.

In the first post you linked to, I made no mention of his posts or my eyes glazing. There I see no comment from me on the comprehensibility of his writing.

And in the second one, DJ had asked me to marry him in an earlier post. That's what I was ignoring. He made a joke, and I responded with a joke.

I read every word he wrote in that thread.

I've read most everything he's posted since I joined the forum without any trouble--I find him extremely clear and easy to follow. I'm not sure this is type-related, though. He uses grammar 'n' paragraphs 'n' stuff.

The above is an example of categorical thinking; it's also used to arrive at an answer quickly. What Ti valuers will often do is define words and clarify their meanings to make sure something from outside fits that meaning...hence category. This is why you will often see Ti valuer ask for clarification on ambiguous terms where their meaning and category needs to be segregated and defined.

[golden]

That is not Te to me and not according to Socionics. She's not typed correctly. I believe she's a Ti valuer, possibly SEI, because she values categories over Te.

Hm. If you really don't think Abbie's LSE, then I don't see enough common ground for us to discuss anything here.

[golden]

The above is an example of categorical thinking; it's also used to arrive at an answer quickly. What Ti valuers will often do is define words and clarify their meanings to make sure something from outside fits that meaning...hence category. This is why you will often see Ti valuer ask for clarification on ambiguous terms where their meaning and category needs to be segregated and defined.

Not sure what you're talking about or what point you're trying to make.

[Beautiful sky]

Not sure what you're talking about or what point you're trying to make.

He uses grammar 'n' paragraphs 'n' stuff.

You notice him do something. You categorize that into what he does/uses. This above is something you noticed him do, correct? The above becomes a system that you use to identify his writing (by doing this, you're making a system to approach something, hence Ti valuing).

[Beautiful sky]

Well, in the above example he's more delineating a static classification framework, not really illustrating a dynamic process. If it were me portraying the observations he cited, I'd have phrased it somewhat differently.

And speaking in general from having had many discussions on economics and what not with DJ, it's obvious that while our conclusions tend to agree, our thinking processes proceed in very different ways insofar as how we reason these things out.

What? This is so ambiguous. He is describing a situation he observed, that's dynamic. Your conclusions agree because of the similarity of Te. How you reason them is also related to Te and the other function that conditions that process, namely the introverted function.

[Beautiful sky]

No, what you just said there is ambiguous.

Seriously, let it go. He's not LSE.

Your conclusions agree because of the similarity of Te. How you reason them is also related to Te and the other function that conditions that process, namely the introverted function.

Yes he is.

[golden]

He uses grammar 'n' paragraphs 'n' stuff.

You notice him do something. You categorize that into what he does/uses. This above is something you noticed him do, correct? The above becomes a system that you use to identify his writing (by doing this, you're making a system to approach something, hence Ti valuing).

Maritsa, I think you are way, way overanalyzing here.

[Beautiful sky]

(dynamic) perceives what those objects are doing and what is being done with them. One and the same object can be used effectively or ineffectively.


PEOPLE ARE OBJECTS TOO AND HE OBSERVES AND IS TELLING YOU WHAT THAT OTHER OBJECT IS DOING NAMELY THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL AND WHAT HE'S BASICALLY CONCLUDING IS THAT HE'S WAY BETTER. HE IS LSE. DO I HAVE TO WRITE IT IN BOLD? WHY CAN'T YOU SEE AND READ WHAT THERE IS?

you don't want him to be LSE is none of my fucking problem.

[Beautiful sky]

If this were true, I would have 100% consensus agreement on every conclusion with people identical in type to me. This does not happen.



You're better off declaring yourself EIE at this rate.

You're not the same type as he is.
I'm EII and always will be.

And, at this rate, you should try to learn how to type people.

[golden]

Maritsa, you seem like you could be a nice enough person IRL. Do you really want to give people the impression that you are creepily obsessed and stalking DJ all around this forum? How do you think that makes people view you? What exactly do you hope to gain from all this? Will you never be content until every single member of this forum abides by your typing of them? And have you noticed by now that it will not happen?

[Beautiful sky]

Well, duh. LSI ≠ LIE.



I don't doubt you're EII.



Your delusions aren't helping you.

You don't want him to be LSE but you can't see how very different he is from other LSI on the forum.

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa, you seem like you could be a nice enough person IRL. Do you really want to give people the impression that you are creepily obsessed and stalking DJ all around this forum? How do you think that makes people view you? What exactly do you hope to gain from all this? Will you never be content until every single member of this forum abides by your typing of them? And have you noticed by now that it will not happen?

Do you rather like being told what to do or given options from which you can decide what to do?

What makes me sad is that I'll never have a voice and no one will hear me..

Ashton, you don't win. You could if you reread my conclusions and try to look at why I type DJ as LSE including the dynamic part.

[golden]

Do you rather like being told what to do or given options from which you can decide what to do?

Turn off the computer now and stop frantically posting about DJ. But first, take the stuff about him out of your sig line, because it's creepy as hell.

Get some sleep, at least 8 full hours, and when you wake up tomorrow, have a hearty breakfast, preferably with some fruit and protein. Go for a walk afterward and breathe deeply. And while you're on that walk, don't think about Socionics AT ALL. This is a form of meditation that will greatly soothe your mind.

[EyeSeeCold]

What makes me sad is that I'll never have a voice and no one will hear me..

None of us have voices here, it's the internet.

[golden]

What makes me sad is that I'll never have a voice and no one will hear me..

Maritsa, you do have a voice. We hear you. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean your point of view was not considered or respected.

Unfortunately, if you assume you have not been paid proper attention to when other people do not simply cave to your opinions, and you keep hammering the same points again and again with increasing agitation, guess what will happen?

People will take you less seriously. And then, chances are, they may not give you the feedback you need in order to feel heard.

Do you see how this dynamic will take you round and round in an endless, self-defeating cycle?

[Galen]

(dynamic) perceives what those objects are doing and what is being done with them. One and the same object can be used effectively or ineffectively.


PEOPLE ARE OBJECTS TOO AND HE OBSERVES AND IS TELLING YOU WHAT THAT OTHER OBJECT IS DOING NAMELY THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL AND WHAT HE'S BASICALLY CONCLUDING IS THAT HE'S WAY BETTER. HE IS LSE. DO I HAVE TO WRITE IT IN BOLD? WHY CAN'T YOU SEE AND READ WHAT THERE IS?

Probably because the ability to observe things is a basic human faculty and not type-related.

[Slacker]

This is another poorly named Renin dichotomy, but once you figure out that positivist doesn't mean "positive" and negativist doesn't mean "negative", it works at least generally.

One weird thing I do is that instead of saying "that's good", I almost always seem to say, "That isn't bad." LOL. It means the same thing, but that's kind of how my mind works - not to increase the positive as much as to reduce the negative.

This:

Te being a extraverted logical type would not have made a comment if it was not accurate

is complete and utter bullshit. Anyone of any type is capable of making an inaccurate comment.

[Galen]

One weird thing I do is that instead of saying "that's good", I almost always seem to say, "That isn't bad." LOL. It means the same thing, but that's kind of how my mind works - not to increase the positive as much as to reduce the negative.

I can't help but feel like this is more a matter of idle semantics, because in my mind "good" and "not bad" are two different levels of quality.

What I do want to know is why dynamic types with a negative leading IE are positivists.

[Slacker]

I can't help but feel like this is more a matter of idle semantics, because in my mind "good" and "not bad" are two different levels of quality.

What I do want to know is why dynamic types with a negative leading IE are positivists.

Well I don't mean just the language, it's more like that's a reflection of how I think. It's hard to put into words, but I can feel the difference in how my husband and I are. He is more focused on making things pleasant and nice, and I'm more focused on getting rid of the bad. I can't think of a good tangible example.

Not being able to describe the differences well is another problem with reinen dichotomies. They're all like that.

[discojoe]

LSE is a serial reframer. I'm not sure this is an example of positivism in the type.

LSE is a negativist.

[Taknamay]

I'm curious about this one. Personally, I am not persuaded by Reinin dichotomies, but this one piques my interest. The Wikisocion describes it similarly to "optimist" and "pessimist" but based on what I know about twin research, optimism and pessimism are very much learned behaviors. Does positivist and negativist mean something more complicated? Or does it simply describe what we are naturally inclined to fall into, with lack of external stimuli?

[Gravolez]

There was some study about reinin dichotomies and most of them for the most part can be observed.
Negativists tend to point out what is missing and to phrase their opinion using negation. Positivists tend to point out what is rather than what is not.
I think that this does not mean that negativists don't see what is and positivists don't see what isn't.
I am negativist but I don't think I am a pessimist. I see many ways in which something could fail but that does not mean that I think it will fail.

[silke]

The Wikisocion describes it similarly to "optimist" and "pessimist" but based on what I know about twin research, optimism and pessimism are very much learned behaviors. Does positivist and negativist mean something more complicated? Or does it simply describe what we are naturally inclined to fall into, with lack of external stimuli?

Reinin dichotomies describe cognitive operations rather than one's existential orientation or feeling states, so you are right in assuming that this dichotomy isn't same as having a pessimistic or optimistic outlook on life. Negativists pick up on flaws, faults, and contradictions better than positivists, but from this it doesn't follow that they are depressed and pessimistic people.

This is an extended description of positivism-negativism from Forms of Thinking:

Positivist–Negativist Dichotomy

Positivism I understand as the tendency to maximize the positive, Negativism as the tendency to minimize the negative. Positivists primarily perceive the positive side of any phenomenon, and often turn a blind eye to the negative. Negativists won't overlook problems, and simultaneously mitigate any positive aspects to their situation of interest.

Intellectual Level

At this level, the Positivism–Negativism dichotomy manifests as identification of similarities or differences in object comparison. In Negativists thought processes prevails contrast, in Positivists leads comparison. Meaning that Positivists more easily hold overall views of an object, without considering its internal divisions. Conversely, Negativists more easily distinguish its extreme points of separation and opposing contrasts.

Directly relevant to this is a dichotomy known in cognitive psychology as convergent/divergent thinking [5], discovered by J. P. Guilford. In his opinion, divergent thinking, from simple initial data, yields several different solutions to the same problem; a trait characteristic to the alternative-thinking of Negativists.

Opposite this, convergent thinking searches for a single valid encompassing solution; a trait more characteristic to Positivist thinking. For them, a problem is unsolved until the validity of one solution is proven against other alternatives.

Social Level

Positivism–Negativism affects the degree of internal group coherence and regulates attraction/repulsion between its members.

An individual's ability to assimilate into a group is typologically predictable. Negativists are remote types. They need constant assurance, even in a group they consider their own. Therefore it is more difficult to fully integrate Negativists into a group. Positivists on the other hand, are inclined to close range communication. They do not polarize contrasts, but smooth them over in one way or another. Thus Positivists facilitate monocentric group structure and unity of purpose. Whereas Negativists amplify polarizing forces conducive to polycentric group structure.

Consider the example of SEI, a fairly good-natured type, although Negativist. Is there a behavioral tendency towards remoteness? Yes, it contrasts its subgroup with other subgroups. Thereby disrupting, unintentionally or not, unity of purpose in the whole group overall.

What process balances internal group cohesion? It is observed that Positivists are drawn towards their opposite, which contributes to overall group solidarity, particularly through the ease of intragroup role distribution. Negativists on the other hand, have an inherent paradoxical attraction to those similar to themselves. The nearer such parallel charged elements converge, however, it becomes increasingly difficult to implement mutual action. Repulsive forces rapidly emerge and fracture group integration.
The overall incidence of monolithic or polarized group behavior is a reliable index for gauging Positivist–Negativist tendencies. Negativism generates tension in intragroup relations, leading on one hand to an increase in psychological distance between members, but on the other hand activating its internal momentum to say "Move!". Positivism by contrast contracts psychological distance and encourages internal group cohesion, but can also bring complacency, carelessness, and 'vapidity' of existence.

Psychological Level

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.

Physical Level

The spatial arrangement of conversation parties in front or near is a key factor in communication, its importance first stressed by Harry S. Sullivan. Negativists gain leverage in communication from positions opposite the partner, Positivists from positions alongside or at an angle deflecting a straight-on gaze.

Automatic reductions in confrontation due to being seated side by side, are a common method used by marital psychologists working with couples. Sitting side by side and addressing an imaginary third party, enables couples to gradually decrease the severity of sore conflict.

Clinical psychologists studying nonverbal cues classify gestures indicative of critical attitudes. Such gestures are typically 'closed'—for instance, a hand at the mouth. From a Socionics standpoint then, closed demeanor is better explained by Negativism, not Introversion.

Negativism induces tangible bodily tension. Negativists are inclined to accumulate 'charge', making highly-charged Negativists easily overexcitable (especially if also Dynamic). In order to compensate against this, Negativists are recommended to engage in physical exercise that relaxes and smooths internal tension. While Positivists are recommended to perform physical exercise that excites and intensifies their physiological processes.

[Aquagraph]

Negativists pick up on flaws, faults, and contradictions better than positivists, but from this it doesn't follow that they are depressed and pessimistic people.

Common sense dictates that it should. Not to say that common sense is a sign of credibility.

[ashlesha]

Common sense dictates that it should. Not to say that common sense is a sign of credibility.

i think i can come across more negative than i am because of my tendency to point out flaws and pick things apart but its not usually not a reflection on my emotional state. just how i find it easiest to analyze and think about things. its like scrubbing the dirt patches off of an idea until it looks nice and makes sense. if i'm trying to understand something i might lightly disagree or come across as argumentative because when the other person explains or defends it helps me understand what they're saying better. but its not a sign that i actually feel disagreeable.

[Taknamay]

I see... thank you for your responses so far. I think I am getting a better taste of what the positivist/negativist dichotomy is about.

[fen]

I find myself saying things like: "She isn't a mean person." instead of "She's a nice person" and "I'm not sad" instead of "I'm happy."
It feels more realistic and tempered and I don't know.
Negativism isn't being negative, it's stating even positive things in a way that makes them more neutral...in my mind, at least.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Positivist and Negativist relate to the content of the information judged or perceived -- not the emotional expression.

Negativists take on a wider array of information for the content, and Positivists take on a stronger, condensed array for the content.

[fen]

^ I like this.

[strangeling]

Negativists take on a wider array of information for the content, and Positivists take on a stronger, condensed array for the content.

heh. I just want to add that that makes a lot of causal-behaviorist sense to me. Thanks.

[franktheplank]

Help,

In trying to memorize the patterns behind the 11 Reinin Dichotomies, I've found great help in some articles. But I still can't see the pattern behind positivist/negativist.

One person explained using plus/minus functions but that makes no sense to me (I don't understand plus/minus functions)


Per wikisocion.org :

*Plus and minus IM elements are not accepted by many socionists.

• Positivist types have either a static plus element or a dynamic minus element in base function.
• Negativist types have either a dynamic plus element or a static minus element in base function.

Can someone explain this to me?


BTW the purpose behind this is for practical purposes, but instead of memorizing one could simply listen, I feel, and observe whether the subject under observation uses more 'positive' linguistic constructions or more 'negative' ones.

[anndelise]

It,s not exactly a clean and clear dichotomy pattern. They follow a cycle which alters 'direction' according to static/dynamic.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...and_negativist

Postitivist statics = NTSFN (which gives the supervisory cycle of NeTi, TiSe, SeFi, FiNe)
Positivist dynamics = NFSTN (which gives the supervisory cycle of NiFe, FeSi, SiTe, TeNi)
ENTx, ESFx, ISTx, INFx

Negativist statics = NFSTN (which gives the supervisory cycle of NeFi, FiSe, SeTi, TiNe)
Negativist dynamics = NTSFN (which gives the supervisory cycle of NiTe, TeSi, SiFe, FeNi)
ENFx, ESTx, ISFx, INTx

[Creepy-pikachu]

Positivist are less hyperconsiderate of all of the variances of their base. A negativist is. In relation to consideration of informatics, a positivist behaves in an acute, long range manner, whereas a negativist behaves in an obtuse, short range manner.