is not following rules really due to positivism? if so why?

[Disturbed]

i have noticed that positivists are at least somewhat less likely to follow external rules and think they can get away with it (they're more likely to be assassins, terrorists, i've even noticed that), but it's far from 100%.

Is there anything other than what gulenko (in his cognitive styles article) says about positivists being more optimistic and well, basically stronger that explains why they break or at least don't rigidly adhere to external rules more?

Not sure if I'm an LSI positivist or an ESI negativist, but I usually don't pay attention to external rules; I'd rather do what I thought would serve my Ni hidden agenda (at least 60% of the time) or cause people to reaction, especially when I was a kid (more like 90% then, I was hell on wheels). I tend to pick and choose which rules I follow, but I've often been impulsive. I'm more receptive to what my insides say I should do than others, except their extreme emotion... I usually hate being shouted down.

For example, when I work, if I'm doing something, I prefer to go above and beyond... I'm not satisfied if I don't control everything. But the thing is, I've noticed both EIE-Ni (who are negativists) and LSI-Se (who are positivists) to both go well beyond their official job duties and to violate all sorts of rules (remember, ****** was one of the biggest criminals of the 20th century, despite being a negativist, it would be hard to say he was all that concerned with consequences or if he was he just accepted than compared to not doing what he wanted). Except for Lauren Boebert and Donald Trump, SLE-Ti usually don't. But my EIE-Fe dad's former LSI-Ti office manager was restrained, my LSI-Ti or ESI-Fi mom was less so, she often went beyond the rules, the specifications, and socialized when she worked in the lab.

Unless someone can give me an explanation as to why positivism is the biggest factor in willingness to break external rules, or more likely to not worry about consequences, it's mainly Alphas subtyped towards Beta, Central quadra types especially those subtyped towards gamma, and Gammas that are most likely to have the balls (good) to push the envelope and do everything that applies (good, unless it's something against me), with positivists, statics, sensing, and logical types being factors more likely to not worry about consequences and to do all that could possibly apply. The first two presidents were probably Gamma Negativists, and they were less unitary executives compared to say Thomas Jefferson.. but if TJ was an LII, then he was actually the first unitary executive, doing more and far bigger things than his two predecessors did, but then his LII successor, James Madison, being restrained. FWIW, Andrew Jackson was a positivist, and he had no concern for consequences when he was in the military or at any other time in his life.

I swear if I were president, as much as I'm a libertarian in my views, I wouldn't be very restrained.

But back to my question, nothing I can think of in Reinin's positivist description makes it look like they'd break rules more or have less fear of consequences, other than maybe positivists seeing what's there and more likely to feel like if they did break rules, they'd be aware they have enough resources left in reserve to recover. Am I missing something?

[Ave]

Not following rules is due to not wanting to follow them.

[nifl]

Types with less inclination to follow rules (in the general sense) should be irrationals. Non-valued Ti perhaps also.

[Disturbed]

Not following rules is due to not wanting to follow them.

Well, actually you're right; I should've titled the thread is it positively correlated with positivism rather than the cause. But I was thinking of socionics ruling peoples' minds rather than thinking individuals ruled their minds, I often have thought it was the individuals' minds themselves, it is the other way around, it is individuals' minds, but I'm pretty impulsive so I asked whether the positivism was the cause. I was adhering too much to socionics, seeing everything revolved around socionics rather than the individuals themselves.

But remember, for the LSI-Ti not everything is a well-thought out choice, whereas for the more self-controlled LSI-Se like you are, everything is a choice, they're governed completely by their own minds and their own will.