Main Clusters of Negativism-Positivism

In neurophysiology, a distinction is made between neural networks associated with forming a goal and approaching it (positive stimuli, positivism) and neural networks associated with detecting dangers, registering their characteristics and location, and either eliminating them or carrying out the task of maximizing distance from them (negative stimuli, negativism).

Moreover, it has been known (since 1941) that neural networks of the positivist paradigm are built predominantly on cortical structures of the left dominant hemisphere, whereas those of the negativist paradigm are built on cortical structures of the subdominant right hemisphere.

Thus, with lesions of the anterior cortex of the right hemisphere (with compensatory activation of the left cortex), a person’s behavior becomes careless; the person ceases to notice even the most glaring threats and shortcomings (both in themselves and around them – to the point of refusing to acknowledge and see that their left arm is paralyzed). Conversely, with lesions of the anterior cortex of the left hemisphere (as a result of which the activity of the contralateral structures of the right hemisphere increases compensatorily), behavior becomes more anxious, fault-finding, and focused on dangers, errors, and any potential shortcomings of objects and situations.

In youth, functional hemispheric differences in positivism-negativism are maximal; with age, they become smoothed out. In men, the contrast of all hemispheric differences is more pronounced than in women; in women, moreover, it depends on the phase of the cycle (becoming smoothed toward the middle of the cycle as estrogen concentration increases)

Empirically identified clusters of socionic negativism-positivism exactly confirm the symptomatology already known from neurophysiology and characteristic of functional interhemispheric asymmetry of the anterior cortex.

MARKERS OF PRIORITY ATTENTION TO DANGERS

No. 131

Markers of priority attention to dangers

(averaging the profiles of 23 scale questions, 78316 respondent responses in total; all profiles except the 2nd and 3rd type profiles are normalized to a unit sigma of the type profile). All profiles are given after corrective factor rotation.

Unnormalized type profile (deviations from the mean in fractions of the population standard deviation):

Approximate percentage of representatives of each type group giving the raw responses “YES” and “RATHER YES” for the property (averaging all scale questions, taking into account the sign of the question, after corrective factor rotation, trait-based diagnostics):

Contribution of traits to the variance of the property, percent:

1. Basically, I am a skeptic at heart; I always prepare myself to be ready for the worst. 0.93
2. I always assume the worst - let reality turn out better than my forecasts; that will make it all the more pleasant for me. 0.93
3. I often spend time thinking about possible troubles. 0.89
4. I am often in a constant state of expecting trouble. 0.88
5. I am a master at making gloomy forecasts. 0.88
6. I am often on my guard and prepare myself for expecting some nasty occurrence. 0.88
7. I am more of a skeptic oriented toward future troubles than a romantic oriented toward future successes. 0.86
8. I often suspect some catch if everything is going too smoothly and excellently. 0.85
9. I often have very unpleasant ideas and assumptions that portend trouble. 0.83
10. I always sense alarming situations in advance and think through backup options. 0.80
11. I can instantly notice and logically calculate even a minor danger. 0.77
12. I always fear losses, “slip-ups,” and failures; I devote much thought and concern to matters of safeguarding. 0.67

--------------------------------—

13. When starting something, I believe in success, and proceed from the assumption that things definitely will not get worse. -0.93
14. I more often expect pleasant things than unpleasant ones. -0.90
15. I am a cheerful optimist and readily take risks, relying on my intuition. -0.90
16. I can quickly find an upside for myself even in obvious negatives. -0.89
17. I am quite adept at convincing myself that even troubles that have already occurred are for the better. -0.88
18. When starting something, I think far more about the forthcoming victory than about possible failures and dangers. -0.86
19. It is simultaneously true of me that I always believe in success and react with irritation to bad forecasts, like others to share my faith and take my word for it, and do not like having to prove anything. -0.85
20. I like to praise; I easily find something encouraging and optimistic in everything. -0.85
21. Usually I see no dangers or problems at all, and in any case pay no attention to them - life is wonderful! -0.82
22. There is far more carelessness in me than anxiety. -0.79
23. At times I underestimate danger; I need people who are more farsighted and not as relaxed and carefree as I am. -0.77

MARKERS OF DISTRUST AND REJECTION OF OTHERS’ PROPOSALS

No. 132

Markers of distrust and rejection of others’ proposals

(averaging the profiles of 22 scale questions, 41310 respondent responses in total; all profiles except the 2nd and 3rd type profiles are normalized to a unit sigma of the type profile). All profiles are given after corrective factor rotation.

Unnormalized type profile (deviations from the mean in fractions of the population standard deviation):

Approximate percentage of representatives of each type group giving the raw responses “YES” and “RATHER YES” for the property (averaging all scale questions, taking into account the sign of the question, after corrective factor rotation, trait-based diagnostics):

Contribution of traits to the variance of the property, percent:

1. I more often notice dirt in my surroundings than joy and love. 0.97
2. I often use the words “no,” “never,” “no way,” “in no case,” and “under no circumstances” in my speech. 0.94
3. Basically, I am a “prickly” and wary person. 0.92
4. I have far more ironic distrustfulness in me than readiness for friendship and brotherly love. 0.92
5. I am more suspicious than trusting. 0.92
6. A person who behaves in a friendly manner most likely merely wants to use you. 0.90
7. I expect in advance to hear a lot of foolishness from people, and in advance feel contempt for this foolishness. 0.90
8. Compared with others, I am probably more suspicious and more prone to holding grudges. 0.90
9. I very often feel contempt for the people around me. 0.90
10. There are plenty of swindlers and deceivers around me. 0.90
11. My remarks in conversation often carry a sort of implied dissatisfaction with or doubt directed at the interlocutor. 0.89
12. It is true that I never trust people. 0.89
13. In an object I am studying, I always find its useful and good possibilities lacking; negative possibilities, on the other hand, are visible immediately. 0.88
14. For almost any question or proposal, I more often initially answer “no.” 0.87
15. My first reaction to other people’s proposals is more often “NO”; a “YES” reaction may appear only after further analysis of those proposals. 0.72

-------------------------------------—

16. What characterizes you more? 1) Distrustfulness. 5) Trustfulness. -0.96
17. I like to praise; I easily find something encouraging and optimistic in everything. -0.96
18. Initially, I am more often disposed toward acceptance than rejection. -0.95
19. I trust other people. -0.93
20. My relations with most acquaintances are colored by acceptance, friendliness, and sympathy. -0.92
21. I feel warmth and goodwill toward most people around me, practically never wondering whether they harbor a “hidden grudge.” -0.89
22. First and foremost, I see what connects, unites, and brings people closer, rather than what divides their interests. -0.87

MARKERS OF PRIORITY ATTENTION TO ERRORS AND SHORTCOMINGS IN ANY OBJECT OR UNDERTAKING

No. 133

Markers of priority attention to errors and shortcomings in any object or undertaking

(averaging the profiles of 23 scale questions, 62218 respondent responses in total; all profiles except the 2nd and 3rd type profiles are normalized to a unit sigma of the type profile). All profiles are given after corrective factor rotation.

Unnormalized type profile (deviations from the mean in fractions of the population standard deviation):

Approximate percentage of representatives of each type group giving the raw responses “YES” and “RATHER YES” for the property (averaging all scale questions, taking into account the sign of the question, after corrective factor rotation, trait-based diagnostics):

Contribution of traits to the variance of the property, percent:

1. As a rule, I critically analyze everything that comes into my head. 0.97
2. I always quickly notice any incorrectness or inaccuracy in anything whatsoever. 0.94
3. I find it difficult to refrain from corrections and objections to other people’s projects. 0.88
4. My attention is more often focused on looking for shortcomings in a newly purchased item than on its merits. 0.85
5. I am always critical of ideas that come to mind and immediately, without difficulty, mentally “run them through,” testing them in a thought experiment. 0.85
6. I often think about shortcomings in legislation and existing rules and procedures. 0.85
7. I am fault-finding and, even involuntarily, more often pay attention to defects than to merits. 0.83
8. Alas, most often what you are given turns out either to be of questionable quality or to be inappropriate. 0.82
9. I notice, sooner than others do, shortcomings and imperfections in things that I want to correct. 0.82
10. My criticality toward the things, technologies, texts, or systems that I create is heightened - I almost always want to go back and redo something. 0.82
11. I am better than others at detecting problems. 0.81
12. Being a skeptic by nature, I am prone to frequent doubts and vacillation, and notice all the contradictions and imperfections of the surrounding world. 0.81
13. I often detect important inconsistencies and problems where others do not notice them or ignore them. 0.79
14. I always consider my work from the standpoint of what criticisms could be raised against it. 0.75
15. I am acutely affected and irritated by any violation of laws that I notice around me. 0.73
16. In conversation, I often “pick at” minor carelessness in other people’s arguments, imprecise words, etc. 0.72
17. I like mentally identifying the sources of errors and misconceptions in people I know. 0.71
18. I am very attentive to omissions, errors, and contradictions in the text of documents I work with, and I always notice them instantly while reading. 0.70
19. I notice any error of my own before anyone else does. 0.69

-------------------------------—

20. I am often uncritical of ideas that come to mind; I usually find it difficult to immediately mentally “size them up” and test them mentally. -0.84
21. If I were a journalist, I would more often write about the merits of life around me than about its shortcomings. -0.82
22. Fairly or not, my friends often reproach me for not learning from past mistakes at all. -0.75
23. I can find advantages in things in which others do not find them. -0.75

MARKERS OF A PESSIMISTIC, SKEPTICAL, DISSATISFIED BACKGROUND MOOD

No. 134

Markers of a pessimistic, skeptical, dissatisfied background mood

(averaging the profiles of 29 scale questions, 106254 respondent responses in total; all profiles except the 2nd and 3rd type profiles are normalized to a unit sigma of the type profile). All profiles are given after corrective factor rotation.

Unnormalized type profile (deviations from the mean in fractions of the population standard deviation):

Approximate percentage of representatives of each type group giving the raw responses “YES” and “RATHER YES” for the property (averaging all scale questions, taking into account the sign of the question, after corrective factor rotation, trait-based diagnostics):

Contribution of traits to the variance of the property, percent:

1. Most of the time, I am more likely to be dissatisfied with something than satisfied. 0.98
2. I am more often dissatisfied with everything than strongly satisfied with anything. 0.94
3. I am predominantly in a bad mood. 0.93
4. Notes of distrust and doubt often slip into my voice. 0.93
5. I involuntarily seek situations in which I could frown rather than smile. 0.92
6. I experience indignation more often than merriment. 0.91
7. I often expect some catch from reality. 0.91
8. I am more often sad than cheerful and joyful. 0.91
9. Which is more characteristic of you? - 1) I know how to enjoy comforts 5) I often pay attention to existing inconveniences 0.90
10. Negative emotions break out in me more often than positive ones. 0.88
11. It is easier for me to retrieve an acutely unpleasant memory than to recall something pleasant. 0.74

----------------------------------—

12. My imagination has a more joyful than anxious tone. -0.97
13. Most often, I am in a relaxed and bright mood. -0.97
14. I am more of an optimist than a pessimist. -0.97
15. As a rule, positive emotions predominate in my mood, coloring the world with feelings of brotherly love. -0.96
16. I almost always have a bright, optimistic mood. -0.95
17. I usually have an elevated-cheerful background mood. -0.95
18. I have a cheerful, easy, and entirely unobtrusive disposition; I know how to get joy from life and give it to others. -0.94
19. I am much more often in an elevated, major-key mood than in a “down” and minor-key one. -0.93
20. I create my cheerful mood myself and know how to transmit it to others. -0.93
21. I almost never have a bad mood - like an Airedale terrier, I am an optimist by nature. -0.92
22. I more often give optimistic than skeptical advice. -0.92
23. Bright joy or joyful illumination - call it what you will - but this is the usual background of my “daytime” mood. -0.92
24. My usual mood is joyfully elevated. -0.92
25. Which word is used more often in speech? - 1) Bad 5) Good -0.92
26. My mood is almost always dominated by bright euphoria, while bilious skepticism is practically never present. -0.91
27. My facial expression is more often cheerful than dissatisfied and gloomy. -0.91
28. This is close to me: “Think well of reality, and it will become the way you want to see it.” -0.91

No. 135

Sum of the 4 markers of negativism

(averaging the profiles of 97 scale questions, 287060 respondent responses in total; all profiles except the 2nd and 3rd type profiles are normalized to a unit sigma of the type profile). All profiles are given after corrective factor rotation.

Unnormalized type profile (deviations from the mean in fractions of the population standard deviation):

Approximate percentage of representatives of each type group giving the raw responses “YES” and “RATHER YES” for the property (averaging all scale questions, taking into account the sign of the question, after corrective factor rotation, trait-based diagnostics):

Contribution of traits to the variance of the property, percent:

The profiles of all 4 negativism clusters are close to one another and all share the same features:

1. Negativism shows correlations with introversion, “constructivism,” “process,” and “farsightedness.” At the same time, the correlation with introversion is predicted by neurophysiology, in which it is generally accepted that the anterior cortex of the left hemisphere is more extraverted than that of the right. Admittedly, this effect may result from an imprecise definition of introversion not only as low-energy behavior (with low amplitude and tempo characteristics), but also, in part, as avoidant behavior. If the influence of the avoidant-behavior factor (associated with heightened sensitivity to dangers) is removed from introversion, then the correlation between negativism and introversion should be minimized.

What, then, is introversion itself? First and foremost - reduced energy. Low amplitude of movements and a low need for them. Quiet voice. Slowness - both in speech and in movements. Reduced need for speech, taciturnity. Reduced sociability. Lack of confidence in contacts, shyness. But most of this does not overlap with negativism. What does overlap - caution, reduced propensity for contact, reduced sociability (but only the part of it that is due to distrust of people). Again, slowness of actions and decisions, but only insofar as it reflects fixation on doubts and possible errors (hence excessive caution). Activity is also partly reduced under negativism - but not because of low energy, rather because of doubts about success and fixation on possible failures and dangers. In general, the causes of these traits are quite different (in one case - reduced energy, in the other - fixation on the negative), but behaviorally, in their consequences, they partly overlap; therefore, at high negativism, the extraversion-introversion position diagnosed from formal behavioral indicators also begins to shift partly toward introversion.

The situation is more complicated for the relationships of negativism with constructivism, process, and farsightedness. We allow that the small correlation with farsightedness may be an entirely parasitic artifact caused solely by the suggestive effect of the name of the “carelessness-farsightedness” trait. That is, in this respect this trait is empty, unnecessarily drawing off part of the variance of negativism. The situation with constructivism and process is more complicated; we will not examine it now, although it fully deserves such examination.

2. Because traits other than negativism also contribute to the property, the distribution of sociotypes across the main factors of negativism is not entirely symmetrical. First, the greatest opposition is observed in the LIE-ILI mirror pair, where LIE turns out to be the most positivist among all 16 types of the socion, while ILI – conversely, the most negativist. The expected signs of positivism-negativism are also observed in almost all other mirror pairs (although with a smaller amplitude of contrast between them), with the exception of the IEE-EII pair. In this pair, a fundamental inversion of the trait is observed. EII, which is supposed to be a positivist, turns out to be rather a negativist. IEE, which is supposed to be a negativist – conversely, shows the properties of a positivist to a greater extent. In addition, the differences are substantially smoothed (though without inversion) in the SLE-LSI and ESE-SEI mirror pairs. If ESE and SLE are fine with their predominant pole (the average SLE, by the sum of the four clusters, behaves as a negativist, while ESE – as a positivist, that is, as they should), then the average SEI and LSI show complete ambiversion on positivism-negativism.

3. There is also a small difference among the quadras. The second quadra is, on average, the most negativist of all (only the average IEI shows clear features of positivism within it). At the same time, overall positivism shows a small correlation with the Democratic pole.

4. Importantly, the four negativism clusters examined do not show any correlations of any appreciable magnitude with Questimity (more precisely, a correlation between negativism and Questimity is detected, but it is very, very small and can quite safely be neglected).

5. In principle, it is possible to further rotate the socionic traits of extraversion-introversion, constructivism, process, and farsightedness in such a way that any correlation between them and negativism disappears. In this case, all sociotypes will slightly change the coordinates of their centers, and as a result the positivism-negativism polarity will become the expected one for the EII-IEE mirror pair, and the difference between the magnitudes of positivism and negativism will become the same in all mirror pairs, without the pronounced contrasting prominence of this difference in the ILI-LIE pair. But in this case we will have to part with a number of established socionic stereotypes, in particular, both the idea that ILI is the chief skeptic of the socion (from whose spit dandelions wither), and the idea that IEE is a carefree player and chatterbox in life.

Question: do we want this?

Another additional conclusion that suggests itself when considering the final, integral table concerns the twelve functions of the psyche. The projection onto negativism–positivism can be regarded as an indirect indication of the role of the cortex of each of the two cerebral hemispheres in the neural networks of the functions.

In particular, we see that for Ni, Ti, Qe, and Di, the projection onto the negativist pole predominates (from which follows the assumption of their closer association with the cortex of the right hemisphere). For Fe and De, on the contrary, the projection onto the positivist pole predominates.

For the highly rational De, this quite unambiguously indicates its close association with the left prefrontal cortex. However, in the case of Fe, the situation may be more complex: its positivist projection may indicate either activation of left zones associated with the limbic system in the inferior and medial regions of the anterior cortex, or, conversely, hyperactivation of the limbic system of the RIGHT hemisphere (it is known that the limbic system inhibits the neocortex ipsilateral to it, and the effect of activation of the right limbic system may ultimately appear as inhibition of the right cortex, which behaviorally is equivalent to activation of the left).

“Ti surpasses the other functions by a large margin, even Ni, which is particularly unexpected.
Why is this so?
And in many properties it already looks as if there is a correlation between Ti and Di.”

Both functions are associated mainly with the neocortex, with a predominance of activity in the cortex of the right hemisphere. However, Di tends toward the inferior and medial prefrontal cortex, that is, toward the anterior regions of the cortex, whereas Ti apparently tends toward the parietal cortex and its junction with the temporal and occipital regions. In the latter lies the difference; in the former, the commonality. There is also commonality in that these two functions exhibit the highest indicators of their rationality.