Positivism Is Not Optimism, and Negativism Is Not Pessimism
POSITIVISM is not optimism, and NEGATIVISM is not pessimism.
Do not confuse them!
The notorious optimism–pessimism axis is much closer to an entirely different dichotomy, emotivism–constructivism (emotivists, due to the manipulative nature of their ethics, are more optimistic, since it is harder to drive them into prolonged inert sadness or into long-lasting unpleasant memories). But Positivism–Negativism is something entirely different: it is the ABILITY TO ACCEPT OR NOT ACCEPT OTHER PEOPLE’S ACTIONS, DEEDS, AND PEOPLE THEMSELVES. In short, it is a threshold, upon crossing which a feeling of need satisfaction arises. A positivist more often feels satisfied with what is received; a negativist, on the contrary, is almost always dissatisfied—his thresholds are excessively high, and the neural discharge in the form of the signal “the required result has been obtained” takes a very long time to occur in his case.
A multitude of socionic misconceptions are based on this misunderstanding of the fundamental differences between positivism–negativism on the one hand and optimism–pessimism on the other. And if it were only misunderstanding—unfortunately, even with full theoretical comprehension of this distinction, it is sometimes difficult to separate them in practice, at the level of formulating questionnaire items.
From this arise oddities such as the allegedly predominant presence in statistics of positivist-IEE and, conversely, negativist-EII.
No, no, not at all—believe me, everything is not like that!
IEE are optimists, but only because they are emotivists and therefore do not know how to get stuck in negative emotions. At the same time, they are quite clear NEGATIVISTS; that is, it is very, very difficult to satisfy them with the actions of other people, and they will find a flaw in everything. Have you noticed this trait in IEEs? I have observed it in them always and constantly, despite all their cheerful carefree demeanor. By contrast, EII is a pessimist (because a constructivist), but at the same time a POSITIVIST (because he easily accepts the actions of other people and is able, in everything received—including the character and actions of people close to him—to quickly see and find the good).
Or here is another example—the sociotype ILI. All socionists know that this psychotype, on its statistical average, is the main grumbler of the socion. Why is this so; what is its uniqueness? It lies in the fact that it is both a constructivist and a negativist simultaneously (and also has programmatic Ni, which adds to this). That is, he is simultaneously inclined to long fixation on negative emotions and also very difficult to satisfy with results (he will find a flaw in everything). Three other analogous psychotypes, also simultaneously belonging to the poles of both constructivists and negativists, are ESI, EIE, and SLE. As we can see, all are central types. Meanwhile, the four other central types combine, on the contrary, the poles of optimistic emotivism and all-accepting positivism; they are called upon to balance the melancholy and frustration of their duals. Why do you think that under the leadership of LSIs (white logicians, note) their states are usually poorly organized? Because they do not see shortcomings in the work of their own hands. Stalin, for example, genuinely believed that under his leadership everything in the country was organized in the most ideal manner (positivism!). Similarly, he believed himself to be many times stronger than Hitler; he was absolutely convinced of this in 1939 (when this was true, and when he effectively granted Hitler non-gratuitous permission for a European war, hoping to later act as the supreme European savior and arbiter), continued to believe this in 1940 (when he persistently, from a dictating position, advanced more and more territorial claims toward Hitler, in particular regarding the division of Romania), believed it in 1941 as well (when there were already no grounds for optimism at all)—and even for a full ten days after June 22 he sacredly believed this; otherwise he would not have issued on June 25 the reckless order to bomb Finland, which very much wished to remain as far aside from the conflict as possible, preserving its neutrality. Both LSI, SEE, and LIE can remain for a long time in a world of their unshakable pleasant delusions, from which it can be very difficult to extract them (usually this succeeds not for their colleagues or close people, but only for life itself).
But for all peripheral types, the pole of all-accepting and easily agreeing positivism is combined with the pole of minor-key, stuck constructivism, while the pole of optimistic, major-key emotivism is combined, on the contrary, with the pole of skeptical negativism that denies the required quality of the result. In this case, one pole partially balances the other. ONCE AGAIN: only in central psychotypes is skepticism combined also with pessimism, and the easily arising feeling of satisfaction with what has been done and what exists—opposite to skepticism—is combined with their same easily recovering optimism toward troubles.
Do you wonder why most jokes are composed not about peripheral, but about central psychotypes? Precisely because, for the reason named above, they turn out to be much more contrasting in their emotional life and therefore funnier.
And a useful socionic piece of advice to everyone in conclusion: learn to separate in other people manifestations of their skepticism (that is, dissatisfaction with the result, frustration, non-acceptance) from manifestations of their stuck pessimism. These are different things—psychologically different, biochemically different, supported by different brain structures. And then, for example, you will immediately see what constitutes the negativism of most ordinary IEE (which, incidentally, as with all negativists, is also the reason for the rarity of their praise and gratitude toward other people—because what is there to be grateful for when the apples are sour?).