Secrets of Socionic Negativism

In a series of recent posts by Andrey Parfenov about questim–declatim traits and functions, there is much that is correct and, in my opinion, very perceptively observed. However, there are also evaluative judgments with which one cannot agree. For example, here:

vk.com/wall-168821911_30430

A. Parfenov writes there: “Negativism has much in common with Questimity and therefore correlates noticeably with it—and if stereotypes are removed, it will correlate even more strongly. But most properties—about 2/3—reflect the most banal and foolish stereotype: positivists are cheerful, optimistic, think about the good, while negativists are sad, pessimistic, and notice problems and shortcomings. This view has turned out to be very persistent in the socionics milieu; many people type by it.” DISAGREE!
First, if one removes from negativism everything connected with skepticism, then the remaining part will correlate with Questimity not more strongly, but more weakly. Second, and this is the main point, under no circumstances should this supposedly “trivial” side of the trait be discarded, the one that emphasizes its connection with the poles of optimism and skepticism. First, this connection is not caused solely by self-suggestion from the name of the trait; it reflects a real and very important property of the psyche, in no way connected—as we shall see further—with Questimity. Second, optimistic–skeptical bipolarity is directly related to two fundamentally different brain clusters of information processing, again not explainable by Questimity alone. Information is classified not only by the form of its presentation, but also by the goal and the method of its processing. This is far more important than assigning it to “space” or “time.” In particular, information must immediately be divided by the brain, concerned with survival, into two parallel heaps—with two different departments responsible for their processing. In one heap, composed of the best grain, the most desirable pearly kernels are sought (goal selection, the ideal, paths toward them); in the other, of poorer quality, the most poisonous and dangerous kernels for health and life are culled and marked (what must be removed, expelled, what one must distance oneself from). A person simultaneously strives and avoids. For survival, both are necessary. But in these two cases information is processed in different places and in different ways—because these are different tasks handled by different departments. Let us clarify this idea with facts, as succinctly as possible. Even the founder of Soviet neuropsychology, the famous Alexander Luria, back in the 1940s–1950s discovered for domestic medicine that massive lesions of the frontal cortex on the right or on the left are by no means symmetrical in their consequences. When the cortex on the right is destroyed, a person turns into an optimistic idiot who notices no defects or shortcomings either in themselves or around them. When asked by a doctor whether sensitivity had appeared in her completely paralyzed left arm, a patient with an extensive infarction in the right frontal cortex cheerfully answered that everything with her arm was excellent (while being unable to move even a finger). This phenomenon is called anosognosia—the ignoring of defects and the disappearance of criticism toward one’s condition. The most pronounced anosognosia arises precisely as a result of damage to the right frontal cortex. True, even before Luria the syndrome of “loss of criticism” in lesions of the right hemisphere (neglect syndrome, ignoring syndrome) (English: unilateral spatial neglect) was described in 1941 by G. Holmes and R. Brain.
--------------------------------—
By contrast, patients with damage to the LEFT frontal cortex become partly depressive but also very anxious. They are excessively critical and picky, constantly pestering the doctor with questions, minor complaints, and claims. Decades later, this interhemispheric functional asymmetry of the anterior cortex was confirmed in the West by neuroimaging studies as well. Yes, symmetrical areas of the cortex on the left and right can indeed reconfigure their neural networks, sometimes taking over each other’s functions. And in most tasks they are activated simultaneously. Nevertheless, a fairly stable hemispheric specialization is also observed: the left cortex is more responsible for forming an ideal positive goal and moving toward it, whereas the right cortex is responsible for identifying dangers and everything that is “not right” in the body and around it—that is, what has defects compared to an ideal standard.
In short, the left cortex is more idealistic and optimistic; it more strongly supports goal-attainment functions. The right cortex is skeptical and pessimistic; it more strongly performs avoidance or equilibrium-restoration functions. This is precisely the physiological basis of the “Positivism–Negativism” trait, a trait that is far from insignificant for human psychology, but quite substantial—including from the standpoint of separating different goals, different loci, and likely different mechanisms of information processing.

------------------------------—

Table 1. Correlations of traits and functions with positivism across different datasets

Of course, the matter here, in the separation of these functions, is far from being only about left–right asymmetry.
Let us look at the attached table, which shows correlations of the positivism–negativism trait with all functions and other traits across different data sets—both on respondent profiles and on profiles from the bank of questionnaire items. Both questim functions (whose basis is the insular cortex, that is, the paralimbic system) also in general slightly gravitate toward negativism, while both declatim functions (associated with the anterior cortex) gravitate toward positivism. THIS IS EXACTLY THAT VERY CORRELATION PARFENOV IS TALKING ABOUT! At the same time, in the pair De and Di, the former is clearly more associated with positivism, whereas Di, with its normativity, still stands closer to negativism.
A similar asymmetry is observed in the pair Te and Ti. Te, the function of efficiency, gravitates slightly more toward positivism than Ti, which, with its again normative fastidiousness toward structures, is closer to the negativist pole. Si clearly gravitates toward mechanisms of approach to the goal, toward positivism, while Se is just as clearly aimed at repulsion and works rather toward negativism. Equally contrasting is the difference between the more positivist Ne and the more negativist Ni. Of course, for each function such a division is not rigid, since there are many different tasks that each function solves—both related to striving toward a goal and related to repulsion from dangers. We are speaking only about some shift of the average center of reactions of each function. And a function is a neural network in which many brain regions participate. The same applies to traits.
We see in the table that across all samples the irrational pole (more closely associated with subcortical structures, including the limbic system) is correlated with positivism, that is, with the function of striving toward a goal, while the rational pole (linked with the cerebral cortex as a whole) is, by contrast, partly correlated with negativism, that is, with the function of criticism and avoidance.
Similarly, extraversion has a somewhat generally positivist coloring, while introversion has a negativist one, that is, avoiding and protective.
Judging types are also more positivist than decisive types, and ethics types are, in general, more positivist than logic types. Interestingly, statics–dynamics also remains responsive to this division, and dynamics in general turn out to be shifted toward the pole of positivism. By the way, the cortex of the left hemisphere, more closely associated with dynamic, sequentially unfolding auditory–speech functions, indeed really should be more closely associated with the dynamic pole than the cortex of the right hemisphere, which specializes rather in static visual functions. Therefore, from the standpoint of the structural organization of functions in different parts of the brain, the correlation of dynamics with positivism is easily explained—through their shared predominance of left-hemisphericity. Does it follow from all the above reasoning that Di and Ti (as seen from the table—more negativist than De and Te, respectively) should have preferential representation in the right hemisphere, while De and Te—in the left? We do not know! After all, it is not a fact that assigning negativist functions exclusively to the right hemisphere is a rigid and universally operating rule.
However, let us note that Ti is indeed very closely associated with mental spatial manipulations and rotations, and these, in turn, are much more tightly linked to the right posterior parietal cortex than to the left (these are well-known findings in the literature). In addition, Ti, unlike Te, generally requires visual mental representations rather than being limited to verbal reasoning, and everything visual (at higher levels of its processing) also most certainly gravitates toward the right hemisphere. Why does Questimity in general have a more negativist charge compared to Declatimity? Questimity is closely tied to the paralimbic system, the structural center of which is the insular cortex of the brain (that is, the cortex of its so-called two central lobes, left and right, hidden deep in the brain between the temporal, parietal, and frontal cortices). The posterior part of the insular cortex is the center of bodily homeostasis, reacting to deviations of body temperature and internal organ sensations from certain norms and striving to return the organism from these deviations to normative values. As we understand, this is rather a negativist task. A task not of approach and acquisition, but of repulsion for the sake of maintaining homeostasis. The anterior part of the insular cortex in both hemispheres of the brain, on the other hand, is closely connected with sensations of personal integrity and separateness. In tandem with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, it is the center of our personal uniqueness, the center of self-awareness, allowing one to feel oneself as an indivisible physical and mental whole, separated from everything else and from others. The individualistic “I am not you,” which is the slogan of this center, is again a rather negativist paradigm. Finally, the insular cortex, already in its central zone, is “tuned” to sensations of disgust toward everything dirty and dangerous. Therefore, it is precisely with Questimity that various reactions of squeamishness and disgust are associated. Agree that these too are negativist tasks, and in their most crystal-clear form. However, at the same time Questimity also provides the strength of drives, fulfilling already a positivist task! Thus, with lesions of the insular cortex (as a result of which Questimity is sharply impaired), craving for drugs almost disappears. Likewise, the reaction of frustration in response to any losses also disappears. QUESTIMITY BY NO MEANS DUPLICATES ALL THE FUNCTIONS OF NEGATIVISM, AND ALL THE MORE THE INSULAR CORTEX IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE RIGHT–LEFT ASYMMETRY OF THE BRAIN. Among the functional differences between negativism and Questimity, one can again mention, for example, that with physical damage to the insular cortex the sensation of one’s individual interests weakens, and especially the sensation of loss, of deprivation of something habitual. Thus, for an inveterate smoker it becomes much easier to quit smoking, and for a drug addict—to get off the needle. But symptoms of anosognosia do not arise in this case at all—they arise only with damage to the right prefrontal cortex, affecting the main area of negativist neural networks. Why, in the pair of two declatim functions, does one, De, have a noticeably more positivist coloring than the other—Di? Because De is optimistic and carefree, destroying boundaries between people and establishing horizontal connections. At the same time, Di is normative, divides the world into “us” and “them,” and although it is partly engaged in attraction toward its own (which is why it is still more positivist than both purely individualistic and therefore noticeably more negativist questim functions), to a considerable degree it is also concerned with repulsion from “others.” Therefore, in comparison with De, white Declatimity turns out to be noticeably closer to the negativist pole. The neural networks of logical functions gravitate toward the parietal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
The neural networks of ethical functions gravitate toward the limbic system, including also the limbic divisions of the inferior and medial frontal cortex.
The neural networks of sensory functions include many cortical areas—within the frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, and even hippocampal cortex.
With intuitive functions there are more questions—for now we will not speak about them.
But there is sufficient certainty regarding questim functions—the center of their neural networks, as stated above, is the insular cortex.
And what about declatim functions? Here, too, there are uncertainties, although it is clear that their neural networks must rely on those areas of the anterior neocortex that are anatomically connected by axons with the insular cortex, that is, capable of interacting with dual questim functions. Thus, for Declatimity the possible choice consists primarily among the areas of the dorsolateral, orbitofrontal, ventromedial, and even parahippocampal cortex. Can one assume that De somewhat more involves the corresponding regions of the left hemisphere, and Di—the right? We also cannot yet assert this. But it is quite possible. TO SUM UP. Anatomically, Questimity–Declatimity is associated with the opposition of the paralimbic system (represented by the insular cortex) and the anterior neocortex. And Negativism–Positivism—with the general opposition of the cortex of the right and left hemispheres. Obviously, these are completely different functional asymmetries, different anatomical gradients. The functions of Questimity and Negativism overlap only to a small extent, but by no means duplicate one another. At the same time, the correlation that is nevertheless observed between them is also not an artifact, but reflects a quite objective similarity (intersection) of certain tasks solved both by the right neocortex as a whole (negativism) and by the bilateral insular cortex (Questimity).