Accounting for the Positivist/Negativist dichotomy

In this article, I'll propose a division between Positivist and Negativist elements in Model B2: Positivist elements can be defined as "intrinsic", referring to information by itself, without any prior filters regarding its content, while Negativist elements apply a specific lens through which to delimit such content so that it applies to a referential reality. Note the difference with the Extroverted/Introverted dichotomy, which is about the delimiting of the range of information we want to accept, rather than the content adscribed to it. After having differentiated the Jungian axes this way, I'll extend this analogy through the Presence Cube to the Positivist/Negativist type dichotomy.

Starting with Intuition, it's easy to see how N+ takes in any incoming information, without regard to its validity, to construct a framework of interpretation as the final product, where the only standard is the internal consistency and elegance of such system. N- is instead concerned with the interpretation arising from such framework, and thus judges incoming information according to how well it can account for the phenomena it attempts to explain, rather than aiming for the universal lens of N+. Instead of the Ni/Ne dichotomy regarding which data points one should use to understand the environment, this dilemma refers to how to consider such Intuitive product, as N- doesn't attempt to determine whether to trust the information upon which it is working; instead taking such information as the final arbiter for the validity of the interpretation being produced.

The limitations imposed by S- are of a more practical nature, relative to the goal in mind, for which it is necessary to define specific procedures that are in accordance with the outcome deemed best by Se/Si, thus being similar in its function to MBTI's Si. Likewise, S+ can be considered as a counterpart to MBTI's Se, insofar as it encompasses the ability to adapt to the situation and improvise, rejecting limitations on the content of possible courses of action, as its concern is the fact that actions are being taken in the moment to fulfill a certain goal, where any constraint might compromise its feasibility. This question on the content is again different from the Se/Si dichotomy, which addresses the kind of goal that is desired, rather than the means.

Regarding Ethics, it is also easy to see F+ as being "intrinsic", as its focus is the general quality of the interaction in a way that would be deemed appropriate to an external observer, oblivious to one's prior bonds or personal predispositions, because of which one should strive for acting independently of them. On the other hand, such bonds and predispositions are the whole point of personal interaction for F-, which will always translate these into the interaction taking place. Here, the lens in place lie in the crafting of the interaction to be more personally appealing serves to show personal regard and thus differentiates the interaction from a general F+ mood, rather than the Fe/Fi distinction on the nature of such interaction (general in the nature of the recipients or tailored to the situation of a specific participant).

Finally, T- seeks to identify points of conflict between different systems to weight in and produce a balanced compromise between the advatages of each side of the issue to address a specific situation. T+ will instead take the identified capacity of the system to enact a desired impact as the standard of evaluation, and is thus unconcerned with the means for such impact, rather than the smooth functioning that concerns T-, which avoids interfering with different agendas in its functioning, thus placing external constraints on Logics output. The difference with Te/Ti is less obvious with MBTI, where Te has an aspect of exerting an influence in the environment, which can be confused for the Socionics Se due to it being on the same Relevance axis as T+, while Socionics Te/Ti refers to internal constraints on Logics output.

As can be seen, Negativist elements serve to add context to Model A agendas in their implementation, while Positivist elements take such agendas as already polished, needing no further refinement, but rather a wholehearted commitment. These characteristics will be manifested in the Presence Cube, where Positivist types have Positivist 4P, 2P, 3D and 1D blocks and viceversa.

Then, Negativist types would favor their specific lenses and precepts on their 4P vs 1P axes -those where they are Stubborn and tend to manifest a less compromising attitude regarding their preferences-, while they will be more able to provide more nuance to these in their 3D vs 2D axes -those where they are Situational and have the desire to explore and refine their management of this area as it is perceived as the scenario of their personal development-. What this means is that their output regarding how to implement their specific agendas is of a more personal nature, they see their delimitations to different plans and ideas as imbued with a part of who they are; their different psychic agendas are not truly theirs until they refine their content so that it stands in reference to who they really are, the nuance being added making reference in some form or another to their personal experience. This is not the case for Positivist types, who see their psychic agendas as already theirs, and any additional lens through which to add a foreign context is an invasion on who they really ara, in such a way that it's most important to explore the different nuances of who they really are in their specific goals, rather than adjust the means to avoid them infringing on their sense of self.

Put in another way, Positivist types see their own activities by themselves as the path to self-knowledge, as they will know themselves better by proceeding with what they already have deemed appropriate in an almost subconscious level, and it is their conscious task to, by following through, to truly understand such subconscious designs; while Negativist types see such activities as independent of such path, which means their conscious task is to actively add different perspectives and contexts that come from the way they identify at the moment to align their activities with the path to self-knowledge.