This almost feels too obvious to bring up, but I can't remembering anybody discussing this topic more than in passing, (not even in this thread from some months back: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/seelie-adaptive-vs-unseelie-directive-is-it-related-to-conflict-avoidance/).
Between different types, there seems to be quite a lot of variation in the proportion of light F (seelie/adaptive) vs. dark F (unseelie/directive) samples. I haven't bothered to add up numbers or anything fancy like that, but here are the trends I generally see:
More specifically, in the two Ni-lead types (conductor+SeNi) we see that almost every single sample is unseelie or directive. TeNi is also overwhelmingly weighted toward unseeliness (with FeNi it's a bit more balanced). I can't remember any type being so heavily weighted toward light F, but from what I recall the four high-Ne types (TiNe, FiNe, NeFi, NeTi) all have a sizeable majority of seelaptiveness.
The most notable exception to this patter I remember is SeFi, which is overwhelmingly unseelie. (Interestingly, SeFi also seems to have few Ji-conscious samples in comparison with the other PeJi types...I have no idea why, or whether there's any correlation there). Also, I'm guessing SiFe will be weighted fairly heavily toward adaptive, although the thread isn't done yet (I guess they've saved the best for last!).
Anyway, at least among the samples, there seems to be a pretty significant correlation...maybe something that could be shown statistically (even though, of course, the samples aren't representative of any particular population). The next question I'd ask is whether this is correlation is something that would be present across a whole gamut of cultural and environmental conditions? Or whether it's something that arises in response to particular conditions? The samples in the database are cross-cultural, but I highly doubt they represent how humans appear in a full range of different cultural circumstances. Still, my guess is that this is a more global trend that appears in most cultural environments.
My bit of speculation is that a dark F attitude correlates with something like self-confidence or assertiveness. Conductor types are described as more forward--pushing themselves ahead into the world in a linear, more self-assured way. For different reasons, the book describes SeNi types as experiencing their perceptions & knowledge with more certainty. Ne gives a more dreamlike way of perceiving the external world, and I imagine the associated cloudiness might make it easier to relate to life through greater agreeableness--we don't see the moment-to-moment challenges we're up against with the same level of vivid detail as do Se-users, so asserting ourselves boldly against these challenges might more often feel like a more risky proposition.
When I reflect on my own experience of why I tend to be agreeable, the reasons are a little bit different than what I've mentioned above, but still tie into themes of assertiveness and self-confidence: 1.) I'm drawn to social interactions that lead to positive emotional experiences, and 2.) I'm often averse to directing people (or being directed, for that matter) because I'd prefer to let them learn their own lessons and do their own things. However, I find myself regretting my light Fe when, for these same reasons, I fail to call out people when they say problematic things. The regret can be strong, and can something that sticks with me into the future, yet still I find it pretty tough to manifest directive Fe in these situations.
I have no clue why nobody responded to this! I think the dichotomy between light / dark attitudes of the heart is one of the most interesting additions to jungian typology that CT has made!
I think your assessment of the Se/Ni axis being at fault for a 'dark' attitude of the heart is pretty accurate. Ive seen the Beta and Gamma quadras described as the dark quadras as opposed to the Alpha and Delta light in socionics before, and the correlation had to do with Se/Ni as well.
With both quadras, there is an overarching theme of the viscerality and unforgiving nature of life itself, and how we just kinda have to deal with it (gamma), or conquer it (beta). You'll often hear these sorts of axioms from betas and gammas, especially those with conscious Se and to a lesser extent Ni. You can see it in a difference between Gamma and Delta media, for example the original Alien vs Star Wars. Se presents itself in the psyche as very literal information, and an Se user almost never questions what they are seeing. Ni presents itself as deep revelatory realizations. These are honestly even less prone to doubt by the Ni user. The Se/Ni axis presents a kind of stubborn sureness of it's position, either with physical evidence (Se) or without (Ni).
Your understanding of a dark attitude being correlated with assertiveness and sureness seems accurate! I became unseelie probably because I had been taken advantage of pretty frequently, and I realized that nobody was going to stop doing that just because I was being what I thought a good person was. Interestingly, my development of Se somewhat correlated to my switch into unseelieness. I became much more sure of myself, much more willing to set healthy (and some unhealthy) boundaries, and much more willing to engage in life's more visceral activities (parties, drugs, sex, and rock n roll baby).
I really would love more study into the quadral difference between attitudes of the heart though! All of this so far is conjecture from my limited point of view! I also wanna see some seelie examples of an NiTe, cuz that type seems to be somewhat overly represented in my community (the trans community) and it bums me out that I have difficulty relating to many of my peers due to their somewhat prickly nature.
@alice the experiences you relate about your development are very interesting and help me to understand Se & directiveness in a more lifelike way. I agree with your point about Se being more prone to dark F because it's more tactile/gritty.
I think your assessment of the Se/Ni axis being at fault for a ‘dark’ attitude of the heart is pretty accurate.
I want to clarify that I don't find Se/Ni at fault for being dark--as far as I understand, there's nothing inherently better about seelie/adaptive attitudes than unseelie/directive ones. They both have their pros & cons.
There was a thread from some months back in which umbilicalsphere suggested that having a relatively centered attitude of the heart (i.e. not too light, not too dark) was a healthy way of being because going too far in either direction meant trying to put a shield up against the chaos that can arise from social interaction. (I might be getting that wrong; it's been a while since I read the thread. Anyway, it's here https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/expandion-of-the-model-of-the-f-attitudes-to-account-for-individuation/). From what I remember, it made a lot of sense.
Actually, so far I haven't seen anything to indicate a clear correlation between heart-attitude and happiness or healthiness in life. I remember Robin Williams being typed as a seelie NeFi (albeit with flat affect) but he tragically took his own life. I've always been drawn to the intense melancholy & cynicism of Leonard Cohen's music--music that's plainly informed by a lifetime of depression, alcoholism, fixation on the evils of the world, etc. Yet Cohen was an adaptive SiFe who didn't even have flat affect. Perhaps his music was his way of expressing all the negative emotion that his unconscious, adaptive Fe could not effectively release through social agency. Similarly, we see plenty of examples of unseelie/directive folks who don't have issues with depression but report being genuinely happy, mentally healthy, etc.
In the Big Five Results Thread from months back (https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/big-five-results-thread/), we can see how quite a few members who had a dark heart-attitude still had low neuroticism. I didn't post my results there, but I've taken the Big Five before, and I regularly score in like the 90th percentile on neuroticism, despite being adaptive.
Yet paradoxically, I agree with what you've said here:
With both quadras, there is an overarching theme of the viscerality and unforgiving nature of life itself, and how we just kinda have to deal with it (gamma), or conquer it (beta). You’ll often hear these sorts of axioms from betas and gammas, especially those with conscious Se and to a lesser extent Ni. You can see it in a difference between Gamma and Delta media, for example the original Alien vs Star Wars. Se presents itself in the psyche as very literal information, and an Se user almost never questions what they are seeing. Ni presents itself as deep revelatory realizations. These are honestly even less prone to doubt by the Ni user. The Se/Ni axis presents a kind of stubborn sureness of it’s position, either with physical evidence (Se) or without (Ni).
Maybe one way to think about the difference between a light/dark attitude of the heart is that people who are seelie/adaptive have an open outlet for positive emotional energy, whereas people who are unseelie/directive have an open outlet for negative emotional energy. Plainly this is an overgeneralization and isn't always true, but bear with me. More experiences in life are negative than are positive. With SeNi, maybe a frequent attitude is, "there's no way to avoid all this negative stuff, so I need an open channel to release this dark energy." Whereas Ne might say wishful-thinking things to itself like, "things may look shitty, but if I look at things from a different angle and maybe put some positive energy out into the world, I can get on the positive side of things." While Ne users might more frequently orient themselves toward positive emotions & downlplay negative ones, they ultimately still may be just as plagued by negative ones.
Both approaches the light-F approach and the dark one seem to have certain advantages. With dark F attitude, the advantage is releasing the negativity and not allowing it to build up. The drawback is that if its release isn't carefully managed, negative energy can easily come back around or beget more negative energy. e.g. As Donald Trump constantly acts out his unseeliness through Te words & agency, he's gradually creating a Hell for himself & everyone within his grasp. With seelaptiveness, the advantage is maximizing relatively scarcer moments of positive energy, and their role in building social alliances, etc. The drawback is that because seelie-adaptives don't have as clear of an outlet for many kinds of negative emotional energy, pent-up grievances can easily lead to things like passive-aggression. Or in videos like this one, (http://cognitivetype.net/s/TiNe_Gage_1.mp4) we can see how it can lead to weaselishness & inauthenticity.