Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme

Toggle table of contents sidebar

Duality Relations ISFj and ENTj by Stratiyevskaya

Written by Vera Stratievskaya: original blog entry.

Duality observations

1. ESI-LIE. Dualization as functional cooperation.

Which traits are typical for this dual dyad? What distinguishes it from the others? Let’s start our examination from its “program” functions.

The “program” function of LIE is alternative logic of actions - the logic of risky, extraordinary actions and undertakings. This is a “program” of a person who in any situation sees the most unexpected way out, who finds reserves where no one else sees them, who resolves his problems in the most unexpected way. For a person in possession of such a “program” it is difficult to exist in the framework of mundane, monotonous, everyday family life. Drab workdays have a depressing effect on the LIE. For representatives of this TIM, a life without romance, without vivid and strong impressions, is not sufficiently interesting. After all, here we are talking about people whose calling is associated with the extremes: here we have the travelers and explorers, the pioneers and researchers, lifeguards, stuntmen, and experimenters to name a few.

Such people also have the right to personal happiness - they should be able to get married, have children - or has this not been foreseen for them by nature? It has been! This is why nature has provided such a partner for them as ethical sensing introvert - Dreiser.

Going out on a long journey or venturing on a risky venture, the LIE must feel assured that his “rear flank” is covered and that he has a “warm home” to return to - a place where someone is waiting for him and where he needs to return. For LIE it is very important to realize that he is very needed and dear to somebody, that his life is very valuable and significant, that there is somebody out there who loves him, who cares and waits for him. If there is nobody like this, the risks that the LIE takes on diminish in their value - his life and his work become meaningless. In accordance with the system of values ​​of the third quadra and of his dual dyad, the LIE risks himself for the success and well-being of his “team.”

His “team” is a specific group of people with whom he is associated by strong tries and reliable relations. For the sake of friendship, love, respect and peace of these people the LIE is ready to take on any load, both physical and psychological, to endure thought any tests, to go for any risks and sacrifices - but it all makes sense only if this is needed by somebody.

The “program” of alternative logic of actions also has another angle of application: this is involutionary logic of completing and filling what has been omitted and missed in work, in methods and technologies - the search for alternative solutions, performance of emergency work, completion of that which hasn’t been finished in the shortest possible periods of time, and so on.

However much he works, the LIE always accumulates a huge amount of urgent matters. Getting tired of having to get it all done, he sometimes allows himself to a take a break and relax a little. But this doesn’t last long, because new urgent matters accumulate. There is always more work undone than completed - such is the destiny of involutionary business-like types: the more you do, the more urgent matters remain - and so it will be their entire life!

Even during the rest period the LIE tries to attend to some leftover matters. Among these matters may be the arrangement of his personal life, which he also tries to do as quickly, efficiently, and with least expenditures of time and emotional energy as possible. He doesn’t dismiss alternative options and methods: if he couldn’t find a partner in one place, he goes to search in another. Building his personal life in this manner, the LIE can accept any available person who just happened to be “handy” as his partner. Frequently, this is exactly what happens. He chooses a partner precisely when one is needed and usually for some completely pragmatic reasons and goals. In making this choice, he goes by the same criteria that he uses in choosing his “team”. Usually, the LIE picks his “team” for some short-term, quick assignment or work after which the team can quickly dissolve. This very same approach he uses when choosing a partner: the main goal here is to fill in the vacancy, to “recruit” a person for the position of “life partner”. Ensuring that his partner then actually fulfills his obligations is a question of secondary importance for the LIE, but often the most difficult one. Due to inherent to this TIM’s carefree attitude (carefree type) and optimism (positivist type), representatives of this type naively assume that they can make their partners fulfill their obligations without too much trouble - there must be, after all, some kind of sense of responsibility to the family and to the “team”. Reality often disappoints them. This is especially so if the LIE chooses partners in a haste, by method of blind search.

Many of LIE’s “random” and short-term partners usually feel put off by such an overtly cynical and pragmatic approach. Life together as a business partnership, based on vague, indeterminate prospects and questionable incentives (neither material nor ethical ones) is attractive to very few. Of course, the best match for LIE’s requirements is his dual ESI, who, once bound “by the contract”, considers it necessary to observe it conscientiously and thoroughly, not waiting to get reminded or pointed to it. Even if the ESI has been disillusioned in his or her “team”, and the partnership with the LIE, he remains faithful to his commitments. If he feels less than unhappy with something, the ESI considers it to be his own mistake in being too thoughtless, trusting, and imprudent: he himself is at fault that he wasn’t aware of all the potential consequences of such an alliance and didn’t specify all the “conditions and clauses”. But what has been negotiated with him and agreed on beforehand the ESI performs unconditionally. Where other partners withdraw, Dreiser continues “pulling his load” : “once the word has been given, endure and push”, “if you’ve taken up the plow, don’t look back now,” - saying this to himself Dreiser keeps himself to following through with his commitments and obligations. Afterwards, having fulfilled his “contract”, the ESI may promise to himself to never again deal with the exploiter Jack, especially if the later has been abusing ESI’s patience and yielding attitude beyond measure. But sense of duty for the ESI is not an empty notion. If he has taken up some work, task or assignment, if he has promised to do something, he will carry it out faultlessly and consistently. Such attitude towards his assignments and responsibilities is dictated by ESI’s aspect of volitional sensing (+Se) which is the “function of implementation” of Dreiser’s “program” ethical aspect (-Fi).

In this manner, dualization happens in this dyad when partners get together as members of the same “team” and determine for themselves their future plans and objectives, assess pragmatic, ethical, and volitional qualities of each other, and agree on further joint work and life, presupposing that everything in this life - the sorrows and joys, successes and failures, victories and defeats - they will share equally. All these decisions are typically made in record short periods of time, but this doesn’t bother either of them. The main thing for them is to get together as soon as possible and start out on their joint, working life.

One example of such dualization is depicted in classical Russian literature, in Leo Tolstoy’s novel “Anna Karenina.” Two characters, Konstantin Levin (LIE, Jack) and Kitty Scherbatskaya (ESI, Dreiser), begin their married life together from the regular workdays. To the surprise of their relatives, they decide not to take a vacation for their honeymoon, but rather spend it in the village, on Levin’s family estate where each of them immediately upon arrival proceeded to take up their everyday family responsibilities: Levin ran the estate while Kitty managed the household. Both were happy with what they were doing and wanted nothing better for themselves. Levin never heard any complaints from Kitty about lack of attention to herself or excessive workloads. Even if Kitty missed Levin’s company, if he couldn’t devote as much time to her as she wanted, she understood that he is occupied by important work, and did not demand more from him or complain over minor things.

In comparison to the irrational dual dyad of the 3rd quadra (ILI-SEE), dualization in this involutionary rational pair transpires much easier and quicker, in a straightforward matter-of-fact fashion, without any extra schemes and ploys. Partners here do not create obstacles from nothing and do not invent anything that will encumber them unnecessarily, believing that life itself presents them with enough problems and mysteries to resolve - try keeping up with it all!

Members of this dyad quite often allow themselves to take a risk in choosing their partner, believing that they can easily part with those who don’t meet their expectations. When Levin received a rejection from Kitty at first, he immediately thought of taking a peasant woman from his village as his wife, considering that this option would for now be acceptable for him - a woman who was already used to hard work, who is diligent, undemanding, and unassuming would have made a perfect wife for him in all respects. Fortunately, life has introduced some correctives into his plans: he received an agreement from Countess Shtcherbatskaya, and Kitty, despite her aristocratic origins, turned out to be just the kind of a wife that he has dreamed of - selflessly loving, caring, loyal, unassuming, and hard-working.

LIE and ESI are a democratic dyad with a democratic approach to work. In the novel, this is reflected in the mowing scene in which Levin is working side by side with the peasants, mowing and taking pleasure from the process of work and from the simple, convenient for him “team” relations with the peasant men - they mowed together, had a meal together, then talked about what else had to be done - everyone is equal, and everyone is happy and friends with each other - ideal relations!

2. ESI-LIE. Mutual activation over sensing and intuitive aspects.

Joint life, according to representatives of the dyad, is, first and foremost, joint work, and therefore their life together must be organized as so, and not as a breezy picnic or entertaining day off. For this very reason, the “flower-gift-candy” courtship period is reduced to its minimum and lasts a very short period of time in this dyad - here, it is considered that it is better to reserve the energy, time, and resources for something worthwhile.

The reader may exclaim, “.. but this is not very romantic!” This dyad has its own conception of romance. Simplicity, naturalness, and artlessness in relations here does not concern anyone; such simplicity, and undemanding, even somewhat rugged attitude here is considered to be the norm of life. Measured and deliberate planning of life together here is also not shocking to anyone. In this dyad, like in no other, both partners are able to “live by the plan” and “by the schedule”. The LIE as a strategic type with creative intuition usually drafts these plans for himself and for his “team” that includes his partner. This is considered to be normal in this dyad.

What isn’t normal is when LIE isn’t making his own plans but passively adjusts himself to fit into other people’s schedules and schemes, when he “drifts” from one foreign to him goal to another. What is not normal is when he, as a strategic type, aimlessly floats adrift or gets carried away by the rapid torrent of raging passions, adrenaline, and temptations - this is dangerous for the LIE, but even more dangerous for his partners, his team members, and other people who depend on him. What is not normal is when someone else constructs long-term plans for the LIE and he is then made to obey by them.

LIE should have his own clear, constructive plans - the aspect of intuition of time (+Ni) is his creative function. In his plans, LIE should be aiming to “run ahead” rather than follow someone else’s orders. He must create his plans himself, create them for himself and his team, and know how to defend them at any cost. All of this is normal for the LIE. Any other approach can lead to depression and then degradation of the individual, or even a psychosomatic illness with a fatal outcome.

Having clear, long-term plans is also convenient for LIE’s dual Dreiser: specific and clearly defined time periods and deadlines activate him on the aspect of intuition of time (-Ni), and permit him to more productively and successfully realize himself in his work and creative undertakings (which for ESI as a representative of the third quadra is extremely important). In the absence of specific and clear prospects and constructive plans for the future, the ESI falls into a suppressed state that is accompanied by a feeling of hopelessness due to not seeing any positive prospects where ESI can realize him/herself, and uncertainty about his/her future goals and life plans i.e. due to lack of activation on the aspect of intuition of time.

As important it is for LIE to find the person whom he needs, so it is important for ESI to be needed by someone, to be “in demand” on his ethical and sensing aspects (ESI’s creative volitional sensing aspect (+Se) that is activating for the LIE (-Se) is built exactly on this principle of “being needed”). Trying to realize this side of himself, the ESI similarly to the LIE tries not to prolong the time of pursuit and courtship (no matter how beautifully someone courts him). For the ESI it is important to get to business as soon as possible, for which purpose he searches for a partner to start their joint life together as soon as possible and so that he can begin caring after the one who deserves it.

If the ESI doesn’t meet such a person in his or her life, he or she feels excruciating pain for the “wasted” years. He/she starts feeling very disappointed that his or her best qualities did not find an application and were not needed by anyone. This feeling is usually accompanied by realizations of some ethical lapses and mistakes (involutionary ethics of relations, -Fi): that he didn’t show enough care for someone, didn’t love enough, didn’t do enough - thus he didn’t realize his ethical and creative sensing potential. There were opportunities for him to make someone happy, but this chance did not befall to him.

3. ESI. Sense of responsibility and duty before oneself and one’s partner.

If the ESI becomes disappointed in his partner, he experiences the same feelings of regret and vexation - he didn’t love the right person, didn’t devote himself to the one who truly deserved it, he squandered himself on the wrong person. After this he can try to forget the past and everything that was shared, and start his life anew, “from scratch”. Both LIE and ESI can thus “clear out” their slate and start a new life at any age (carefree types).

This, for example, happened with one elderly woman of type Dreiser, who was married to a sailor and waited for him on shore for twenty years, kept her faithfulness and looked after her obligations; she was an exemplary wife and a caring mother. Without complaining she endured through all the hardships and deprivations, postponed all the best “until later”, believing that when her husband retires and comes back to shore they “will live happily for themselves and for each other”. Imagine her surprise that when her husband came to shore he began to actively catch up on everything that he has missed with other partners. “The question is, why was I waiting for him? - asked this ESI woman in indignation - “Why did I keep faithful to him for so many years, if, after all, he repaid me with such ingratitude? Now that I am older and lost my looks, he no longer needs me? It happened that in twenty years that we were together but living apart I became a stranger to him. He does not want to spend his advancing years with me. And thus I decided to look for another partner even if it means being unfaithful to him. Enough of restraining and depriving myself!”

Could have she done this earlier? She couldn’t agree to it, because in those years her husband gave her no reason to be unfaithful and pay with betrayal for betrayal. But also because ESI’s ethical program is based on a very strict and unrelenting sense of duty, thus she couldn’t simply quit and leave him. Whether he wants this or not, the ESI has to be an example of a responsible attitude towards his obligations. No matter where he finds himself and into which “abyss” he was flung, his ethical “program” (-Fi) in its concrete and strict realization (+Se) obliges him to comply with all terms of “his contract”, retains him, holds him back, and guards him against the temptations. Even if this is contrary to nature and defies common sense and reason - it keeps him against everything. For Dreiser it is of prime importance to be honest with himself. His conscientiousness, his devotion to his partner, his loyalty and dutifulness are all signs of such honesty towards himself. In everything that concerns his own obligations, the ESI controls and directs himself. Loyalty and devotion for the ESI are not “merits’, “virtues” or special “feats”, but natural extension of his nature and his instinctive ethical program.

Note

translator’s note: Stratievskaya seems to be modeling socionics type ESI on enneagram type 6, which is an EType endowed with strong superego and oriented at this superego’s internal directives, the shoulds and should-nots, and usually possessing heightened sense of duty and loyalty. ESIs of others e-types may not fully fit into this description.

On the other hand, nobody has yet revoked the commandment “an eye for an eye” (“a measure for measure”). The logic of relations (-Ti), which is a contact function for ESI, obliges him to “re-align”, level and equalize the relationship according to what is just: if his partner is clearly to blame (he did not fulfill his part of the agreement), Dreiser must respond in kind - terminate his “contract” and reject the obligations that he has assumed (“a measure for measure”). Being disappointed and giving up on a partner, ESI first deprives him of both his ethical and sensing support and then does everything possible to part with him or her, viewing the breakup of relations as the most severe punishment for this person.

With age, ESI certainly becomes more tolerant of other people’s flaws and shortcomings - he gains experience and with it a better understanding of people’s actions and motivations behind them, which allows him to justify what they have done.

But the ESI’s disappointments do not end here. Similar to the LIE, the ESI also actively searches for a suitable life partner. He also often takes risks, and as a consequence ends up frequently changing his partners. While these relationships last, he even manages to re-make and re-educate his partner, by which he attempts to “fill in” for his own and another’s shortcomings and flaws.

If the ESI does not succeed in finding a suitable life partner, he doesn’t abandon hope of “constructing” an acceptable partner from who was available to him, following the principle: “I built and shaped him from what was there.” Only after the ESI loses hope of ever “sculpting” the right partner for himself from “unsuitable material”, and at the same time finally figures out what qualities he is looking for in his ideal, he sets out to find himself a person who would be endowed by these qualities - he looks for someone who he can rely upon immediately, who doesn’t need to be “broken” and re-made. It is at this stage that the ESI might be intuitively guided towards her dual LIE, which whom his/her relations may fold very quickly and easily.

And then? Will the ESI aggressively pursue the LIE, declare a “hunting season” and take him by force? No way! The LIE does not belong to the category of people who are attracted by easily attainable goals. Besides, as a strategic declarative type, the LIE does not allow anyone to take him by force. The LIE feels wary and alarmed by any person who bridges he distance with him too quickly, since he is subconsciously oriented at his tactical asking dual ESI, who usually keeps somewhat separately, at a distance from others, and reduces this distance rather reluctantly. The LIE is especially suspicious of people who after trying to demonstrate the “beauty of their soul”, their kindness and better personal qualities, hurry to come into his confidence and trust, which is also not characteristic of his negativist constructivist dual ESI. If any of Jack’s friends or acquaintance suddenly become imbued with affection towards him and ask him, “Hey, how come I love/appreciate you so much?” Jack will think: “Indeed, how come he’s so infatuated with me? With what did I win him over?”

4. ESI-LIE. Closing the distance.

This dyad, as any other, has its own “procedure” for partners to become close, its own code of rules, traditions, and “mating rituals” that are encoded in the dominant psychological traits and “programs” of both types. The LIE is subconsciously oriented at a cautious tactician ESI, whose negativism and problematic intuition of possibilities (+Ne) do not permit him to become close with others too quickly, while his ethical principles do not allow him to impose himself on another person (thereby somewhat limiting the ESI in his right to freedom of choice).

What if the ESI wants to attract the attention of the LIE? There are many other methods at her/his disposal for accomplishing this without throwing her/himself at LIE and hanging on his neck. For example with attractive external appearance, with modesty and sense of restraint, with responsiveness, strictness, discernment, ability to hold himself “in shape”, to create a pleasant and relaxing environment of personal warmth and comfort anywhere where ESI sets his/her foot - with all of this he/she can win the consideration of LIE.

But at the same time there is no need here to reveal all the cards at once: to provide kind services by generous handfuls, to pour them out as if from a “cornucopia”. The LIE does not properly value and appreciate that which came easily to him: we should not forget that LIE is a declaring strategic type with “insatiable” and problematic function of sensing of experiences (+Si) prone to demanding all the best, more of everything and at once. Indulgence, pampered care and satiety of pleasures contradict LIE’s nature as a person who is meant for a rigorous lifestyle and a representative of extreme professions.

Besides the ESI must remain a tactician, at least initially - he must keep up his defenses or at least create the appearance of being on the defense even if no one is “attacking” him. A dual of tactical type is not obliged to give a strategist an open “green light”, and not obliged to create obstacles on level ground (at least in this dyad). But he should be interesting to his dual-strategic, he should know how to provoke and captivate his interest, but then again only by the methods that are acceptable in that dyad. And as much as the ESI would like to reduce the distance with the LIE, he won’t do so without first checking his partner for seriousness and sincerity of his intentions. The ESI also won’t close the distance under certain conditions, when some formalities and decorum prevent him from this.

An “easily accessible” ESI loses his or her worth in LIE’s eyes. It is therefore no coincidence that in socionics circles there exists a stereotype that if an ESI says “yes” then this person is not ESI. However, this isn’t are clear cut as it would seem. Let’s not forget that LIE and ESI are both democratic, objectivist, rational types who dislike ambivalence and poorly tolerate vague allusions and equivocal hints. In this dyad it is customary to name things by their names and simply say what one means. For partners in this dyad it is very important to be sure that they correctly understand one another and therefore can completely trust and rely on one another. Each dyad has its own code of conduct: for a rational dyad this code includes a mandatory adherence to the principles and beliefs of the dyad, readiness and willingness to come to help, honesty, loyalty, and straightforwardness (which, sometimes, with inexperience, may be excessively honest and direct).

Thus, whatever stereotypes and notions exist of Dreisers, for people of this type a “no” is still “no” and a “yes” is a “yes”. And everything that lies between these two polarities, all that hasn’t been decided on and set in stone, lies in the area of “maybe.” LIE, who is “tuned” to the same ethical program, acts in accordance with this dual scenario and won’t pressure and force his partner to anything unnatural or improper - he accepts ESI’s vetoes calmly, gathers his patience and waits.

What if the LIE shows impatience? If the LIE shows impatience, excessive and aggressive persistence, then it’s better to keep away from such an LIE. This means that there are some hitches in his “program of dualization”, which in the future will further disorient and confuse both partners. Pragmatic, self-interested motives on the part of LIE are also not out of the question, for instance a marriage scam or some other mercantile calculation, and this also should be considered if the LIE acts in an uncharacteristic and strange manner.

It is also not characteristic of members of this dyad, carefree objectivists who trust in their own observations, in what they can personally see with their own two eyes, to meticulously check the background of a partner, to gather all the facts about him or her, to inquire about their condition and circumstances prior to the acquaintance. Mainly, this isn’t characteristic of ESI who believes such checks to be unethical. To follow a person around and gather information about them is considered to be indecent in this dyad. Representatives of this dyad will be deeply outraged to find out that they are being “spied upon”, that someone is checking up on them and collecting information.

However, they still need to exercise some prudence and caution in getting acquainted. LIE has his intuition, while ESI as a tactical negativist type holds his guard and distance for a long period of time. And he won’t start closing this distance until he receives from his partner all the information that is necessary for him to make this decision. If he receives little to no information, then he won’t get closer even if the partner is interesting for him. He will catch information with the corner of his ear, but he won’t purposefully investigate himself or make specific inquiries, being afraid to prematurely reveal his interest and worried about offending his partner by distrust, disturbing him, interfering with and upsetting something in his life. As a “program” ethical objectivist type, the ESI won’t allow him/herself to disturb the personal and emotional peace of a person whom he cares about. He will carefully and cautiously close the distance, as is characteristic of asking tactical types, after observing the person from afar.

As we can see from above, everything in this dyad proceeds in a very delicate and sensitive manner. At large interpersonal distances, in the initial stages of relations, of course no special requirements or demands are imposed on the other person - “to each his own…”. But once a partner has “joined your team” and even makes claims to leadership then he will be held to very high standards and requirements: the captain has no right to sail his ship onto the reefs (and this sometimes happens with LIEs). ESI’s worries and concerns over this are understandable - with his problematic intuition he can be either excessively careless or too careful. Thus he tries to safeguard himself by introducing correctives during his interaction with his partner, and influencing him by making appeals to his ethics and his conscience. The ESI tries to direct the “team” by such transparent ethical means in order to avoid possible ruination to which LIE’s careless actions may lead.

Does the ESI succeed in this? Here lies the problem - as a “program” extraverted logical type (leading Te) the LIE doesn’t allow anyone else to manage and control his actions and affairs under any circumstances. Even if he conducts his affairs in the wrong manner or dishonestly, he plays up a role of a person who is most interested in the success of his enterprise and does not allow anyone to interfere with his work. The LIE will display his utmost indignation if anyone interferes thereby displaying their distrust in him. If the LIE senses that irresponsibility and carelessness are advantageous to himself for some reason or another, if he uses this to mask and hide his misgivings or mistakes. Then he becomes exceptionally evasive and elusive, making it very difficult to anyone, including his dual, to “catch him by the hand” and make him give honest answers.

However, there is usually a limit to LIE’s irresponsibility. Any excess of this limit may be considered as a pathology or deviation from the norm, because a sense of duty and certain measure of conscientiousness is inherent to this dyad and ingrained in their deepest instinctive programs, which ensure the survival of this pair. In LIE this manifests in an inert way, as part of an immature functional block (-Se), in response to friendly help and care of his dual ESI. Thus, the LIE cannot completely ignore the requests and pleas of his dual. If this happens, in case of pathological deviations from the norm, then unfortunately the ESI is powerless to influence the LIE. What’s more unfortunate is that the ESI also won’t be able to leave in such a case because he/she won’t right away understand the basis of such irresponsible behavior of his partner.

What may serve as a basis for this? For the LIE it may be advantageous to not provide enough information about himself, to leave some things unsaid before entering the union with his partner. Before entering into a union, the LIE usually tells his partner just enough information about himself, only that which he considers necessary for his partner to know - and no more than that. He may conceal some important information - for example, that he has large debts which he secretly hopes to extinguish from their joint future savings and earnings from their work. He may omit telling his partner about some important ties and connections that he has on the side, about other people who depend on him, or even about his past criminal activities, believing that it’s not necessary for his partner to know of this. He may not mention his secret gambling escapades or other addictions, believing that he will handle them and put them under his control somehow. In any case, who cares about the problems of the past? Who is without sin? While there is still time and opportunities, things can be changed and fixed. The life of the involutor LIE almost entirely consists of these kinds of “fixes” and “changes”. He considers that it is for this that he has a life at all - to change and correct something within it all the time. And thus he proceeds “fixing” it as he goes, sometimes at the expense of his partner, abusing his trust, loyalty, devotion and patience, draining his strength and capabilities.

What can be concluded from this? First of all, the ESI does not have to be that person at whose expense the LIE pays his debts and correct the mistakes of his previous years. The LIE should inform the ESI about the most unattractive aspects of his biography. A dualized ESI is so vulnerable before the pragmatic manipulations of her dual, and so afraid to offend him with suspicions, that abusing her/his trust and patience is the greatest sin.

The LIE (if he is a normal person) should have a normative program of obligations before his closest people, with whom he shares a roof, table and bed. Before entering into a partnership (especially if it’s a serious relationship), the LIE must honestly admit anything that may concern their future life together - his debts, passions, addiction, and prior commitments. And if the partner still agrees to tie their lives together, then he accepts the LIE with all this “baggage”. The ESI should act in a similar manner towards a potential partner (can even tell everything about her/himself at the very first meeting). In this dyad, as in any irrational dyad, in presence of normal relations between partners, it is not customary to hide one’s problems from one’s potential partner thereby deceiving one’s partner and entering relations in such a dishonest manner. All of this constitutes a breach of rules of conduct. Everyone understands that such “baggage” may be both positive and negative, and if one person recruits another then he or she agrees to accept him together with their “burdens” that they will pull together.

Before entering into a union, there must be initial, base level trust in one another. This is not only a natural but is also a mandatory “mating ritual”. Thus it is important to not rush in choosing a partner, to not make any major decisions before verifying his or her decency and honestly beforehand. This is also why it is important to consider and discuss all the “points” and possible “stipulations” of the marriage contract beforehand (often it is at this stage that any dishonest and purely pragmatic intentions of one partner may become evident!). And of course it is very important to get sufficient amount of objective information about one’s future partner, which is something that is often treated too lightly here due to carefree and yielding traits of representatives of this dyad.

5. Part II. ESI-LIE. Relations between two decisive objectivists.

In gamma quadra of decisive objectivists (quadra of the “advance by storming”) serious obstacles exist to be overcome and the rational dyad LIE-ESI is no exception to this. If there are serious deterrents, each partner decides for himself whether he or she needs to overcome them and for what purpose. Unfortunately, the LIE and ESI don’t always coordinate this effort between themselves well, especially if the reason for the difficulties lies with one of the partners.

If the goal is indeed worth it, members of this dyad may take very high risks. They may even put a claim to someone else’s partner considering such a partner to be already “theirs”. This mostly goes for the LIE, who in his search of better alternatives may think that in a different partner he will find a better replacement to his current companion.

This, for example, has happened with one of the representatives of TIM LIE. Being newly married, he moved into a new house where he spotted a young girl, who lived in the apartment next door. He thought to himself: “What a good girl is growing up. Lucky will be the guy who marries her.” The girl grew up and moved to nearby town for school. Soon it became known that she met a nice guy and they are going to get married. As soon as this news became known, the LIE immediately, not even expecting this from himself, went to the nearby town, found the girl, persuaded her to turn down her fiance, and offered himself as an alternative and in all respects the “best” option (and promised that he will immediately divorce his wife). The proposal was accepted, and they returned back already engaged. The LIE kept his promise and divorced his previous partner after several years of happy life together to marry this girl. The age difference between them wasn’t that great. Now they live together, satisfied by everything (a very beautiful couple) and already have children.

How can this “unexpected”, even for the LIE himself, act be explained? It can be attributed to LIE’s subconscious search for alternatives on the aspect of intuition of possibilities (-Ne), which includes the program of “filling in” and making up for missed opportunities, due to which he acted so decisively and operatively. He felt “his other half” in this girl, some ideal partner solely with whom it made sense to create a family. If before that, the LIE could have picked his previous partner via “blind search” and sufficed with whomever was most convenient at the moment, now his approach has changed. Now he wanted to become that “lucky guy” who will get this girl, and fight for his chance and for his and her happiness. He decided to take what he viewed as his.

Can it be said that the path to LIE’s heart is through friendship and trust? Yes, very much so. Therefore, a partnership with LIE is, in the first place, based not on feelings or emotions, but on checking the person in action, in some mutual work. That is, one may not be loved but one ought to be a “member of the team”.

Much depends on LIE’s long-term plans, the timing and terms that the LIE has set for himself. If there is enough time, the LIE won’t force the ESI to close the distance too quickly, considering that ESI will eventually do this himself once he becomes convinced of LIE’s sincerity and good intentions. Most of ethical initiative and the right to close the distance the LIE leaves to his partner, meanwhile he tries to show himself in the best possible light to earn his trust and consideration in the shortest time possible. The LIE grows nervous if he cannot quickly attract a partner, simply because he accumulates many important tasks by that point which he’d like to entrust to someone. Due to this, his romantic relationship with his dual at early stages resembles common “recruitment”. The agreement of mutual cooperation is sealed by signing the marriage papers, after which each of them starts on their work and their responsibilities - everything is very simple and matter-of-fact.

6. The story of one of the dualization.

If the LIE loses all hope in ever attracting his dual and finds someone else on the side, then he will actually become indifferent to his dual and stop regarding him as a potential partner. If the LIE doesn’t manage to win the trust of a potential partner in the periods of time that he has denoted for himself, then he may consider any further attempts to be inexpedient and look for someone who is more likely to cooperate.

The LIE sometimes finds himself in the following paradox: after being extremely egoistical and self-involved in relationship with a dual, and moving from dual to non-dual relationship, the LIE suddenly becomes extremely undemanding and unassuming. Once he has experienced the loss of a person whom he loved, he becomes afraid of losing someone he doesn’t love. He will attempt to appease his new partner at any costs, readily agree to any concessions, tolerate any coercion and intimidation, only to not be alone. Like a moth he can fly towards the fire, towards the most terrible dangers, not thinking about the consequences and underestimating this risks. While at the same time he won’t allow others to save him from possible mistakes (“never fear until the thunder strikes”) - his personal experience, however small, the LIE values and listens to above everything else.

An example: The story took place in one of the schools in late 1960s. Either-grader LIE - an immature and spoiled kid, an obedient son of his parents (father ESE, mother EII) - moved from the province to the city of Leningrad. At the school, on the first day he made some new friends - he became the object of attention of two reckless delinquents of types SLI and IEE, who immediately took him “under their care” and began to “teach him how to live” imposing their opinions on him. All of this was very interesting for him at first, but the main event was that he, from the very first sight, fell for one of his classmates - a girl of type ESI. Of this he immediately told his new friends. His friends characterized her in the most unflattering light: that she is so boring and studious, an unapproachable “ice queen”, that she is a recluse who holds herself apart from others, doesn’t make friends with boys and doesn’t even talk to them, passes them a mile away. According to them he had no chances of winning her consideration - they tried to make friends with her several times, but she didn’t even look in their direction. Then they teased him and enticed him to make a bet with them - that he will achieve his goal.

The LIE guy was very sure that he will quickly and easily obtain this girl’s positive consideration, while his IEE and SLI friends claimed the opposite and did everything possible to back up their claims. They played a double game: on the one hand they acted like the bet isn’t important to them, posed themselves as caring and loyal friends who were only “eager to help him”, took on the role of his advisors - and at the same time they did everything possible to distance him from his desired goal. They knew this girl, attending the same classes with this girl from grade one, and provided the LIE guys with precisely the sort of advice that had the highest potential of upsetting this ESI girl and setting her against him. On their end, they felt jealous of LIE’s optimism and bravado, and also had their own scores to settle with this girl - a few grades ago she beat up the IEE guy when he was harassing one of her friends. For a long time he harbored resentment against her, and now with the help of their new “friend” he was hoping to exact some revenge.

At first the LIE guy acted as a typical schoolboy - he ran around her and pulled her braids, trying to attract the girl’s attention. Not getting the desired response, he began to aggressively attack her, came up with insulting nicknames, egged on her classmates again her, in other words he arranged for a real “hounding” for her (as is characteristic of strategic types). His strategy she met by her tactics: she keep up a tight and all-around defense, which she strengthened the more, the more he tried to “break through” it.

The LIE guy decided to change his tactics from aggressive to demonstratively friendly. He tried to persuade her to change desks and sit next to him, and once he almost managed to persuade her. But before she could do so, he let his hands loose, and she became the center of attention of the whole class. In this school, relations between girls and boys were not encouraged - such was the tradition - and anyone who broke this code immediately became the object of ridicule and gossip of the whole class. The ESI girl knew of this very well and then she imagined the consequences of her friendship with this new guy. She tried to warn him, but he didn’t take her concerns seriously. Only laughed at them and said that he had the most serious intention for their future: he is ready to marry her right now, even though both of them weren’t even 15. Assessing that there is still a lot of time before they graduate from school, and that it’s too early to speak of any marriage intents, the girl left him without an answer after hearing out his admissions and revelations. She gathered her books and moved to her original desk. The LIE guy felt hurt by this rejection: how could she get up before the entire class and move away from him! He decided to declare war on her.

Precisely when she was feeling all romantic and dreamy, thinking about their future family life, he in the company of his friends (the same ones, IEE and SLI) approached her during a break and in the most insulting terms stated everything that thought of her. From this moment the “hounding” resumed. With the encouragement from his “friends”, he started to terrorize her by all available to him means. Now he himself did not allow any attempts at reconciliation from her side, tormented her as much as he could and a the same time suffered himself from all these torments. He was constantly looking for a reason to vex her, to humiliate her, to disappoint her even further. He came up with all sorts of dirty tricks. Tried to shock her by any means. From a good student he turned into a delinquent and tried to assert himself in front of her in this role. The got the lowest grades and behaved himself in the worst possible manner at school. And he constantly let her understand that it is because of her that he “perishing” in every respect, it is because of her that he is heading into the abyss towards all the future troubles. To school nights he came drunk, accompanied by his “friends”. Standing by the wall he would fiercely look at her. He didn’t invite her to the dance, knowing that she will turn him down.

Their rivalry could have lasted for a very long time, but by the 10th grade he began to straighten out - time came to think about graduation. She also thought of their future. All of this suffering was painful for her. She really wanted to fix their relationship, but he had obstructed it, as did his friends and his parents. Wanting to fundamentally fix their relationship, she invited him over to her birthday party, but his “friends” persuaded him not to go. Later realizing that she wanted to give him a chance to make peace, and regretting the lost opportunity, the LIE guys decided to fix everything in one big swoop: make up with her and at the same time offer her something more worthwhile. Six months before the final exams he told his parents that he is dropping out of school and intending to right away find a job at a factory, to receive a specialty and become independent, to then marry his girl and be able to financially support her.

His parents were shocked by such a statement. Father (ESE) for the first time in his life beat him, but the LIE guy decided to show strength of character (and to suffer for his love - what could be better!) Then his mother (EII), seeing that the situation is out of control, came up with a circumvent maneuver: she promised her son to mend relations with his girlfriend and her parents if he agrees to finish school and go to college. But he will have to go to college not in Leningrad, but in Moscow, and if the girl truly loves him she will certainly wait for him. At the same time he can check her feelings for him by time and distance. Immediately his parents invented another story: that they would be able to arrange for him acceptance into the Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) - the only university that only had branches in Moscow and not in Leningrad. To him this option seemed too fantastic and unattainable, but his parents immediately persuaded him, attracting him with the best possible alternative: why would his girlfriend want to be the wife of a simple mechanic, if she can become the wife of a diplomat - why would he arrange a worse fate for her, if he can prepare for her one of the best? Five years later he would return to her as a diplomat, take her overseas for a honeymoon, and if everything goes well she would be very grateful to him.

Blinded by these bright prospects, and being too trusting by nature, the LIE guy immediately ran to see the ESI girl’s mother, eager to tell her of his serious intentions and all these brilliant future plans. The girl’s mother (IEE) was shocked to hear of it. As soon as the door closed behind the guy, she had a talk with her daughter, during which she tried to lower her self esteem: “This boy is too good for you. He’s going to be a diplomat. He will have an opportunity to make a brilliant career, see the world, pick a worthy match for himself. He can marry a girl from the highest circles. And his parents know it. And if he marries you, his parents won’t forgive you. They’ll hate you for robbing him of the opportunity to make a better match. They will try to make you divorce him. So it is better to give up on him. Don’t ruin his life. If you truly love him, you must give up on him and forget him. Do it for him. You still have time to find the right guy for yourself. In any case, it’s too early for you to think of marriage. You still have to find your place in life. A husband-diplomat is not for you!”

[the rest of this long-winded story is not included–it had a tragic end]

7. LIE. In the maze of ethical relations.

What do LIE’s actions represent on the aspect of ethics of relations? Chaos, confusion - would be an understatement. The consequences of these actions can be unpredictable and devastating to all people who are directly or indirectly connected with him.

At first glance it would seems that there is no logic in LIE’s actions on ethics of relations (+Fi). But analyzing this from the position of a search for alternatives, there is indeed a reason for them. This reason is to ethically and intuitively attenuate and wear out his partner to such an extent with the absurdity and unethicalness of his actions, that his partner, tired and confused, will finally agree to any offers and terms extended by the LIE, if only to stabilize the situation and have opportunity to rest and orient himself a little.

Here lies the problem: creating this maze of confusing relations, and tracing it back and forth in order not be blamed for anything, the LIE himself gets thoroughly confused by all these loops, twists, and curves. If he is suddenly surrounded by “well-wishing advisors” who invite him to experiment on his aspect of ethics of relations further, to try to figure out some other original method or approach, which will completely demoralize and confuse his partner, such that all the blame can be then attributed to him, the LIE, following their advice will for a long time proceed to wander around “three pine trees”. Only his dual ESI can help him to finally resolve and disentangle himself from all of this confusion. On his correcting involutionary “program” function of ethics of relations (-Fi), the ESI is able to separate the important from the unimportant, discern true values ​​from false one, and distinguish real problems from imaginary and minor ones.

The trouble is that the LIE, entangling himself in this ethical maze of relations, the more so, the more desperately he tries to free himself, turns to this dual ESI only at the very last moment or doesn’t seek his help at all. Even when he is being tied down by all kinds of inconvenient, disadvantageous, and unfavorable for him conditions, the LIE doesn’t allow the ESI to come close to his “ball” of problems. Instead he hangs in it, like a chrysalis inside a a cocoon, entangled by a variety of chimeric obligations and weighted down by all the dependencies that were imposed on him, hanging over the resolution of one problem or another, but trying to solve everything solely by himself and most certainly from a dominant position.

And once the LIE takes over the “management” over the aspect of ethics of relations, irrespective of his competence in the matter, he won’t yield this position to anyone else. Sometimes simply because it is interesting for him to try to “steer” for himself, “to stand at the helm” and lay out his own course in the “raging sea” of passions and complex ethical relations. The LIE wants to find some kind of new, original, his own, individual approach on his suggestive aspect (+Fi) - he wants to find his own way and make his own discovery. And through this discovery to finally understand what was an inaccessible mystery for him all this time - the complex laws of personal relations. Jack wants to be a pioneer in this matter, he wants to test everything out for himself, try it all out, and develop his own line of conduct, his own program of behavior, and then survey the result.

And how does the ESI look at this? He looks in horror. Dreiser want to drag Jack away from the “steering wheel” and forbid him to come anywhere close to it in the future. Nevertheless, Jack finds a way to go around Dreiser on the aspect of ethics of relations and overtakes the lead. Dreiser will watch all of his nonsensical, confused actions and try to intercept the “wheel” again. And then, seeing that Jack tries hard to resolve the situation by bringing it to an even greater deterioration, the ESI will dramatically and unexpectedly breaks off relations with him just because he cannot tolerate this any longer (pardon the expression) these stupid and crude attempts to direct everything by himself that lead to a catastrophe.

Imagine what the LIE might feel if he could observe a person acting as he wishes, against all common sense and reason, breaking and ruining all the new equipment, causing system failures, jamming up everything within his reach, and ignoring the alarm signals or simply disabling them, saying “We have everything under control!” and not permitting the emergency service system to fix anything because he will “figure it all out himself”, and at the same time trying to claim the position of the supervisor of the department, appointing himself to lead, displacing the more knowledgeable and capable candidates, and not permitting anyone else anywhere near his position to not be displaced. If the LIE encounters such a manager, would he stay and work for him? Of course not! But this is exactly what LIE’s actions look like on the aspect of ethics of relations to the ESI. Then, it is not surprising of course that he gets hoodwinked, ambushed, and betrayed by the members of his own team, forced out of business, run off the “ship” which he was supposedly commanding, “thrown overboard” as an “interference” and an unnecessary link in the team.

LIE’s dual ESI on his set of psychological traits and characteristics has been designed by nature itself for swift, decisive, and successful crisis resolution in an emergency ethical situations. ESI is the only one who is able to fix and correct such situations by “applying pressure on a few levers”, technically speaking, and shifting them in another direction that does not leading to the destruction of the most valuable units and communication systems. But the ESI can’t do his work while being on the same “team” with a stupid, stubborn, despotically dictatorial, foolhardy and self-duping tyrant for a leader, no matter how deeply the ESI might sympathize with this person. (Dualization may occur not with the best dual.)

For Dreiser it may be unbearably painful to watch how Jack stubbornly tries to resolve issues of which he understands absolutely nothing, and then despotically imposes his decisions on others. It becomes painful for ESI to see how Jack hurts and offends good people, how he alienates and distances them, how he destroys good relationships and sacrifices them for the sake of bad ties, that are unreliable, painful, and hold no prospects for him. For Dreiser it is painful to see how Jack plays with the fates and lives of other people around him, not considering the consequences of his actions. It is painful see how he offends people’s feelings, how he drains their health and strength, how he demeans them and lowers their self-esteem. Eventually the ESI becomes tired and runs out of time to fix and straighten everything out for the LIE. And sometimes he simply isn’t able to do so not having sufficient authorization, because the LIE didn’t let him anywhere near to be able to address these issues - the LIE often doesn’t admit to such things, turns everything into a joke and shrugs, or switches the conversation to other topics whenever ESI tries to talk to him.

The moment ESI tries to press “on the principle”, the LIE immediately becomes stubborn and aggressive, stares at him with a hate-filled look, and scowls as at an enemy. The LIE sees in the ESI the messenger/harbinger of potential troubles. He sees in ESI a reflection of his own lapses and mistakes. But instead of trying to mend them, the LIE unleashes all his resentment and hatred at the ESI, begins to “battle” against him, as if trying to destroy him as a representation of all the coming misfortunes and troubles, which are a consequence of LIE’s own wrongful actions. The LIE attempts to shift all the blame on ESI’s head (although he himself won’t admit to this, and continues to persistently deny this fact) and starts to treat the ESI in an oppressive and harsh manner. Demonstratively and defiantly, as if in retaliation, the LIE goes again ESI’s advice and begins to give more support and trust to those who present the greatest danger for him.

Often the ESI falls to blame himself, for no reason, in gratitude for everything good: he is criticized, shamed, guilted in someone else’s errors, and turned into a scapegoat in order to pin all the possible faults to him. In burst of excitement the LIE, as a strategist, can sic his entire team to hound the ESI (show himself as a natural born “paddock hunter”). He may try to “eliminate” the ESI from his circle, kick him from his team, seeing in him a harbinger of upcoming troubles and woes (here the negativism and the “archaic superstitions” of LIE’s activating aspect of volitional sensing, -Se, have their effect).

The ESI comes to understand that the LIE needs a real “culprit” to blame for all the mistakes and disasters - a real “whipping boy” who could be punished for everyone’s edification. But he doesn’t consider himself an appropriate choice for this role - it would be unfair for him to take all blame after all his desperate and persistent attempts to rectify the situation. The ESI does not wish to further aggravate the injustice, especially if he already sees that he was already “marked” by the LIE for future repression and “hounding” and elected for the victim role. That’s when the ESI decides to part with his dual (even if this is his good friend or beloved spouse, for whom much was forgiven). And he doesn’t come back: if a person does not trust him, does not understand what he is doing, and does not wish to understand anything, if he doesn’t listen to his advice, if he demonstratively tries to demean him by word and deed, thus expressing his negative attitude towards ESI’s attempts to care and help, then, of course, it is better to part.

Does ESI not try to “coddle” his dual? He does! He is ready to spend all his strengths and resources on caring for him. And yet, he leaves. He leaves if he sees that there is no reciprocity in these relations, if he doesn’t receive any moral and material compensation from Jack.

Due to ESI’s inherent self-control and stamina his patience can last for some time, but after a while it starts to run dry. The ESI won’t remain “on the team” if he feels that his energy and strength are running out. Who will need him once he is powerless and incapable of doing anything? If this occurs, the ESI takes an indefinite leave so that in the near future he can focus on making a better use of his forces for himself and for others.

The LIE, with his inherent contradictory and unreasonable nature on the aspect of ethics of relations, feeling the void with the departure of ESI (break-up of dual relations can be perceived as very painful), contrasting and comparing him with the remaining team members, assessing the loss, comparing the situation before and after his departure, may come to ESI and request him to return “into the system”. And then it will be up to the ESI to check his own forces and capabilities, to analyze the past and extrapolate the future, and make that decision. He knows that if he turned down the LIE once, the LIE won’t come asking him again - the LIE dislikes having to ask and beg anyone; if he has set his pride aside and made the request, it means he had some very good reasons for it.

If the ESI turns him down, the LIE will harbor a grudge on him and possibly try to exact a cruel revenge. But then if the ESI has left the team, he goes only once and then doesn’t come back following the principle: “If he leaves, it’s forever. So just don’t let him go.” The LIE knows of this, so initially he tries not to let go of his dual and even attempt to keep him by force. In the “interests of the business/project” he may treat the ESI harshly. Getting activated on volitional sensorics (-Se) he ​puts on a fierce and menacing look, starts to shout and scream, tries to prohibit something or other. During such moments, the LIE himself begins to resemble a “jail guard” or “circus tamer” (he only needs a whip in one of his hands), but in the rest, in the eyes of ESI he looks rather funny. This is unless the LIE puts the ESI in an impossible situation, because then he makes a direct blow to ESI’s problematic intuition of possibilities, his “fear zone”, and then it’s no longer a laughing matter for the ESI.

Knowing this (and duals always know about each other’s weak points), the LIE frequently attempts to keep the ESI by applying his own power and possibilistic potential:

On the activating function of volitional sensing the LIE often treats the ESI harshly and despotically, imposes his demands and conditions, tries to impose his will; on his creative intuitive function the LIE is capable of estimating and calculating ESI’s actions in advance; on demonstrative intuition of possibilities (-Ne) the LIE pulls the ESI into inextricable situations out of which the ESI sees no way out, hampers and closes off any possibility of alternative resolutions and actions (“closes off the oxygen” on ESI’s vulnerable function) after which the LIE continues to dictate his will.

In such cases, the ESI is forced to act and operate from a position of force, the result of which is usually an opposition and confrontation of wills (“the scythe hits the stone”). The ESI goes for open confrontation and conflict: he breaks all the ties and all communication, tears down all the barriers and leaves. The LIE frustrated with such course of events will certainly feel hurt and indignant, and start shouting: “That’s not right! You are part of our team! You can’t just walk away, I’m not letting you go! We’re on the same team!” But the ESI no longer wants to hear anything about being “on the same team” and of “team relations”, which have already deeply and irreparably disappointed him - at this stage, he sees them as only trying to pump out his energy, strength, time and resources, bind his hands and feet. Thus the ESI leaves and doesn’t consider himself a traitor for this: his “program” function (-Fi) does not allow him to support a person whom he no longer respects.

Doesn’t the ESI attempt to change anything? If the “frontal leader” is blind, what is there to change? The ESI feels horrified and deeply disappointed by the ethical immaturity of the LIE. On his immature function of ethics of relations (+Fi) the LIE often reminds the ESI of a carefree blind person, who has not only managed to wander onto a mine field, but also proceeds to waltz and dance across it, instead of allowing a “professional sapper” to first work on neutralizing it. In doing the job of a “sapper on a minefield”, correcting and neutralizing “ethical traps”, the ESI sees his involutionary mission on his “program” aspect of corrective ethics of relations (-Fi) - he identifies, reveals, and eliminates all the worst that could be in personal relations, following the principle of “purge the evil from one’s environment”. And after all the corrective, involutionary (“correctional”) work on the aspect of the ethics of relations is done, it becomes possible to move on to “edifying” evolutionary work of quality improvement, increasing this aspect’s ethical potential into the plus.

Note

translator’s note: Function with minus sign, -Fi, transitions from negative to positive zones.

8. ESI-LIE. Relations between an emotivist and a constructivist.

Emotions and feelings of LIE will be interesting for the ESI exactly insofar as they are sincere. An LIE who doesn’t hide his worries and fears can have the attention of his dual much sooner than someone who hides his true feelings behind a mask of deliberate coldness or feigned merriness and well-being.

ESI is a person of action. If he cannot get involved in resolving the problems of the person who is closest to him, he gets bored very quickly. Such relations begin to look empty and meaningless to him because in them he doesn’t feel that there is a need and use for him.

The desire to offer his assistance arises in ESI only when he is directly communicating with LIE and only when the LIE shows his sincere goodwill in expressing his interest in the ESI. When the LIE without “changing his mask” i.e. with a similar attitude of magnanimity and goodwill turns and appleas to other people, the ESI loses all the desire to interact with him any further. This is not only because ESI is jealous and prone to suspicion, and cannot help himself but feel wary after such a quick switch of interest to others, but also because in this case he is given the opportunity to observe not the best sides of LIE’s “acting” and “many-facedness” - his innate aptitude for “formulaic” ethical manipulation. In all of this, the ESI sees “cheapness” and “venality” of LIE’s feelings: emotions that at first were so sincerely and kindly expressed towards him now, is exactly the same delivery and the same range of colors, are being directed at others. Noting this, the ESI begins to realize that LIE’s presentation and acting is just “foam”, from which he sculpts one mask and then another. The ESI becomes mistrustful of the LIE and starts to view him as a person who is capable of “simulating” his emotions and “streamlining” them in order to win over others.

Seeing how easily the LIE continues to extend his attention to others (in equal or even greater degree), the ESI starts feeling himself a stranger, an “extraneous” person in his company; then he wants to get up and leave. Feelings of resentment and uneasiness arise in the ESI - his vulnerable function of intuition of possibilities (+Ne) does not indicate that anything good will come out of this. The LIE to him seems a person superficial and unreliable, and the ESI don’t want to waste his time on someone like this. To be “one of many” in somebody’s escort, to be yet another one of the “groupies”, he does not consider acceptable for himself. The ESI values his feelings and attitudes and all too well he knows of their strength and potential, the degree of sincerity and self-devotion, to allow himself to be treated just as “one of the crowd”. Dual relations in this dyad most often fail at this initial stage, from LIE’s cruel “jokes”, tricks and stratagems, and the crude and tasteless ethical manipulations of LIE who refuses to take his dual seriously.

Again, the “flat” ethical manipulations of the LIE, his overly pragmatic attempts at winning the trust of others and positively predisposing them to himself, start reminding the ESI of a typical “recruitment” into a “team” or “work association”: some handshakes and smiles were exchanged and “welcome aboard!” - you’re already “on the team”. Noticing all of this, the ESI starts to think that there is something very wrong either with the team or the captain - either the captain isn’t a very scrupulous person, or the team is only temporary, gathered for some disastrous adventure where its members will be framed and abandoned the very next day: it seems like the LIE accepts people all too easily and even takes on complete strangers “on board”. And everyone is greeted with the same smile and the same handshake - something is definitely very wrong here! All of this resembles a trap. And ESI, as a negativist tactical type, recognizes traps a mile away.

The ESI cannot feel himself to be another “recruit”. The aspect of ethics of relations (-Fi) is an area of ​​his individual self-realization - an area of ​​free and unconstrained individual choice. Nevertheless the ESI may fall into such “recruitment” and then he feels that there will be no easy way out - time and effort were spent on him, now he is being counted on. If he tries to distance and break off relations, the LIE immediately tries to resume them (declaratim-emotivist) - he calls, inquires why the ESI has gone missing, demands that he shows up to the “general meetings”, comes up with some events and requires the ESI to attend them. The ESI, as an asking tactical type, distances and maintains his defense, while the LIE, as a declaring strategic type, stubbornly tries to close the distance, literally pursues the ESI in the heat of passion, arranging a real “hunt” for him.

The ESI maintains his defense, understanding perfectly well that if he gives in even once and concedes to the LIE, that the LIE will in future view and treat him as “one of many” - someone who can be used, subjugated to his will, made to obey. This for LIE constitutes one of the ways to establish relations of subordinate equality for all members of his team via his logical aspects. He is the “commander” and all others are “ordinary soldiers”; anyone who on his own incentive tries to leave this “line up” will be forcibly returned there.

But ESI is not the kind of person who will blindly obey (asking, democratic type). He constantly falls out of the “general line” and moves away, forcing the LIE to return him back into operation. For the ESI it is not interesting to be “in the pack” and to line up before his dual with all others. The ESI stands for recognition of individual and personal relations that are sincere, trustworthy, stable and long-lasting. He doesn’t agree to anything else, more so being yet another person “among the masses”.

9. Part III. ESI-LIE. Interaction of the declaring strategist and asking tactician.

As a “program” ethical type, the ESI desires serious relations that are ethically dignified and beautiful. In all that concerns relationships the ESI is a maximalist: if you are friends - then be friends for life, if you’re serving another - then serve faithfully and devotedly, if you’re in love - then love selflessly from all your soul. Anything else does not suffice or interest him. He cannot accept ordinariness in relations (“program” ethical type) and neither will he stand “in line” before his dual (democrat: can serve another, but cannot obey).

ESI’s struggle with ordinariness of relations the LIE perceives as a “mutiny on the ship”, as the desire to “break out of line”. Then the LIE decides to conduct some “leveling-educational work” with the ESI. Pretending not to notice ESI’s vexation, indignation, and resistance, the LIE tries to force him to be “like everyone else” - to “circle” around him (Jack) in the same orbit as another ordinary partner, and patiently wait along with everyone else for his share of LIE’s attention and consideration. If ESI begins to show impatience, he won’t get any attention at all - he will start to be demonstratively “forgotten” so that others on his example will be dissuaded to ask for anything more.

For ESI all of this is of no interest. And again he tries to move away from the LIE, while the later again reminds him of himself by new disciplinary measures. These measures are sometimes harsh and despotic and other times enticing and bribing. The LIE, for example, may try to interest the ESI with a new offer or provide some “friendly service”. The LIE periodically assists members of his team, thereby fueling their interest in keeping up team relations and in himself in the context of their mutual engagements.

Providing such “friendly help and services”, the LIE distributes “tokens” of his attention between his team members in a very pragmatic and calculated manner - to some he offers something from his profits, to others something from his new “trophies”. The ESI does not accept such handouts - all of this is too insubstantial and petty for him. He tries not to fall under the influence of these manipulations. He is not very interested in LIE’s services (although he may accept from him some friendly assistance by deed or advice or moral support). With closer contact and more involving and prolonged interaction, in the process of dualization, the LIE becomes interesting to the ESI simply by himself - as one and only irreplaceable friend - as a unique and irreplaceable “half” .

However, the LIE is no in hurry to succumb to the growing sense of closeness (dual unity). Feeling ESI’s increasing affection and attachment to him, the LIE begins to feel himself an “object of pursuit” or “hunt”, which he, as a strategic declaring type, cannot permit. In relation to the ESI he starts to behave himself akin to a “wild horse” - he doesn’t allow the ESI to take the upper hand, doesn’t permit to tame himself. If the ESI turns out to be a very tenacious and clinging person, the LIE tries to induce jealousy: finds himself new “favorites”, spreads himself out on taking care of them, makes expensive presents for others, extends for them a lucrative offer (the same one that the ESI has been waiting from him for a long time). The LIE demonstratively turns away from the ESI and lavishes others with his attention: he takes care of other members of his team, listens to and takes their advice, creates and impression that he has subjected himself to the influence of others (meanwhile glancing at Dreiser, watching how he is reacting to this). The sole purpose of all these manipulations and games is to make the ESI feel like one of many, to make him “get in line” instead of demanding all the recognition for his own person. The ESI ignores all this demonstrative “acting out” of the LIE. He feels offended and upset, of course, but still he won’t join the general line with an outstretched hand and wait for LIE’s handouts.

The LIE realizes that his relations (or romance) with ESI may extend to a long period of time and turn into deep and very serious involvement. Such relations scare Jack (on his weak suggestive function of ethics of relations, +Fi). Therefore, it is precisely towards the ESI that upon increasing closeness and emotional attachment the LIE can display deliberate indifference and alienation and treat the ESI a lot worse than others: he provokes, insults, talks back, pokes and prods, vexes over trifles, and does not allow the ESI to “tame” him. The LIE is very afraid of treachery and betrayal, of new disappointments in a close friend, and therefore he tries to scare and alienate the ESI in whom he sees a loyal partner and friend - just in case the LIE shows himself from his worst sides.

And then the LIE receives the due negative response from the ESI. Ignoring the psychological underpinnings of all of this (also to spite his dual!) Dreiser responds to the actual facts of Jack’s ethical games and manipulations (which the ESI has been observing): to an offense he responds with alienation and distancing, to sharp attacks - by being offended. If relations enter a critical phrase, the ESI is the first to break them: he distances from the LIE to a maximum distance and cuts all contact with him. For ESI is a maximalist when it comes to relations: it’s either all or nothing for him - either he will be LIE’s one and only companion, or he will forget all about him and his “team”. But Jack doesn’t need one and only companion. He needs many companions, who would stand at their posts and do what has been given to them.

As a declaring emotivist type, the LIE especially cherishes friendship and good working relations and ensures that such relations don’t break up and he doesn’t lose them. Thus the LIE periodically refers to the ESI with some errands, hoping to help him “rejoin the team” via these manipulations. He does this so methodically, as if he is checking the working capacity of some circuit on his site. The ESI also feels this, and he understands, therefore he run out these errands with much responsibility (as the “last” friendly service: let him realize later what kind of an assistant he has lost!). Then he distances again, returns to his solitude, and disappears from LIE’s field of view (almost permanently).

Sometimes, after a year or two of such “disappearances”, the ESI learns from a mutual acquaintances that the LIE was actively looking for him. (Sometimes the LIE turns to the ESI himself, other times he sends “messengers”.) But if the relationship has “expired”, hasn’t been renewed and re-activated for a long period of time, because the LIE was too busy with something else, or didn’t need it, the ESI does not return to his dual and does not respond to his calls, even if he still feels an emotional attachment, simply because he doesn’t wish to be “one of many” inconspicuous and insignificant companions in LIE’s life. He does not want to return to this “whirlwind carnival”, to this “comedy of masks”, doesn’t want to be another puppet in the hands of his dual and yet another object of his manipulations. He doesn’t want these cheap, mockingly businesslike and half-fake relations. He doesn’t want to be the one who is constantly duped and played, who is simply used and drawn into playing a double game where objective relations are substituted for friendly ones for the purpose of never being accountable for anything, while getting everything “for free” and always being in the win. The ESI becomes tired of this injustice. He cannot and does not want to simply put up with it, neither does he want to indulge and promote it - this would be against his “program” (“a measure for measure”).

The LIE, who is consumed by his enthusiastic search for better alternatives, typically treats the ESI as a person “to whom one can always get back”, who “won’t go/disappear anywhere”, and who will always forgive him. But about this he is mistaken. Dreiser does not respect (to put it mildly) people who are ungrateful. Ingratitude is one of the the greatest sins in his understanding. He doesn’t make amends with ingratitude coming from his dual, because this constitutes another deep disappointment for him in relations with a close and dear person, and also because it lowers ESI’s self-esteem by dealing a blow to his point of least resistance (+Ne). That is, instead of the expected support of his “area of insecurity and fear”, the ESI receives quite the opposite treatment. The ESI won’t tolerate neglectful and dismissive attitude towards himself, he won’t serve as a “whipping boy” for his dual, and he doesn’t recognize anyone’s command over him. While fighting with one’s dual is same as fighting with oneself: striking and hurting him at the same time you will suffer yourself.

Dreiser becomes tired of the endless and blatant exploitation. Tired of this motley comedy of masks in which he plays the role of an ever faithful and forgiving Piero. Here Dreiser may leave Jack and never return back to him, no matter how much he asks for it, no matter what messengers he sends. If Dreiser has decided to leave - it will be forever. Jack also understands this, but then again prefers to act from a position of a search for alternatives (-Te) - if he has a way of getting around without ESI, or substituting him with someone else, he will do so. If there is a way to make him come back - then he will use it. If persuasions do not help, the LIE acts from a position of force, pressing ahead by an onslaught or a sudden advance. He can also act from the position of limiting the ESI’s options and possibilities, up to the point of locking him within four walls, leaving him in isolation, dependent on his “goodwill”. At this phase of confrontation of wills, the ESI is afraid of making any concessions, expecting the LIE to take them for granted and devalue them (to not feel in debt). The ESI is afraid that the LIE will “steamroll” him while paving the way in direction that he himself needs (as is characteristic of declaring strategic types) and won’t even remember about his dual, whom he lost somewhere along the road, “pressed into the ground”, and didn’t even notice it.

In this dual dyad, the ESI can fulfill his mission only if the LIE trusts him and respects his opinion. But the LIE even here manages to act from the opposite position: he trusts everyone but the ESI - he believes that he always has time to confide in ESI, but until then he will do what others recommend. At the same time, the LIE checks the effectiveness of ESI’s tips and advice. If all other advice leads to worse results, then it turns out that the ESI was right. Then the LIE may summon him to help to rectify the situation if it’s not yet hopelessly ruined. And so it continues: constant urgency, perpetual risk, danger on the brink of ruination, eternal panic and rush. This isn’t a life - but a rollercoaster ride!

The ESI grows tired of all these “sharp curves”, not to mention their consequences - wrecked plans, hopes, losses of people and material resources, for which someone must pay. It would be good if ESI manages to correct the situation. It would be good if ESI’s turn finally comes and the LIE hears his opinions and heeds his advice. Jack by his “arrogant” and “ambitious” but very weak and immature function of ethics of relations (+Fi) sometimes, out of principle, prefers not to see, not to hear, and not even notice the ESI. And otherwise often relates to the ESI with prejudice and with demonstrative neglect (so that he wouldn’t think too highly of himself!), meanwhile falling under someone else’s influence.

Orienting by his observing and hierarchical logic of relations, by which he recognizes exclusive and preferential right to leadership only for himself, the LIE tries not to make a distinction between his dual and other members of the team assuming that this would be unfair, unethical, and a poor example for others. He creates a “leveling” effect in respect to his dual, and equates him in his rights and responsibilities with everyone else. (As with everyone, so with him - why make an exception for him?) Due to this, his dual often occupies the very last place for him, even as an expert on the ethics of relations. If he needs to make some budget cuts, the LIE for restoration of justice and fairness, may get rid of precisely the ESI as an excess “unneeded” work unit, assuming that, if necessary, he will always be able to get him back.

As a result, it turns out that on ESI’s “program” aspect of ethics of relations (area of “innate professionalism”) remains unneeded and unused even within his dual dyad. The LIE tries to persuade everyone and especially himself that he can do well without the ESI. Well, if this is so - “Good-bye, my dear! I will seek those who need me.” At the very least, the ESI always needs himself for himself - the LIE frequently brings him to this thought. The ESI cannot allow his EGO “program” to fall by the wayside, unneeded and unused. He cannot put it aside and let it idle. And he cannot afford for it to go under-appreciated and undervalued because this lowers his self-esteem. Thus the only thing that remains for him is to leave after many prolonged and unsuccessful attempts at winning the trust and consideration of his dual.

10. ESI. The demand to meet normative standards.

Relations in this dyad cannot successfully develop of LIE’s behavior on the aspects of ethics emotions (-Fe) and ethics of relations (+Fi) does not meet certain standards.

Is this important for ESI? This is important for their dualization. Deviations from standards on these two aspects work according to the “domino principle”, creating a series of obstacles and distortions in interaction of partners and a background of tension in their relations.

For example, if LIE is not up to standard on his role and suggestive aspects, the ESI may start experiencing a strong distaste for him and not want to have anything to do with him. And then any of LIE’s attempts to reduce the distance ESI will cut off. The LIE feeling antipathy instead of the expected support on vulnerable and activating aspects, will feel a blow to his weaker aspects - he will feel himself unloved, unpleasant, unattractive. Then, as a response measure, he will begin to terrorize the ESI by all available means. Once the LIE becomes “activated” over his immature “touchy” functions, he will have a hard time stopping. The ESI will have to defend from these sudden attacks on himself (the ESI is the type of person who strikes back at his offenders).

Feeling the alienation and detachment of the ESI, the LIE becomes even more aggressive (he feels offended: he has been neglected) and actively goes on the offensive. During this time, he looks very unattractive in his dual’s eyes (not scary, but unattractive). With such development of events, the LIE has virtually no chance of positively predisposing the ESI towards himself: the ESI will feel irritated by his declarative uninhibitedness and lack of restraint over sensorics (-Se), worried by the tension over ethics of emotions (-Fe) and his greed over vulnerable function (+Si) (the declaratim grip on sensing of experiences). The ESI will be put off by LIE’s desire to arrange his affairs at the expense of others, by his excesses, avarice, brutal, declaratim onslaught and pressuring, in conjunction with strategic excitement which translates into “hounding” a person by means of “paddock hunt” - all of these qualities look very unattractive, alarming, and even repulsive to the ESI (who likes to feel him/herself as the subject of persecution?).

Seeing this, the LIE attacks the ESI with even greater excitement and increases his terror (“war is war”). Attracting and endearing the ESI under such development of events is not possible for him, no matter what he undertakes: the more fierce and aggressive LIE’s attacks - the stronger the rebuff that he gets from his dual (+Se).

The LIE makes a mistake in believing that the quickest way to win the favor of his dual is to try to “steamroll” him with all his might, to suppress his will, to subdue him by force, to break his resistance (“to crush and grind into powder”). With such an approach he only sets the ESI further against himself, leads relations into a dead end by driving them into such a deep crisis from which it’s not possible to return.

Why is all this fighting and confrontation even necessary for them? Wouldn’t it be better to exist in peace? For the decisive quadra types, it is characteristic to arrange for such “trial” ritual confrontation upon meeting one another, as this, for example, happens in the dyads LSI-EIE and ILI-SEE - and this dyad is no exception. The LIE sometimes wants to express himself aggressively towards his dual - to assume a fighting stance, to stomp his feet and swing his fists. After all, the LIE is a declaring, strategic, decisive, extravert who becomes activated on the aspect of volitional sensing.

And so he finds a worthy opponent in the face of the ESI? He does, but he wouldn’t look for this if he knew the extent to which the ESI does not need this. The ESI, after all, is an ethical introvert. To obtain his positive consideration one needs to:

Show that one is capable of self-possession, self-restraint, and patience - all of this is interpreted by ESI as manifestation of willpower; be able to manage their emotions (meet the normatives) be friendly, responsive, empathetic; on the suggestive aspect of ethics of relations trust ESI’s opinions and judgments, rely on his honesty and dedication, be able to accept the conditions on which ESI insists controlling the situation on the aspect of ethics of relations, trust in ESI’s innate understanding on this aspect - for him this is very important.

What about the famous “severity” of the ESI for which this type is considered once of the most brutal ones in the entire socion? Or is this a myth that was invented by his conflictors? The so-called “severity” of ESI is an “emergency program” or “program of emergency protection” which gets “turned on” in cases that his person or the lives of the people close to him are faced by some real and significant danger. The ESI never overestimates such dangers, but due to his “carefree” trait he is prone to understimating them. His notorious “severity” is rarely extended to his partner without a good reason. Such reason may be if the LIE constitutes a danger to himself, to Dreiser, to his family and close ones, or when he is betraying his own principles and values and those of his dyad.

Is this possible? It is possible that the LIE is an alcoholic, a gambler, a drug addict who got drawn into some bad venture or fell under some destructive influence. The “severity” of Dreiser may be directed at Jack when he becomes an “alien” partner who is destroying his own family. But even in this case ESI’s “severity” don’t help the LIE to get himself together and clean up his act, and therefore the ESI usually directs it not at his dual but at those whom he sees as getting his partner into this mess and supporting his self-destructive habits. This is in part because the LIE in such a state doesn’t hear his partner - he becomes unavailable for communication, unfit for normal conversation, invents excuses for himself, remains silent, leaves the house grabbing anything within his reach - he “works” for his illness. But there have been cases when even in such situations the ESI partners did not leave their duals but fought for their lives to the end. Only when the LIE himself rejects his dual, under another’s advice or due to circumstances where he supposedly makes an independent choice - only then does the ESI really leave him. And again, only if he’s unable to affect and change the circumstances.

If a partner then changes his mind and starts to “fool” the ESI around, substitute anger for mercy, antipathy for sympathy, it does not bode well for him. The ESI as an objectivist rational type does not tolerate ambiguity with a person and prefers not to interact with someone who often changes their decisions and preferences. This is the reason that LIE tries to be careful in giving rejections and vetoes - subconsciously he is oriented at the perception of Dreiser, for whom his refusal will sound like a death sentence. Thus, if a young man of type LIE tells his girl of type ESI: “No, I don’t like you,” she won’t try to figure out whether he said this being in a poor mood or on an empty stomach. She will receive his rejection as final, turn around and leave. And then she won’t return to this topic again. On his subconscious instinctive programs the LIE senses that he has very few chances to rectify the situation then, therefore he should always think before giving his answer to his partner.

11. ESI-LIE. Coordination of plans for the future. Interaction over aspects of introverted intuition and extroverted sensing.

The LIE apparently is not as guided by the personal qualities of his partners as by the time allotments that he dedicates to the search for a partner. It would be better for him to approach setting these time periods more creatively and flexibly. Nature imposes her own time frames for personal and physical development of partners, for evolution of their relationship, and these terms should also be considered.

Here we can give another example of early dualization, where a young man LIE didn’t hurry his girlfriend of type ESI to get married but waited for several years until she got older and he was almost 30 himself. They met when he was 16 years old, and she was only 10. They lived in the same house. He was like an older brother to her. He protected her from other kids in the neighborhood, met her after school and escorted her home. And they both felt, literally from the very beginning, that when they grow up they will get married. He protected and cared for her as for his future wife. After finishing school, he went to serve in the military and was wounded in the war. She, being a 16 year old girl, traveled to the war zone to the hospital to care for him. He was horribly maimed, but for her it didn’t matter - the important thing was that he was alive. They got married after he graduated from college and started his own business. His business went well and he was able to pay for her education. It was only after she graduated and gained some professional experience and after they moved to their own apartment that they had children, one after another with two year difference.

Why is early dualization often not very successful for the LIE? Because the LIE may not attribute much value to his very first experience, approach it as a test or a trial, view it as an experiment that wasn’t successful and which he shouldn’t regret - in future there will be more trials and experiments and some will be successful! With the early experiences, his “program for search and selection of a partner” is still in the “development and testing” phrase, which is especially true of relationships in the adolescent years. At this stage there may be temptation to go against the guidance of one’s “inner voice” or intuition and try out something more unusual, challenging, or exciting. The LIE experiments exactly for this reason - to find some new, original, and more rational solutions.

And does this also apply to LIE’s personal relationships? This primarily applies to them. Who said that one needs to exhaust himself in the pursuit of a girl? One only needs to find an approach to her such that she will quickly yield, and then apply this method successfully in the future. But in a relationship with the opposite sex, this “experimental path” sometimes turns out to be the longest, especially if the LIE does not listen to his own intuition and ethical programs that orient him at dualization. A lot of time passes before the LIE begins to realize that by rapid storm, siege, and cavalry assaults he won’t win over Dreiser and won’t earn his respect. Patience, dedication, and good deeds are the surest way to the heart of his dual.

The LIE dislikes “sawing the sawdust” and returning to the past, meanwhile taking away time from the present and the future. But so that the past doesn’t beguile and draw him in again, he can with meticulous precision again and again try to recreate the conditions of his first “experiment”, in attempts to understand what he had done “wrong”. In this sense, the LIE remains true to his very first love. But his faithfulness to one love and one partner the LIE may combine with the search for alternative, episodic partners, “haphazard” companions who become his partners until “the next turn”. The permanent partner is the one with whom the LIE builds long-term plans.

And with these “casual companions” can the LIE cheat on his permanent partner? He can. There are many examples of this to be found in the biography of Jack London. With LIEs this happens frequently. The LIE is not very discerning in picking his “companions” and at the same time somewhat trusting and gullible (positivist type), inclined to be on the lookout for alternatives, enjoys changes (including change of partners), not very stable, easily drawn into new ventures (including ethical ones), given to succumb to the present temptations.

Given the reputation of type ESI the reader may wonder how does the LIE end up with such a partner. Wouldn’t he prefer a partner who gives him total freedom and as much distance as he needs? The LIE by his own nature is very freedom-loving and democratic. A partner who functions as a “jail guard” is categorically not prescribed for him. From such partners the LIEs either run away or fall sick and die in the prime of their life. But the ESI, even if he has been driven to desperation from constant absences of the LIE, as much as he might wish for it is not able to be such a “jailer” simply because he feels that this is unethical, undemocratic, and immoral. In the opinion of ESI, in accordance with his objectivist democratic EGO program (-Fi), relations between partners must be built on mutual trust and respect for the rights and interests of one’s partner if these don’t contradict the interests of his family and his “team”. For this reason, a wife of type ESI frequently becomes accused by her family and relatives in excessive trust and yielding attitude towards her LIE husband, especially if something goes wrong: “You didn’t watch him, didn’t check where he goes after he leaves. You’re at fault yourself for allowing him to let loose.”

To suppose that the LIE can sacrifice the interests of his family and his “team” for the sake of his own entertainment and whims is unthinkable for the ESI, at least in younger years, due to ESI’s sincerity, credulity, naively, and the euphoric state of dualization. Therefore, this insight comes to Dreiser with a lot of difficulty. The cruel reality is disappointing. The ESI recalls the warnings of his relatives, admits to himself that they were right, but still he can’t change anything in his relation to Jack. He becomes a hostage of these relations, continues pulling his load but feels deeply unhappy. Trying to shame the LIE and call to his conscience, the ESI stumbles upon LIE’s blind, stubborn resistance. If the LIE has found himself in advantageous and comfortable for him conditions, why would he give up his position? He will continue to parasitize on his partner.

12. ESI-LIE. The tendency towards isolationism and self-sufficiency of dual relations.

It is very important, at least during the first stages, to protect the dual relationship from potentially negative outside influences. Let dual relations be closed off and self-sufficient at least initially - strong and united in themselves, as is required for creation of a solid, reliable, viable, and fully protected the family (in which, as a fruit inside the solid peel “ripens” the future happiness of partners, creating the most favorable conditions for them and their future children).

In this respect, the ESI, as an ethical sensing type, has certain advantages: he is able to create for his dual favorable conditions for existence - he builds a “cozy nest” that the LIE no longer wants to abandon.

An example: In 1930s Leningrad, in June, during one of the “White Nights” two members of this dyad have met one another. She - a young, beautiful girl of type ESI worked at the information desk of one of the railway stations. He - young man of type LIE, a factory worker, one day had to catch a train. He ran to the help desk where she was working, glanced at the girl, asked a question, got an answer, ran a few steps, then turned back, looked closer to her and saw a fantastically beautiful girl with blue eyes and long braid, next to her some flowers in a glass of water. He asked when her shift will be over. By the end of the day he came to her with a bouquet of flowers and asked her out for a date.

All evening long they they walked in the park, sailed on a boat, sat in a cafe. At the end of the week they went to the registrar and signed the marriage papers. She had a small but cozy room in a communal apartment where he moved after signing the papers. They lived in perfect harmony. None of their friends and acquaintances knew that they were married. Nobody envied them, nobody tried to “give advice” or set them against each other. They lived quietly and happily. She was a good housekeeper, diligent, hard-working, and economical, so that their modest salaries were enough for everything, their home was always neat, and there was always food to serve to the table during the weekdays as well as on holidays. All of the free time they devoted to each other.

And so they lived peacefully and happily without any complications. With the exception of one episode. Some time after they moved in together she noticed that things started disappearing from their home. First, it was old, worn clothes, then even newer things started to disappear. She questioned him about it, and it turned out that he in secret from her did some charity work: he gave away the clothes to poor people who couldn’t afford it (And in those years this was the vast majority.) He explained that they have everything that they need - why not help others? She had nothing against humanitarian help but within reasonable limits. She reminded him that she is not a magician and cannot materialize all the necessary household things out of thin air. After this conversation items stopped disappearing and the young couple continued to live in harmony.

A year later they had a daughter. In the summer of 1941, he was among the first recruits to go to the front. His wife and daughter stayed in Leningrad and survived the blockade. Letters came from her husband until the summer of the 44th year. And just before the end of the war she got a “death notice”. She wasn’t even 30 and was already widowed. She didn’t remarry, although she had many proposals. Her daughter grew up, went to school, got married. She nursed her grandchildren and lived to see her great-grandchildren. She lived to a very old age and kept the most cherished memory of her husband.

What makes this example notable? It is notable because of how standard it is for this dual dyad. Partners united in the shorted time possible, reducing the pre-marriage rituals to a minimum. Very soon they created a family as a reliable, functional system, a “cell within society” that was well maintained and protected from all sides. They organized their family as a reliable and well-functioning mechanism, as one united team, in which all participants were aware of their responsibilities and faultlessly performed them. Their relations were based on mutual trust, friendship, cooperation and understanding. If there were any misunderstanding between them, they were resolved quickly. This is a classic example of dualization in this dyad. Sympathies arise immediately, while strong feelings such as love, loyalty, devotion - come about later as a consequence of already existing relations.

What would happened if the misunderstanding over disappearance of items didn’t turn out to be favorable to the LIE? If the ESI caught the LIE on abusing her trust and confidence, if she received a factual confirmation of this, if there was some criminal activity behind this, then she would have had to part with her LIE husband. The ESI would be alarmed by the trend itself: today - things disappear, tomorrow - money disappears, the day after tomorrow - he is gone. Then why prolong it? He can be gone today. (The ESI as a decisive, carefree, rational, sensing type is frequently sharp, merciless, severe and incisive in his/her decision and verdicts.) When it became clear that her husband wasn’t planning anything wrong but only became too involved with the idea of solving global social problems by material means of one single family - his own, viewing its material resources as wholly under his own undivided ownership, his ESI wife had to introduce some correctives and clarity to this situation and clarify some of those questions and problems that preoccupied her husband. After that the incident was closed and the couple continued living peacefully and happily.

This case is a classical example of ideal dualization. Life sent them two trials: one small, episodic one, associated with this ridiculous “misunderstanding”; and one large, indefinite one, associated with war, separation, her early widowhood and lifelong fidelity to the memory of her husband.

13. Part IV. ESI-LIE. The tests for solidity and endurance.

A dedicated partner is needed by all, but for the LIE the relationship is most likely to succeed only with representatives of TIM ESI.

People of other types arrange for harsh and demeaning loyalty tests for the ESI, with which the ESI naturally cannot put up and accept - this is all too cynical and unethical for him.

And LIE? Does he not set up such tests? Only if he is being encouraged by “well-wishers” who want to ruin his relations with his dual. LIE himself has no need for such tests. It’s enough to take one look at Dreiser, in work, in relations with other people, to immediately understand that this is exactly the person that he needs - operative, diligent, fastidious, responsible, highly professional - if he’s taken up some assignment or work, he does it well and can always be relied on. Within his “contract” or “agreement”, the ESI fulfills all his obligations. But he won’t allow a change in terms along the way: what has been included and discussed is exactly what will be carried out. The ESI will imede attempts to change the terms (rational type).

What happens if LIE after all decides to set up tests in their personal relationship prompted by the advice of “well-wishing advisors”? The ESI immediately guesses that someone is trying to set Jack again him. He also understands that the “trial” may be prolonged to an arbitrary period of time, may be incredibly harsh and demeaning, may turn into open terror. And besides, if the LIE has already gotten “hooked ” on this program , if he has already got himself into a state of “sporting excitement”, then until he explores all the permissible limits, until he depletes all the resources within the framework of what is possible, until he squeezes all the juices out, he won’t rest. While the prospect of becoming a “squeezed lemon” is not acceptable for the ESI. To become the object of a “sporting bet and trials” for him is demeaning and upsetting: his endurance, stamina, and patience deserve a more worthy application. On the aspects of -Fi/+Se his confident and self-esteem are sufficiently high and he is in no need of any additional checks.

Dreiser does not allow his partner - dual or non-dual - to go around testing the limits of his patience, strength and vigor. He does not allow to abuse his trust and friendship, even in “the interests of business”. Dreiser does not get involved in affairs and matters that are founded on blatant abuse and debasement. Therefore, as soon as these “checks” begin, as soon as Jack from someone’s instigation of himself begins to test the limits of ESI’s “strength” - the limits of his endurance, enegy, vigor, stamina, viability, and trust - that is, the LIE starts to treat him as an object of his “technical experiments” (“activating” function of -Se) - the ESI immediately breaks up their relations, breaks up his “contract” on basis of deviation from what was agreed upon, and leaves to never return. ESI’s vulnerable function (+Ne) starts ringing the “alarm signal”, and he feels that he simply cannot stay on the same “team” with such a person.

Foul play, in all of its manifestations, the ESI sees as ineradicable evil - he views it with hostility and suspicion, and thus with many people and “teams” who rely on this he doesn’t stay along. Especially with those who start playing such game as a test, trying the ESI out “for a tooth”, seeking to learn whether he is made from “pure gold” (whether indeed he is so honest or just creates an impression).

Dreiser doesn’t need such checks. He won’t be a “guinea pig” for multiple trials and tribulations even for his dual. Especially since Jack himself doesn’t need such tests - they aren’t congruent with the scenario of dualization for this dyad. As objectivists, rational, democrats, ESI and LIE try to minimize the duration of pre-marriage rituals. They try to get to their regular work as soon as possible, so that they can immediately get to working on and resolving their common problems and seeing each over in joint effort, while a honeymoon can be postponed, combined with one of the vacations. And this “trial” month, that also serves as honeymoon, is not an extraneous test of capabilities, but a direct inclusion into the family life. (Get married and it’s done - the wedding dress goes in the trunk, roll up the sleeves and join in the common work. Whoever shirks his or her responsibilities is an unsuitable partner.)

Most often it happens that it is the LIE who shirks from work. By his previous engagements and agreements, his fiends drop by all the time and take him to attend to “important matters” - fishing trips, hunting excursions, of somewhere else of the sort. While ESI has to work for the two of them. From such duals the ESI also eventually leaves, but again, only after a long struggle.

Dreiser doesn’t forgive his offenses and his offenders. Thus he doesn’t get along with many, and remains only with those who show sympathy towards him, who trust him, and whom he trusts, sympathizes with, and respects. This is why some measure of compliance to ethical norms is very important for the ESI. It is important that his partner exudes optimism and goodwill, that there is unconditional trust and respect between the partners, that there is a sense of responsibility for oneself and one’s partner that would urge the LIE to take action for the good and the benefit of his family, so that dedication and integrity manifest in his every action. Otherwise their relations won’t last long.

This is why Dreiser, at least at first stages, needs closed off and self-contained relations with his dual, so that at least at first stages he can protect his partner from any destructive influences of his “fans” and “well-wishers” (who advocate for his privileged position in the family) and protect his dual from the disorienting effects on his suggestive function (+Fi), since LIE easily falls under another’s influence on this aspect, thus almost anyone is able to disorient him.

Thus, for example, LIE’s benefactor Huxley (IEE) might say: “I think you should first make sure of your partner’s feelings, and only then make any important decisions.” The LIE will accept this proposal as good counsel and wise advice, and then proceed to lose his ESI partner forever. (That is, if this “well-wishing counselor” doesn’t push him out and take his partner first.) Then later this “well-wisher” will comfort the distressed Jack: “See? I was right: she was too “weak” and failed the test. You did the right thing that you tested her.”

Subconsciously, the LIE realizes that he has made a mistake somewhere - but where? - this the LIE tries to understand, to identify his error, and he cannot. The error of this “good and wise” advice lies in the fact that a person was equated to a technical object, and then his/her properties were tested as would be done with any other technical object, which in itself is immoral, inhumane, and unethical: today his “subject’s” patience was tested and stretched to its limit, and what will be done tomorrow - place him in a salt bath and pass an electrical current through him?

What seems acceptable from the point of view of declarative model, where logic of action is combined with intuition of time (-Te/+Ni) and opposes the aspect of sensory experiences (+Si), is not acceptable for the asking model where ethics are combined with sensing, and get severely revised and corrected. This primarily goes for any attempts to view and treat a person as an object of technical research, testing and experimentation. In the asking model where logic of actions is implemented through the aspect of sensing of experiences (+Te/-Si), such an approach to a person is considered to be immoral, unethical, and unacceptable: one cannot subject a person to heavy physical testing, for this is cruel and immoral. Exceptions are made only for professional, service, military recruitment and selection of candidates, but in such cases the conditions and physical loads are discussed and agreed upon ahead of time.

LIE may be encouraged to test his partner’s feelings also from advice of Hamlet (EIE), for whom the aspects of logic of action and sensing of experiences are also antagonistic (+Te/-Si).

Typically, the ESI rarely allows himself to be drawn into something “on a dare” or a bet. As a negativist tactical type, he feels wary of such “traps” and does not want to be led by those who, in his understanding, behave in an immoral manner drawing others into such “tests for suckers”.

What if Dreiser was pulled in, say, he wanted to prove something to someone? Then consider that he perished. Any person would perish if he gets lured into such “checks”. He won’t be able to simply disengage and leave - he will be encouraged on continuing with the experiment. Everyone wants to see what the result will be, but experimenting on the people near and dear is inconvenient (dangerous, potentially harmful to them, undesirable). Thus others are found - those who can be easily drawn into such games “on a dare”. The conditions will be made harsher and harsher - it’s an experiment after all! - while people’s physical and moral endurance has a limit to it.

Dreiser, as an ethical sensing type, feels both physical and moral limits of people very well. He tries to not get drawn into such experiments and guards his dual away from them. The later may be difficult to do, for the LIE as a declaring type with strong logic of action and weak ethics of relations can be easily drawn in, and won’t consider this unethical or a personal transgression of any kind: it’s so interesting after all to check what the people near and dear to him are made of! What he is implicitly testing for the LIE doesn’t even fully realize himself, that he is testing his partner for physical endurance and strength, for readiness to limitless sacrifice and devotion. It’s enough to encourage him a little, to incite him to such an experiment, and the ESI becomes a subject to harsh and brutal checks and exploitation. Further what is expected of his is limitless endurance, patience, and devotion. One the LIE embarks on this path, he doesn’t veer and furthermore he considers all these tests for be fair: you never know the difficulties that could happen in life, it is necessary to check the partner to be ready for anything.

What is the role of the benefactors of this dyad (SLI and IEE)? With Jack’s help, the “well-wishing” experimenter IEE tries to pull the ESI into this “test for suckers”. He can sense the hostile attitude from his supervisee, as well as his internal wariness, alertness, and resistance. At the same time wanting to punish the ESI for his intransigence, trying to pull him into more trouble (where there are tests - there are risks), the IEE increases the pressure on his vulnerable function (+Ne) to explore the limits of what is possible and permissible in this experiment, again using his supervisee as “material for experimentation”. The ESI begins to feel this mediated by his dual revision and rebels: “On what grounds is this being done?” He tries to leave the game and save his LIE partner if he still hasn’t become too deeply hooked by this experiment and too confused and disoriented under the influence of his “well-wishing advisers”. If these dual partners already share a bond, both of them may fall under this influence and end up in a hopeless and desperate situation, both can get pulled into this too deeply and later perish. Bot of them can by this ruin their relationship and their lives, as it has happened to the LIE guy in our very first story who fell under the influence of his IEE and SLI “friends”. Until they have had their fill “playing with their toys”, until they have investigated and depleted all of the possibilistic potential, this pair of experimenters, IEE and SLI, won’t give up on their “guinea pigs”, won’t let them go.

Seeing that LIE himself is unable to find way out of this situation, the ESI, tries to show him the danger on his own example and dives, head first, into these murky waters (often this happens in his younger and more impressionable years, when he is too taken by dualization). He joins the experiment himself, falls into the same whirlpool, with all the ensuing tragic consequences. He suffers a defeat in the struggle again his “well-wishers” (especially if they have subordinated his closest partner, Jack, to their influence). After despairing and admitting his defeat, Dreiser agrees to any alternative simply because further development of events for him already has no meaning. About this, in retrospect, he will regret and reproach himself, blame himself for everything that has happened (that he didn’t intervene quickly enough, that he didn’t fundamentally change anything, etc.)

What can Dreiser change if his closest dual partner while formally being his partner in reality becomes an “alien” element to him? What can he do if his dual partner becomes an enemy of his own dual relations and acts as if he is an enemy to himself, fighting against his “other half”, his dual partner, allowing him/her to become humiliated by anyone who wishes it. From the viewpoint of the ESI, who is the carrier of core moral values ​​of their dyad , such dual does not deserve respect. Only in the eyes of a young, inexperienced girl could such dual evoke feelings of pity and compassion. For some time his ESI partner may accept the circumstances, become dependent on his dependencies and the influence of his “well-wishers”. Our of her/his loyalty to the partner the ESI can become a “slave of a slave” - suffer together with him, repeatedly try to save him, seeing how he “out of spite” for her triumphs and declares his victory while rolling towards the abyss. Then she may decide to part with him, but then again, only after the LIE himself first loses interest in his dual partner and doesn’t show any initiative in restating their relationship for a long period of time.

The ESI, nevertheless, will for some time expect his/her dual to return, despite the fact that the LIE doesn’t take any initiative to reunite, falling under the influence of his “well-wishing advisers” who will be, in the mean time, instilling into him a sense of guilt before his partner, and convincing him to not renew this relationship to not complicate things any further, persuading him that it was hopelessly ruined, that his partner won’t forgive him. While this uncertainty exists, the ESI will also feel that his/her obligations remain in force.

It happens that the LIE doesn’t want to resolve this uncertainty for him - he feels that it is better for him to simply “freeze” the relations at this indeterminate point and then go on to live a full, multifaceted, versatile, and interesting life, in which there is no room left for his dual. To shift all the blame to him, and thus clear his conscience, the LIE can always come visit him later, after a long absence fall on his head like a pile of snow from the roof, and then act surprised, pick a fault at something insignificant, start up a quarrel from scratch, and then accuse his partner of betrayal, unfaithfulness, and disloyalty.

The ESI will be awaiting such a return. He will try to clarify where they stand and their relations, to put all the dots over the “i” - he will try to have a serious talk with Jack before he gives him an ultimatum. But the LIE, seeing that his dual is in a fighting spirit, will try to pacify and reassure him with gentle and kind attitude (on his own ethical aspects) and try to influence him on the aspect of logic of actions (Te, suggestive function of ESI) - he comes up with objective reasons for his past absences and plausible causes for their future separations, promises a quick a safe return, promises to see him soon, then he falls out of ESI’s sight, travels somewhere far from home and then he “lets loose” and “kicks back” in full, feeling himself a free and independent person.

The loyalty and fidelity of Dreiser is his cross and his torment, the chains and shackles for the duration of his life. On one hand - this is his dignity, the other - the “curse” of his EGO program. But if the aftermath of the careless actions of his dual are tragic and irreversible, the ESI, of course, won’t forgive it to himself: he will give freedom to his feelings (which for ESI is strictly forbidden) and then he will wear himself out with repentance and remorse, torment himself by his feeling of guilt, especially if someone else inspires him to this.

Nature itself has prescribed for the ESI to hide his/her feelings from strangers, to protect them from mockery and criticism of his “supervisors” and of anyone who tries to shift the blame on his head. And first and foremost - to avoid any “experiments” for manipulation and testing of his strengths and his feelings and those of his partner. This is something that the ESI cannot reconcile with: why artificially create tests when life already creates so many?

Life with the LIE is already a test in itself: test of loyalty, friendship, separation, test by risk of him getting involved in another dangerous adventure, in another search for new and better alternatives, which he will try to use to make up for his past failures, swaggering around and taking risks as if he’s at the card table, sacrificing better options in hope of finding worse ones.

14. ESI-LIE. The “negativism” of ESI and the “positivism” of LIE.

LIE’s problem lies in the fact that he doesn’t see a system in ethical relations that emerge around him. He doesn’t sees such patterns. And what he sees, he doesn’t believe in blind childishness of his suggestive function (+Fi). Or even worse, he gets so frightened but what he has seen that he panics and like an ostrich hides his head in the sand, leaving himself unprotected from all the sides. But even finding himself on the edge of the abyss the LIE manages to “banquet and carouse” without thinking about the consequences. This is very much in his style: the situation is worse than ever, and he is participating in another fiasco before rushing into a new adventure even more dangerous than the first, as if he is trying to dissolve all the troubles with his merriness and optimism, dispel the darkness by light, and arranges for a “real feast during the times of plague”. And the more the clouds gathering over his head, the more merriness and cheers he adds to this chaotic feast.

The ESI looks at all of this terrified. He realizes that if LIE has gone “all out”, then he cannot be stopped. With a carefree smile and a child-like naive look, the LIE as if doesn’t see what is happening all around him. Then it turns out that even if he sees and realizes something, he doesn’t want to believe in it and chooses to ignore it in the childish-pink dazzle of his suggestive function (+Fi). In such moments, the LIE becomes extremely stubborn, doesn’t listen and doesn’t trust the advice and warnings of Dreiser.

The LIE feels much more comfortable with the child-like intuitive types of Delta quadra - Dostoevsky (EII) and Huxley (IEE) - than with his dual. These types, in general, strongly influence LIEs: both of these are declaring types, self-confident in their own right, gentle and compassionate, forgiving of his flaws and lapses, often able to find them a justification and positive explanation. They wish him (Jack) all everything good and an all-permissive emancipation. They give advice based on their best motives. Thus, the LIE loosens up around them, renews his hopes for the best, and then flies without breaks heaven knows where, falls into some unfortunate disaster or encounters very real obstacles, which he in his blind confidence wasn’t willing to see and recognize. Under such direction and with such attitude the “crash landing” isn’t even important for him. The main thing is the sense of freedom of the flight, the speed and the elevation: “soared up above the roof”, fell, but still happy - he’s survived such an adventure!

While the negativist ESI puts restrictions on every such “adventure”. The ethical “program” of ESI generally adds a lot of constraints on the logic of action - don’t do this, don’t do that - while the LIE wants to be daring and win! Of course, from this point of view it is easy to understand why Delta intuitive types EII and IEE are more attractive and convenient to be around for the LIE. They are “his guys” - they have a similar outlook on life and manage to be successful and childishly careless at the same time. Why can’t he live his life in the same manner?

In actuality - why not? Then he would have to become a representative of another TIM, adjust to the system of values of Delta intuitive types, abandon his own priorities and all his typical analytic and creative “tools”, and turn from a decisive type into judicious, child-like one. If the LIE chooses such path he indeed becomes alike to a Delta intuitive (his benefactor or semi-dual): he adopts the same mannerisms and system of value, becomes led by his own ambitions, participates in the “vanity fair”, becomes a hunter after success. Trying to combine the incompatible - characteristics of his own TIM with a “foreign” one - the LIE often tries to cut corners, becomes crafty, invents some roundabout maneuvers that are supposed to pave a short road to success. That is, he actively works on his demonstrative function of intuition potential (-Ne). As a declaring type, he tries to accumulate and retain all that which is most valuable and necessary from that which is his own and that of others.

Frequently, the LIE retains the “foreign methods” of achieving success in his arsenal longer than his own, in order to check and recheck them endlessly, and try to understand whom are they helping, how and why. While ESI’s tips and methods of achieving success the LIE generally ignores or discards immediately as inefficient and therefore absolutely unacceptable for him. This is not only because the “logic of actions” of ESI (his suggestive +Te) seems ridiculous and childish to the LIE (the ESI is not a pragmatic, executive type, thus his general business advice the LIE doesn’t even take into consideration), but, above all, this is because ESI doesn’t make an impression on LIE of being the “lucky one”, someone who is accomplished and achieving in all respects.

In all that relates to success, and primarily the technology of success, the LIE is a maximalist. He needs everything and at once, and only the best. His “philosopher’s stone” he searches by method of trial and error from hastily collected material, using for this purpose any object - of high or low quality doesn’t matter. If he hears that someone has a “cow that whistles” or a “cock that lays eggs” he will attempt to procure for himself the same kind of cow (what if all of a sudden something will work out? - one has to try!)

But sooner or later he will have to make the choice between his and others’ priorities, because the conflict between “alien” to him and incompatible values ​​becomes too taxing, and to feel like a traitor to his own interests, values, and aspirations will be quite difficult for him. It is easier, of course, to not think of anything (the LIE is already predisposed to it on the carefree trait), to not think about the consequences and go through life without discerning what road one is traveling. But this also means losing touch with his own EGO “program”, logic of actions, losing touch with himself, losing himself, becoming no one and nothing - losing his guiding strand.

Sometimes, in attempts to “retain himself and be himself” the LIE recollects his senses and wakes up, but it’s too late - by the time he has thoroughly forgotten his former self, forgotten how he was before he has gotten on this illusory path. Upon “waking up” he may realize that he is lost - he has forgotten about his previous priorities and aspirations, many of which will be devalued and discounted by his “pseudo- well-wishers” under whose influence he has fallen, the betrayal and concealed envy of whom he will see too late, and then react to this “discovery” too painfully: despairing he begins to destroy what little he has left - the minimum of an established way of life, the health that he has left, the not yet burnt ties with relatives, teachers, parents, friends of childhood - that is, he begins to destroy everything that he has at one time sacrificed and rejected when he decided to become the hunter for easy profit/success. Such destruction for him will be equivalent to a burial - “my life has been a failure - now it is necessary to crush the roof and undermine the foundation, and bury oneself under the pile of rubble”.

It is exactly to these most valuable ethical and material values that the ESI returns the LIE, collecting them little by little, restoring them from ashes. Here a lot depends on the positivism, level of trust, personal experience and personal orientations of the LIE. The ESI understands this better than anyone else. Therefore, if relations do not seem to him hopeless, if they haven’t reached a dead end, for as long as there’s hope, the ESI will fight for the LIE trying to fix and rectify the situation, will try to return to his dual to the system of coordinates that is natural for him, to his original values. Dreiser will give up this fight only if the dual turns him down and rejects his support and friendship, because nothing can be put into “a clamped fist”, more so if this fist pushes away a helping hand.

15. LIE. In search of a better alternatives.

Falling under the influence of his “benefactor” (and the dyad IEE-SLI does not leave the dyad LIE-ESI without their attention: uses them as guinea pigs for their experiments designed realize their other-worldly boundless fantasies and ideas by checking the possibility of their implementation into practice) the LIE often views his marital relationship as a kind of fabulous journey into the magical land where his partner seems to him as a kind of “goldfish” that realizes all of his desires on his demand - that cares and caters to him day and night, serves him faithfully, carries him on her hands, brings coffee to his bed. “And why not? - the LIE wonders (on the incentive of his benefactor - infantile intuitive type IEE) - “Such idyll exists in other families - so why can’t it exist for me? We must strive towards this, so that it would be like this in our family.” Arriving at this conclusion, and finding in the face of his dual ESI a suitable implementer of his ideas, the LIE starts treats him in an exploitative and infantile manner, demanding from him exorbitant concessions as soon as his real requests have been met. As the resources of his dual and his family become depleted, an epiphany hits Jack and he starts out on a search for another partner. This may happen without separation or divorce - when the hard-working ESI tries to provide for the welfare of his family and works tirelessly day and night, meanwhile not knowing where his dual partner spends this time and what he is doing in the ESI’s absence (meanwhile his LIE dual justifies his/her behavior by saying that the ESI is gone all the time and only comes back to sleep, doesn’t give him any attention, thus the LIE is “forced” to entertain himself on the side - what else is there to do? life is passing by after all …)

The search for a life partner in an effort to find the best one of all the possible options can turn for the LIE into an interesting “hobby”, a “chronic illness”, an involving and exciting “game”:

Tatiana, type LIE, 48 years of age.

“I believe that our life is like a small laboratory in which various experiments and research is carried out, the results of which can be both positive and negative. This is the same way that I approach my search for a life partner. When I was 20, I got married because I thought that if I don’t get married now it will be too late later - I will never get married. So I got married, lived with my husband for seven months, then said: “Sorry, dear, our marriage was a mistake.” And divorced him. Six months later I remarried . Lived with my second husband for two years. And then I realized that this man was a complete stranger to me, so I told him: ” Sorry, dear, our marriage was a mistake.” And divorced again. Six months later I was married again. We lived happily for seven years until my husband died. I mourned him for a couple of day, and then I said to myself: “Tanya - stop! This won’t work. Life goes on, you have a child to raise - you have to live!” And seven months later I was married again. We lived together for thirteen years, and it was such a joy! I don’t have enough words to describe it! But in 1998 a financial crisis hit and after the crisis he didn’t act like a man - he acted in a petty and despicable way. That’s when I realized that I don’t need this man. I told him: “Sorry, dear, you and I have made ​​a mistake and I will fix it.” I divorced him. Since then, I’ve had other proposals and other partners. But all of this wasn’t for long. And now I’m 48 and I am actively looking again. Because life goes forward, time is running ahead, there is less and less time left for me to arrange my life. Time is pressing me - I need to hurry!”

It turns out that in process of such a muddled and chaotic search the LIE risks ending up with exactly that which he/she was trying to avoid - being left alone. With his sociability the LIE cannot allow himself to be left alone - how can a “captain” be without a “crew”? The LIE in everywhere and in everything, in work and in travel, needs a “team”. His current plans (the work of his creative function) often depend on the presence or absence of an acceptable company.

16. ESI-LIE. Mutual aid over suggestive aspect of logic of actions and ethics of relations.

ESI is a good companion for the LIE as an ethical sensing type (“social club”). The ESI sees his mission in protecting the LIE, ensuring the he has a reliable and secure “back front”. This is also what prompts the LIE to be so proactive in search of a partner - he has to hurry and protect his “back” as soon as possible, thereby untying his hands and freeing himself to move forward, onto the “real work”.

From what does the ESI guard the LIE? From everything that may constitute a danger to him: from creditors, if another one of his “projects” falls apart, or if he goes bankrupt and loses everything (LIEs are very reckless - in order to recoup a loss they may risk with the very last of what they have - bad luck comes and goes, thus it seems to them that good luck is smiling at them just around a corner.)

The ESI also guards her dual from the dictates of the relatives, and the claims of his fair-weather friends, who take advantage of his pliability, and who may pull him into risky adventures, dangerous projects, gambling bets, or some bankrupting liabilities. Suffice to recall how many freeloaders and dependents associated with Jack London during the peak of his popularity, and what huge sums of money he paid to people who were complete strangers to him. With a wife of type ESI nothing like this would have happened. But with a wife of type IEE - no problem - he’d have to pay for the whole of “queen’s court”, all of the jesters and followers and her numerous relatives, expend one’s own strength, talent, and life on all of this.

How can the ESI guard/save the LIE from troubles and disappointments? By working alongside him as a “lie detector”. ESI’s ability to see “the other side of the soul” of a person can shield the LIE from many betrayals, evils, and troubles - it can save him from dangerous and undesirable associations, from harmful passions and addictions, from false friends and pseudo- well-wishers. Many of them the ESI won’t permit to get anywhere close to his/her dual (unless the LIE impedes this himself). When ESI’s “lie detector” gets turned on at full capacity, both his dual and all his false friends feel this instantly. The ESI won’t allow them to twist ropes out of his dual, entangle him with promises and drown him with liabilities. Although many of these “friends” will later complain to Jack: “Your wife talks to us so strictly that we’re afraid to call you or drop by.” The LIE then presents these complains to the ESI: “Why do you talk with my friends so harshly?” And the ESI replies to him with a whole list of misgivings of these supposed “friends”: so-and-so pulled you into a questionable venture that left you without a penny, so-and-so borrowed money from you repeatedly and never repaid, so-and-so pumped you up with some crap that landed you in a hospital, so-and-so took your car and broke one of the backlights and never paid for the repairs - for each such person the ESI has a “dossier” and can recall all their misdeeds and list them for the LIE at any time, so that the LIE doesn’t forget who let him down. The LIE himself isn’t rancorous and doesn’t keep ill memories for long - as declaring, positivist, objectivist type he follows the principle “forgive and forget. While the ESI doesn’t forget any offenses and offenders, and in this they complement one another.

What if the LIE has previous agreements with his friends and has already given out his promises? Then it is necessary to take a closer look at what these promises are and to whom they were given. The ESI can make the LIE turn down some of his previous engagements and promises if they are not feasible, or if they are destructive to him and his family, or based on something fraudulent and questionable. But at the same time the ESI shouldn’t encourage irresponsibility and egotism in Jack - this can turn against him in due time. Before teaching the LIE how to be less responsible it is better to teach him how he can better choose his friends and associates.

But if the ESI doesn’t do anything about some of LIE’s previous engagements this can also be turned against him: the LIE can then refer to some promise he’s previously given to his friends and use this to escape any responsibility before his dual, sneak out of the house to evade domestic duties. However, if the LIE really wants to leave, then nothing can hold him (least of all his dual), because all of ESI’s ethical principles the LIE can turn against him - in this he is extraordinarily clever and inventive. (Dualization, after all, can happen with a person who is not very conscientious and disregards any ethical principles. Though this is unadvisable - don’t follow the principle “doesn’t matter who it is - if only a dual”.) In any case, the ESI should rely on his/her own opinion, impressions, focus on own feelings and perceptions, on the principles of his own ethical program, be uncompromising and don’t deviate from his vales even in the slightest. And instill these principles into Jack - this is his primary task.

Is the ESI able to cope with such a task? If he stands firm, then he will cope. This is why he is given his program ethical and creative sensing function - to save and protect his dual from may careless or dishonest acts. That is why the ESI is so strict and harsh in driving his ethical “commandments” into LIE’s subconscious as if they were nails, educating him by making him pay attention to his and another’s acts. If there is a lack of proper ethical coordinates in this pair, the responsibility for this falls on the shoulders of the ESI - he represents the ethical core of this dyad, carrying its timeless basic vales, its founding canons and principles.

The ESI cannot (and should not!) encourage any foul play on behalf of he LIE. Under any circumstances, the ESI shouldn’t back down from his/her own principles, and if he does back down he will pay for it dearly. The LIE who is accustomed to forsaking his principles can go as far as abandoning his “team” or take over someone else’s partner. And he will have enough excuses and justifications for this: “What is mine - is mine. What is your - is ours. Go on, share, don’t be stingy - you and I are on the same team!” To this the ESI cannot object. His partner’s interests for him are sacred. He is also least inclined to assume that his partner may abuse this. Until he becomes disappointed in Jack, the notions of “team solidarity” and “interests of the team above all” have a magic effect on him: he is a part of a team and serving his team is a way for him to successfully realize himself. Thus to his dual (who often is also the captain of his team) he can share the last of what he has - will save him under any circumstances, vouch of him, sign a guarantee for him at his own risk, counting that his partner will appreciate these gestures, mobilize his will and carry out his share of responsibilities, that his conscience won’t him betray and let down a person who is so devoted to him. But if this happens, Dreiser himself will be the first to suffer from being too trusting and yielding. It is a great sin to cheat someone who trusts you unconditionally.

17. ESI-LIE. The dyad traits of “yielding” and “carefree”.

Problems in this dyad often arise due to carefree and yielding traits of both of these types (Reinin traits). In this dyad both partners are carefree types. The carelessness of ESI (his lack of hindsight, excessive compliance, acquiescence) in conjunction with the nonchalance of the LIE, his desire to take risks, to find alternatives, to learn only from his own mistakes, to trust only his own personal experience, often leads to disastrous results, to such vicissitudes and “sharp turns” of life from which not every couple can recover. It happens that they “crash” with such a force that later they have nothing to offer each other. And then they may prefer a “convenient” parting to an “uncomfortable” partnership.

Is this decision the right one for them? Not always. Sometimes it is necessary to warn or advise these partners against parting solely due to slight “boredom” with one another that has affected their sex life and their desire to continue living together. On an example of a young couple, husband - LIE and wife - ESI, which was ready to part because he is a “workaholic” who has gotten too involved in his work while his wife has gotten involved with his colleague. For almost a year she was “held on a hook” by a suffering from loneliness ILI, and she has gotten so fascinated by him, tormented herself and her spouse so much that her husband was ready to give her away to anyone, if only she calmed down and was happy.

And this situation was resolved? Not without much difficulty and with the help of Socionics, to which both spouses have shown significant interest. After the future prospects of her romance were outlined to her, after some of the psychological characteristics and traits of her “hero” were outlined for her, and after she was supplied with advice on how to test the seriousness of his intentions in the shorted time possible, she calmed down and cheered up a little, and quickly grew disappointed in her “hero” (his reaction to the tests surpassed all her expectations) and soon she switched her attention back to her husband. She started to follow his work, leisure, exercise and food regimens, take care of his good mood and his well-being (that is, she took on her duties for this dyad), and the relationship in their family quickly improved.

It is said that ESIs are sometimes overly frugal and almost starve their partners. But this happens only if they are made to exist in very monetarily strained circumstances, if their partners allow for this. The LIEs must be fed well! Or they will start looking to the side - the very same Dumas (SEI), for example, puts down softer sheets and feeds with tastier food, and in love and sex he is an absolute “artist”. On the aspect of sensing of experiences, the ESI, with his meager meals and puritanical sex, can’t even compare. But let us not digress - here we are talking about dual relations.

As his dual, the ESI doesn’t over-indulge the LIE. The LIE who is too satiated with pleasures and pampered becomes lazy, delicate, and non-viable. (And especially repugnant to himself.) This is why a caring ESI does not allow the LIE to overeat, does not show his kindness by the way of unnecessary extravagance. As a rational he provides for his dual wholesome and varied diet even on small income of the family. Coming back home after his work day, the LIE doesn’t always notice what he is being fed or whether it’s tasty - the main part is that it is healthy, filling, and prepared on time. Those who complain about lack of entertainment and tasty, varied food are not workers-Jacks but idlers and moochers.

For example, a charming woman of type LIE was despondent over the material and moral dependencies of her ESI husband, who to her seemed too tight-fisted and meager. Her husband worked for 1.5 - 2 shifts with few days off, but at the same time and he led the household, took care of many chores, and managed their budget budget saving money (on the money that he saved, they bought a larger apartment, a new car, and sent their children to study to a respectable private school). She, in all the time of their marriage, has never worked anywhere - she sat home with children, took courses in foreign languages, then took classes to change her occupation. On these courses, she found success with many gallant young people who provided her with numerous signs of attention. The courted her exquisitely, not considering the costs, and for her this whole stream of pleasures and attention became a norm for life. Eventually, all these adlterers started to annoy and bore her, moreover that she had to constantly lie, invent something to not get in trouble with her husband and lose her family, for which her conscience tormented her. After some thought about what is more important to her - thrills, gifts, and varied partners; or her family, hard-working husband, her children, and “protected back front” - she came to the conclusion that the later was still more important. As is characteristic of her TIM, she developed a plan and methods for reconstruction of family relations: made ​​a list of everything that she wanted to change, what wasn’t acceptable for her, and figured out the order and the time frames for what and how is to be corrected. Then, of course, she did not back down from this list - she has complicated the task for herself not resolving even the basic problems. The was the easy part - LIE’s own EGO “program” is oriented at the “reconstruction” of everything that is most important to him/her. The most difficult part was for her to admit that she lacks in self-criticism - instead of complaining and faulting her husband, she could have taken a look at her own actions and herself.

So does it turn out that a boring dual is better than no dual? A “boring” dual does not mean a “bad” dual. “Boring duals” happen only to lazy partner, who don’t want to invest work into their personal and family happiness. If LIE is complaining of boredom and harshness of his ESI dual, he needs to find something better to do. It is better to do without a dual, than to have to coddle such an infantile egocentric partner. Moreover in this dyad, where the partners have to prepare themselves for “difficult happiness”, for life’s test and tribulations, for extreme conditions of existence (others don’t happen in this dyad), to the whole days spent working, and not to light and pleasant pastime.

For LIE and ESI life is first and foremost - work. And all spheres of life require investment of labor. Love for the ESI is primarily the efforts and the labor that he invests. In this dyad, choosing a life partner is first of all choosing someone who will work together, side-by-side. The ESI is so gentle and cautious in getting close to a partner because he understands that he will work for the well-being of this person his entire life, and with maximum exertion of his strengths and energies not sparing any effort. Thus the time and efforts of this dyad are not spent on empty entertainment, but reserved for “actual work” for the hard realities and problems of life, which demand full dedication and exertion. The activating function of LIE (-Se) is oriented exactly at this, and for this very reason ESI’s demonstrative function (-Si) limits him in pleasures. As a result of this, both partners in this dyad try to lead a healthy way of life and engage in healthy recreations.

And what are the main aspects of the sexual “program” of this dyad? The partners in each other want to feel primarily a strong hand, sturdy shoulder, and a warm heart which is ready to sacrifice everything for the other. A heart that beats in unison, a heart of a friend - this is what is most important in this dyad. Strong embraces - this is what is important here (but embraces of a friend, not an enemy, not a “snake” that wraps around and bites, such that you’ll have to spend your entire life trying to clear out its poison). A friend with a soul as clean as his or motives. Nevertheless, these partners don’t hurry to open up their souls to one another - but once they open, they say everything without reserve, pay with revelation for revelation. Intimate life here is built on mutual trust. Close relations end as soon as lies begin. (At least this is what is accepted among the normal representatives of this dyad: for lies and deviations from the norm here the price is too heavy.)

As for the rest, each dyad has its own sexual “program”, and this dyad is no exception. To sex they devote a lot of effort, so that in the morning they can wake up feeling good and be ready for tomorrow’s working day. Physical fatigue and each other’s state here is approached with understanding - if the person has worked hard all day, he needs to rest. But a tired from boredom and idleness deadbeat or slouch in this dyad won’t find understanding - he will either be chased away or made to work with maximum output of his energy and strength.

Particular attention is paid to the fairness in distribution of workloads, forces, and responsibilities. This task usually falls to the LIE with his understanding of his team as a precisely fine-tuned and oiled mechanism, which needs to be constantly adjusted and readjusted, watched and guided, monitored on all parameters to adjust the loads of each link. Therefore, it is a poor set of circumstances when the LIE isn’t working in the family. Then he may start looking for something to do in other families, and leaves his own. However, a family where the LIE has build and established everything himself he is very reluctant to leave (even if not everything there is acceptable for him). The LIE highly values the results of his work, even modest ones. Neither does he want to feel himself a deserted from the “work front”. An ESI who dualizes with a deadbeat LIE has to be despotic and fall heavily on his volitional sensing function. The ESI knows that to guard the LIE from straying and cheating, from betraying the interests of the family, he needs to be made to work for his family (for his “team”).

And those who pamper them on feather beds, surround them with pillows, feed them from a spoon and turn them into “fattened pigs” or “indoor lapdogs” - do the LIEs leave them? The overly caring they leave in the first place. The role of an infantile, capricious creature preoccupied with seeking pleasures does not fit Jack in any manner. This is what awaits them in conflict relationship. The heroine of the last story has perhaps deviated from the course because she was raised by a SEI mother, and thus sought and expected the same kind of devoted care from her ESI husband. (Analyzing intertype relations, unfortunately the influence and impact of values imparted by the parents cannot always be estimated and analyzed.)

It is especially important to understand everything thoroughly and in time, to warn duals of possibly fatal to their relationships mistakes and to return them to their dyad’s original values. But to save them from their mistakes, this doesn’t mean to save their relationship from falling apart. Especially in this dyad where partners try to understand everything on their own, personal experience. Especially the LIE - until he accumulates enough of his own bruises, he won’t learn, while the ESI has to tend to this “child” and wait until he gains enough life experience to start believing his dual.

18. The dichotomy “one’s own—another’s” partner.

Dual unions fall apart completely only when the partners become antagonistic to one another over the course of development of relations. In this case, the partner who has invested the greatest amount of effort into trying to keep the partnership in actuality invests them in vain, or against him/herself.

As we have already mentioned, in a dual relations, a very important dichotomy is “mine - another’s” partner. And in this dyad, this is completely so. All the worst in this dyad starts to happen when the LIE starts to mercilessly and pragmatically exploit the ESI for the benefit of someone else in service of “another’s” interests - interests of manipulative “well-wishers”, friends, relatives, or other partners who have influenced him. The LIE himself becomes a victim of manipulation of others (who often make him tighten his terror), while the ESI becomes a victim of his partner-“antagonist”, who is now working for and defending “foreign” (antagonistic) interests that go against the interests of his own family and his closest dual partner. Most often, in this dyad, this happens with the LIE. The LIE is typically egocentric and easily falls under somebody else’s influence if it involves sensory and psychological discomfort. The LIE, for example, will sooner part with his dual if his dual is disliked by his parents and relatives than endure through their nagging, grumbling, and malicious attacks: he would rather allow them to set him against his dual and become antagonistic towards his dual partner in this case. He will only come to his dual partner for his “trophies” (for new “tributes”), keep in contact with him only to take something away or “win” something over from him. He will methodically and consistently destroy his life, destroy their relations, and their common family if they have one. Trying to make such partners-antagonists reunite, even if they are duals, is impractical and pointless as well as dangerous - this means helping them to continue destroying one another.

What can strengthen their union and save it from falling apart? First of all, a deep and unshakable interest of partners in each other, that is, a basic feeling of gratitude that one’s partner exists, that he is simply there. Often this realization comes only after the loss of one’s dual partner, or in an emergency situation as a result of a shock from fear of losing each other.

An example of this is this story of a young family. The husband (ESI) worked as a musician but couldn’t earn enough money, until his wife (LIE), a young and enterprising woman, has persuaded him to change his profession to building wells. She has researched and developed the methodology herself, found him an order, and her husband went to work. On the very first pit the soil started sliding over him. His wife, who wasn’t too far away (she was preparing food for both of them), heard his calls for help and not losing a second called and organized the local people to help. She descended into the pit herself and started digging him our with her bare hands, sending buckets filled with earth upwards, where they were emptied. In doing so, she saved enough time for the rescuers to arrive, and they did what they had to do to pull her husband out. And only after her spouse has been safely rescued from the well and sent to the hospital, she allowed herself to cry, giving freedom to her emotions. Her husband, as was established at the hospital, got off lightly with minor injuries. She has also escaped with “slight shock”. But now they know what should be cherished in marriage. As his wife says: “We are both simply happy that we have each other. We already know that while both of us are alive, nothing will interfere with our marriage, nobody will separate us, nobody will draw us apart - not the “third-extra”, not “another woman” - nobody! We both realized that the fact that we are together - this is the greatest happiness! And no other evidence is needed for us.

“And I’m wondering” - inquires the reader - “after this incident, has the wife let him return to his former profession or decided to continue with further technical development in new business?” - I would like to believe that she let him return to his former occupation because exchange music for digging wells - this is too great of a sacrifice even for Dreiser .