Mirage Relations INTp and ENFp by Stratiyevskaya¶
This intertype description has been written by Vera Stratievskaya. The original article can be found at her blog Socionics from Stratievskaya.
1. ILI-IEE. Intuitive deadlock.¶
In this dyad, we encounter a contraposition of two types both of which possess strong intuition. Both of them are “negativist” types, oriented at being ready to resist any troubles. The ILI is the “farsighted” intuitive type, while the “carefree” IEE often views himself as so, since he, more so than ILI, considers it permissible for himself to use any opportunity, any chance (even someone else’s chance) to save himself from troubles.
The ego-centrism and intrusive uninhibitedness of IEE, his inordinary style of thinking and ability to penetrate into the core of things, oppose the individualism and freethinking of ILI, his prescience and foresight, his ability to understand the essence of events and see their origins and development over time.
Both representatives of this dyad are “negativist”, “objectivist”, “declaring” types who prefer to learn from experience and mistakes of others and preferably at someone else’s expense. Both of them may push a person towards making a mistake, place him or her in conditions that stimulate towards it, and then watch what will happen. Both try to manipulate the other, both are perfectly capable of bluffing, and both quickly enough recognize in one another a worthy, but dangerous opponent. Thus, at first stages they prefer to keep their distance i.e. they may work side-by-side for years before attempting to become closer.
While becoming more closely acquainted, they proceed with caution and attempt to control their interpersonal distance via intuitive means: IEE by his observing intuition of time +Ni (“…we’ve been seeing each other for a year and he’s still uncertain…), ILI – by his observing intuition of opportunities -Ne (“…if everything doesn’t turn for the worse, it’s possible to think of future plans…”). Such intuitive opposition along observing functions can last for however long stretch of time unless IEE takes the initiative as an extravert with creative ethics. Even then, IEE may do so up to a certain point, to only intrigue and interest the ILI in himself, then watch what will come out of this.
From a distance, IEE usually activates the ILI on the aspect of the ethics of relations (Fi) and supports him on the aspect on ethics of emotions (-Fe), demonstrating himself to be an attentive, sensitive, and soulful companion who catches the meaning of his partner’s words from half a sentence. Flattered by such attention, to return the favor ILI tries be of help and service with his wise and useful advice. Here he shows his rational, pragmatic qualities, as well as his good judgment, and warns the IEE against possible mistakes and miscalculations. (That is, supports him on the aspects of logic of actions and logic of relations). Meanwhile, IEE will adjust himself emotionally to the ILI and create an environment of light and easy communication. (Support the ILI on the ethics of emotions).
At first stages, the easy and unproblematic nature of their relations, which flourishes at significant interpersonal distances, combined with gentleness and helpfulness of his IEE partner leads the ILI into some confusion: he begins to think that he has encountered conditions that are very convenient and comfortable for him, and which should be made use of for as long as there exists a possibility without promising anything in return. Initially ILI feels satisfied that his IEE partner, with all his irrationality, doesn’t attempt to negotiate or settle anything – IEE, of course, tries to be above agreements and restrictions so as to not limit and deprive himself in possibilities. This, at first, is very convenient to the ILI.
Trying to not abuse the responsiveness and hospitality of his partner, to not disturb existing balance in the relationship, to not deplete their resources and upset this environment, in order to extend this idyll for as long as possible the ILI attempts to set a rather slow but also somewhat stagnant pace to this relationship: he uses the opportunities provided to him in moderation, accepts them while verbally expressing his gratitude, tries to be exceedingly sensitive, and suffices with what he has while not demanding more. According to his regulatory sensing function, ILI plays the role of a person who is unpretentious, unassuming, undemanding and intended to continue the relationship in the same spirit and under the same conditions. But IEE soon makes it clear that his patience is not as limitless as his partner would have wanted, and that his kindness and sympathies are not as altruistic as they appear. IEE starts feeling annoyed by the indefinite lingering uncertainty of their relationship.
Attempting to control the situation via monitoring of intuition of time, +Ni, the IEE doesn’t allow the ILI to shorten the distance too quickly. Being subconsciously oriented at dualization with a persistent, obstinate, strategist SLI, and not getting the expected response from the ILI, thus not feeling a deep interest from his side, the IEE starts to create obstacles from nothing, thinking in the following manner: “If desired is reached too quickly, then it just as quickly falls in its value.” (Or: “If a woman is too available, then she ceases to be interesting to the man.”). This Huxley cannot allow! Attempting to “warm up”, somehow ignite or excite the interest of his partner, the IEE acts by ILI’s own methods of “delays” and “procrastination”, seizing ILI’s initiative in this respect via intuition of time.
From his side, ILI attempts to intercept the initiative of the IEE via intuition of potential. As IEE’s dual, the SLI, Balzac is also capable of putting on a “show off mode” – he is able to present himself in the best possible light proving himself to be a useful and need person, while being activated by IEE’s ethics of relations. He demonstrates his judgment and foresight, as well as his erudition, expertly expressing his opinions on any topics or issue at hand and sharing his ideas, hypotheses, observations.
Quite soon, relations slip to an indefinite exchange of views and opinions, which at initial stages is acceptable for the IEE, when he is interested in collecting interesting to him information, but not very convenient for the decisive ILI who is expecting a quick shift from words to action than can be awaited from him. If the expected decrease of distance does not occur, it can be assumed that neither of the partners finds the other particularly attractive.
Both of them conduct their “intuitive game” as a “spare option” – spend the evening at one place, then go for a dinner to another, in order to meet each other for a pleasant pastime and to not miss out on meeting potential friends and promising acquaintances. Who knows, they can be invited over for dinner one day so that they can keep a conversation over the table, or one can join their dinners and gatherings and meet someone else there – so many options and possibilities! Both partners become aware of all these possibilities and try to present themselves as useful, interesting, and prospective, viewing each other as a “reservoir of opportunity” from which with patience and time something interesting or useful can be extracted. Each speaks of his interesting or prominent and influential friends and acquaintances. IEE carefully listens to ILI’s stories and advertises him before his company: “Such an interesting person with such a large circle of friends!” Observing such a reaction, ILI soon begins to realize what kind of “currency” is accepted and converted in this “bank of opportunity” and then he bluffs in full force, enjoying the chance to spend time in warm company and replenish his stock of impressions while time and resources allow.
At first stages such situation is acceptable for the IEE, but later on this begins to annoy him. In the declarative model time is money, and in this pair both intuitive declaring types end up spending their time hoping that these meetings will be transformed into something more worthwhile, but neither of them rushes to do so in order to not upset the balance. Neither of them extends any substantial promises, neither of them refers to the other with specific requests – both are afraid to disturb the harmony of relations and losing that which they already have. Often both consider their relations to be a friendship and nothing more. As time goes by, the topics of conversation are exhausted. ILI coming over to IEE’s place “for a cup of tea” stocks up with new subjects for the table talk, and at the same time often feels himself uncomfortable: someone else brought flowers or a new dish for the table, while he once again comes only with a subject he has read from the morning newspapers.
2. Interaction of two stubborn tacticians.¶
If the IEE is a sensitive and tactful woman interested in such a partnership, then wouldn’t she smooth over such awkward situations with her diplomatic ethics? This is possible, but a woman ILI interested in a partnership with an IEE will act in a similar manner. Although in this she will also be aided by diplomatic logic of relations – it is not necessarily to look more intelligent, more clever, or more interesting that the partner, it is enough to simply be such. The main task of a tactical type is to interest a partner in himself, to make the other his shadow, obliging and unpretentious, to impose on his partner a “supporting program”: let him follow around and grow used to it, and then, when he is used to appearing together in the same general company, then may be by inertia he will become a permanent partner and life companion. Emotivist IEE, with his creative ethics of relations, sees ILI as precisely the person who can be effortlessly manipulated – accommodating, accepting the will of another (-Se), inert, quickly growing accustomed to everything good and pleasant, capable of giving in to temptations and enticements, readily following his habits and his whims (it would be enough to simply get him “hooked” on such habits).
Starting from these assumptions, IEE tries to befriend and “tame” the ILI, permitting himself to experiment with ILI’s habits, tastes and preferences. This is also conditioned by IEE’s “Pygmalion complex” – the desire to sculpt a perfect creation and then fall in love with its perfection – which, in combination with IEE’s declaring model, enables him to view a person as a plastic material which yields itself to molding and modeling, allowing the IEE to feel as the creator of a new species of human being – “homo utilia”, endowed with exceptional abilities and belief in his creative powers, and ready to use them upon the first request (or demand) of his educator and mentor-“creator”. This Pygmalion complex is originally designed for IEE’s dual, the asking type SLI – a capable and hard-working individual, who, as is typical of asking types, is not always sure of himself.
The passion for bold mentoring and remodeling experiments in conjunction with the conviction that any object can be transformed and adapted for oneself, and any person can be “re-educated” for the benefit of themselves and society, makes the IEE become involved in this relationship with an ILI with an increasing interest and passion. However, with further communication, he begins to feel more and more disappointed with the result – declaring type Balzac seems to him to be too stubborn and unbendable, too single-course and single-minded. If ILI comes over to give advice and share his observations in exchange for the few entertainment choices provided to him by the IEE, he will stick to that plan. One can, of course, offer him to go see a theater play or a movie, but if relations aren’t close, then IEE will have to purchase the tickets himself and then improvise and say that he simply happened to have an extra ticket (“…my friend wanted to go but she cannot make it… “). At the end of such cultural excursion, Balzac, again, will speak only on those topics that he has prepared in advance. IEE will soon start feeling bored in such company. On intuition of opportunities, he can think and arrange things for himself. Thus, Balzac’s tips, advice, and “surveillance” are not of particular interest to him, a fact that usually the IEE doesn’t hide. He also does not welcome anyone else seizing the initiative over the aspect of intuition of opportunity. He himself is not averse to intercepting another’s chance or opportunity and does not consider this to be a wrongdoing of any sort.
Time goes by and Huxley begins to notice that Balzac is benefiting from the ongoing situation and is indeed in no hurry to move from verbal discussion to concrete assistance and specific actions: “We have been meeting for a month and he still hasn’t demonstrated his intents.” Balzac also notices that his “omniscience” and advice are not implemented or realized by Huxley in form of any specific or useful activities or projects.
At this stage, the potential and possibilities of his IEE partner start seeming to be somewhat exaggerated to the ILI. IEE’s wish to be of service now seems to be empty promises, concerning which the ILI feels himself in the right to be offended – how long can he be taken for a fool? Is he even valued and appreciated here? But Huxley, however, is in no hurry to move from words to action; as a tactical intuitive type, he, too, knows how to wait and never rushes to make specific offers. If he does end up offering something, then he won’t rush with implementation unless it concerns his own vital interests. He is in no hurry to throw around promises because in his view this would be too imprudent; advances are not granted for nothing – each needs to be earned. Any service, any possibility or opportunity is always better to reserve for oneself. Any other form behavior is fundamentally contrary to IEE’s own intuitive program.
The IEE is subconsciously tuned to a sufficiently strong and vibrant in sensing SLI, and expects that good deeds and useful initiatives will be undertaken primarily by his partner. While ILI is subconsciously tuned to a responsive and hyper-proactive sensing type SEE, and is expecting the IEE to demonstrate more initiative.
3. Interaction of two declaring pragmatists.¶
Thus IEE and ILI both become “stuck” in their waiting positions. What can they do? Both of them are program function intuitive types, both are negativists and both are afraid of take hasty actions (which may be a source of ridicule), afraid of losing some intuitive advantages and benefits, afraid of revealing their interests prematurely. Both are pragmatic, declaring, objectivist types: they are wary of wasting their resources and obtaining nothing in return. IEE’s thrifty sensing of experiences aspect is in suggestive position, while for ILI it is the role function. Both of them try to “rake in” resources for themselves. Both like to receive gifts, but don’t like giving them. Both don’t like to share. Both are convinced that it is their partner who should share everything, material resources and good opportunities, and not only intangible opinions and advice. Both are obstinate and consider that it is their partner who should yield first. Both keep track of their own advantages, both are afraid of not being rewarded by their merit, of “miscalculating” and “accepting too low a price”, both are afraid of missing their chances.
Both are obstinate, declaring, tactical, intuitive types, who resort to the same tactic – wait things over! For IEE this is a method of controlling the situation, for ILI – this is a way of being. As we can see, for both of them it is extremely important to know how to correctly wait things out thereby preserving their advantages (which are hierarchical for the IEE, as an aristocratic type, material and intuitive for both of them).
Don’t they end up driving themselves into a corner? What should they do? This is what they start asking of themselves. Both become tired of this intuitive opposition; it is annoying to both of them. No amount of intuition is sufficient to calculate all the possibilities of one’s partner! ILI doesn’t know, and cannot know, all the alternative and spare options of IEE, while IEE doesn’t know the limits of patience of ILI. And the main thing is that neither of them trusts his partner at this stage. To both of them it seems like the other is somehow using him, being deceptive, letting him down, delaying, attempting to take more and give less. This whole game to them seems as a very protracted prelude to the fully expected disappointment, final dissolution of their hopes and breakdown of relations.
As time goes by, communication between partners becomes more intense. Exhausted by the expectation of initiative from one another, each tries to make his partner progress from words to deeds. This mutual stubbornness is what constitutes the opposition of their wills. At this stage, they clearly perceive lack of support over the sensory aspects but have no idea yet how to make their partner provide this much needed assistance. Here, once again each of them resorts to their tried-and-tested intuitive “tricks”: IEE tries to fool Balzac and continues to bluff, talks to him in riddles and hints, commits extravagant or unpredictable actions there by putting the ILI in an awkward position or making him jealous (for example, IEE may arrive to a party with his ILI partner but leave with someone else). Balzac, meanwhile, patiently waits when all these “zig-zags” and “kinks” will fall into a familiar and projected by him course of events.
This waiting is very painful. Nevertheless, both partners don’t give up on it, because at the same time both are still in the “show off mode”, attempting to appear to the other as “mutually convenient” and “mutually useful” and covering up their complexes and insecurities with their creative and demonstrative functions. IEE doesn’t leave the ILI without his attention and refreshes their relationship once in a while (as an ethical-emotivist type, IEE doesn’t like ending relations that haven’t yet fully exhausted themselves). ILI, since he is being engaged, tries to be helpful to his partner and continues accomplishing this in a manner true to his type – acting as an intuitive pragmatic “consultant” who can be referred to on all questions, that is, he continues helping with advice, forecasts and warnings.
Isn’t Huxley fed up with all these predictions? That’s not the full problem. Balzac’s admonishments constrain the business activities of his partner, tie him down by his hand and feet, hinder him from fully developing his talents and creatively realizing himself. In the end, IEE is left with a feeling of being limited and constricted in his abilities and capacities, since the only words he hears from ILI are usually, “I don’t advise this”, “it’s questionable to get involved…”, etc.
4. ILI-IEE. The correlation of quadral complexes.¶
It may seem that they are better off not initiating anything. However, in this case both of them will be missing out on an opportunity. IEE will feel himself as a “bird” that was shot down in flight in accordance to the Delta quadral complex of “clipped wings” – the fear of being repressed and blocked in one’s creative initiatives. Wherever he goes, at every turn he hears nothing but disparaging forecasts, gloomy omens, on every corner there are prohibitive signs and “blocks”. He is already starting to doubt his abilities and thinking: is he overestimating himself? Is this the true way to go? Would it be better to sit out this dark time at home? All of this diminishes IEE’s initiative and lowers his self-esteem, not permitting him to fully realize his EGO-program, makes him waste time, move towards his goals in roundabout ways, and forces him to give up many of his plans and humbly accept missed opportunities (or worse – accept giving them up to others).
Eventually IEE feels a desire to shake off these shackles, this “veil” of intuitive constraints. These constraints are created by ILI due to his natural orientation at irrepressible in his desires and initiatives dual, the SEE – it is him that ILI was intended to stop and caution along his way with his admonishments and obstructing forecasts, it is him who ILI needs to position into certain “temporary and probabilistic frameworks”. In the case of IEE these “frameworks” serve as “fetters” and “webs”, in which IEE starts to feel suffocated, due to his complex of “spacial constraints”, feeling himself bound by hand and feet.
Let’s say he clears these webs. What’s next? Next he feels a desire to make up for all the lost time and opportunities, to successfully realize himself, and to take full revenge on the ILI, leaving him suspended in a state full of uncertainty in life and lack of confidence in himself.
Example: The story of a young married couple: him – ILI, and her – IEE. They were married as students in art college, but left the school soon after losing all interest in it. They lived together without quarreling, but everything with them was somehow unstable and ephemeral: they didn’t have children, didn’t purchase any shared property. Both engaged in “the search for self” and “the search for meaning of life,” but they didn’t particularly excel in this: they worked odd jobs and lived in temporary housing. Neither of them could with confidence say what their spouse was occupied with, what are his or her interests and aspirations. Their relationship as if became “frozen” in this shadowy, mirage equilibrium, and it seemed like it would always be like this. One day they divorced (on her initiative). Shortly after the divorce, she got into making dolls and toy animals, applying her uncommon sense of humor and fantasy. Her project went so well that she opened her own studio and began taking orders. She did not include him in her business and turned down his offers of help. For a while he tried to imitate her and worked in her style, but decided not to compete with her and not to invest money on this business believing it to be unprofitable and unpromising. At the present day she is still engaged in her business, while he is still “looking for himself”. Neither of them could clearly explain the cause of their divorce.
5. ILI-IEE. Practical and business cooperation.¶
Doesn’t ILI also feel that he is being constrained by various restrictions? Of course! This feeling arises due to the fact that IEE indeed takes over many of his initiatives. IEE forbids him much, cautions him away, doesn’t permit him or admit him to many things. With a face pale of fear and stretched in tension IEE tries to influence the ILI, to dissuade him from making some important but dangerous decisions, to distance the ILI from important for him but dangerous for the IEE initiatives, to block his access to “key” opportunities and advantageous positions. IEE won’t allow even the person most close to him to compete with him. He is perfectly capable of “running down all roads”, “putting sticks in wheels”, “cutting off the oxygen” on the aspect of intuition of possibilities. No – there is no promise for you there, see the brick sign, you can’t go there, and can’t go there either – you can’t go anywhere! Can’t do this, can’t do that, this cannot be… And in the mean time, while his partner is chained by hands and feet, the IEE is “promoted to queens”.
Cases when partners share common goals and interests are an exception to this situation, but when they cannot coordinate and unite their objectives, each starts to manipulate the other, to “pull the blanket over” to his side, to fight for his own chances in attempts to realize his own potential and creative capabilities.
Balzac, with his own quadral complex of “tied hands” will feel burdened by such a situation. On one hand, he won’t have enough foresight to anticipate all the tricks and gimmicks that IEE will employ to overtake each of his opportunities and initiatives. On the other hand, he will have to think very hard about how he can bypass his partner in order to realize his own plans. Being activated over the aspect of logic of actions, the omnipresent Huxley will inquire about everything, learn everything from the ILI, and then, he will declare himself as the “all-knowing” and “all-capable”, while failing the tasks and projects that have been assigned to him, ruining them by virtue of his own messiness, inconsistency, and variability of interests. IEE can become disinterested in what has been entrusted to him after initially overestimating the degree of his interest. For as long as the assignment was interesting, he worked on it, but as soon as he becomes bored with it he drops it and doesn’t see any problem of this. Thus, at first, IEE can be activated by the pragmatic initiatives of ILI, but then grow cold towards them. Then he will start to ignore ILI’s advice, or even deliberately act against ILI’s warnings (simply feeling tired of them).
Is it possible that Balzac will think that Huxley is intentionally obstructing his progress, since IEE has taken over his initiatives, but then simply dropped them, failed to realize them himself, and neither permitted it to others? Unfortunately, this is exactly how it will seem to the ILI. Such a realization will be very upsetting to him. Although ILIs are generally not inclined to suspect evil intentions and malice in the actions of their partners (by their nature they are idealistic), much of IEE’s actions will seem strange and incomprehensible, much of his behavior won’t be to Balzac’s liking.
What exactly won’t he like? First of all, the blatant (and sometimes even in principle) irresponsibility of IEE which makes him act according to the principle of: “Take up everything but answer for nothing.” This is conditioned by IEE’s desire to make it everywhere, to succeed in everything, to seize key positions and opportunities in accordance with his program intuitive function, but in IEE this is combined with a carefree, frivolous attitude, and typical for the IEE falling into berserk fits of panic in the most crucial or decisive moments (as the result of de-valued volitional sensing in this type). For example, one may leave for a vacation or a business trip and ask him to complete some task or activity, in which he showed some interest, about which he was worried, and upon return find it ruined in all respects, with no further possibility to restore or renew it in order to straighten things out. There was agreement – then there was no agreement, and why is this? – there won’t be any answer. At best IEE will reply: “I did not hire myself out to work for you!” (aristocracy).
ILI will be confounded by the frivolity and flippancy of his partner, his unscrupulousness, absence of self-criticism, and a fundamental unwillingness to admit mistakes. In these traits IEE is very much unlike ILI’s dual, the SEE, who will carry out his assignments at whatever cost if has pledged to it, and who will listen to and accept the criticism of his mistakes rather than ignore it, especially if this criticism is fair and constructive. IEE, in this respect, proves himself to be an unreliable partner for Balzac, and this exacerbates Balzac’s sense of disappointment, aggravates his “tied hands” complex, makes him regret lost time and opportunities. Precisely when there is a need to mobilize for action, Huxley is overtaken by panic, or even a sense of fatigue from which follow feelings of fear and despondency. IEE won’t tolerate any coercion; he does not want to and does not like to feel himself as a hostage of commitments. Thus he tries not to give promises.
Being afraid of missing an opportunity to show his capabilities, IEE does eventually give a promise. Sometimes he shows initiative even if it wasn’t requested of him (again, not wanting to miss an opportunity to show himself in favorable light). However, as soon as it comes down to implementation, he starts to panic – and he panics the more, the fewer people there are to offer their support. And then Huxley, who is oriented as the jack of all trades SLI, starts looking for somebody else to perform the work for him, or even attempts impose the job on whoever he meet first via requests, cajoles, demands or sudden advances. Using the element of surprise, he can suddenly stop a person and “load” him with a task, regardless of their degree of familiarity. He can get others involved over trifles, if only they turned up at the wrong time. For example, a postman stops by to deliver letters when the IEE asks him, “Would you mind doing a small favor? Here the light is out … Could you check if you see anything wrong with it?” Such is the IEE’s primary directive: in order to achieve the desired result he should use every opportunity, perceiving these opportunities even there where others see nothing. So what if this was a postman and not a plumber or doctor? If this person was a doctor, he, too, could be asked to screw in a light bulb: “Do you need to wash your hands? Oh, sorry, I’ve got no light here … could you help me screw in this light bulb? And the water is running so poorly from the faucet…” If there is an opportunity to exploit, then it should be exploited in all things. What’s so special about it? The consumer is always right.
6. ILI-IEE. The methods of success. Distribution of possibilities.¶
On his observing function of intuition of potential, ILI understands that fateful luck is a rare chance, “a gift of fate” that should be cherished. In partnership with IEE, it sometimes may seem to him that luck is falling right into his hands. This occurs because IEE as if attracts success and good opportunities to himself, and some crumbs of this “cake” fall into ILI’s hands. Regardless of whether or not IEE values these crumbs, he may still not permit ILI to use them. Good opportunity of chance is a gift, and gifts need to be earned and merited. Why give something that may come in handy to oneself? (Resource retaining declarative model wouldn’t permit this – it keeps everything necessary within itself, and sends out everything extraneous to get re-sorted.) IEE won’t even give away an unneeded opportunity to his partner. This isn’t determined by the quality of his relations. Thing is that any opportunity can be used as a spare option, a back-up in case of dangerous experiments, an option which may be used up and lost without regrets. Why would the IEE give away a chance like that for nothing, if it can be useful?
Suppose IEE receives valuable information that still needs to be checked and verified. As an objectivist, IEE trusts only in the proven and obvious facts. He will withhold this information until a person appears who can be sent to double-check it, someone who can be sent and watched. If IEE receives some information and wants to check it, he recalls anyone else who might be interested in it, and then asks that person to check it out. Thus a “service” project arises on the ground of verification of a possibly-real chance. For example, IEE calls up someone and says, “You were looking for a job. Such-and-such establishment is looking for candidates for this-or-that specialty. If you want, I’ll give you their address …” If a person is not interested in this information, IEE feels irritated (“Well, do as you know!”) and hangs up on the phone – he has wasted his time and personal consideration and warmth in vain – the service didn’t come through, the chance was not verified, and the good work wasn’t done.
In partnership with ILI, IEE sometimes tries to be helpful to his partner on the aspect of intuition of potential. He points out for the ILI some of the unnoticed chances and missed opportunities, “orchestrates” ILI’s success and manipulates his initiative, instills confidence in himself, persuades ILI of victory, and coordinates the extent of his luck. However, at the same time IEE doesn’t lose his sense of priority, as this would have contradicted his program function. Some opportunities IEE values and reserves only for himself, while others he doesn’t really care for and “gives” them over to his partner. These lesser opportunities IEE can toss over to the ILI thereby “gifting” him out of his own generosity, but, at the same time, at his own discretion IEE can deprive his partner of other opportunities feeling envious of his future success and out of fear that upon reaching the highest of heights ILI will become conceited and arrogant and won’t give due credit to the IEE and admit to his participation in the success.
Thus IEE will vainly bestow upon the ILI only the “crumbs” of those opportunities that the IEE wants to reserve for himself. He will also insist that the ILI accepts these “handouts” and feel offended if he refuses them (after all, did he try in vain?). However, picking up these “handouts” is insulting and demeaning for the ILI, for one because this once more exacerbates his “complex of tied hands”. In such a situation, his success will largely depend on the behavior, ambition, and moods of the IEE, who can at any moment intervene and complicate or frustrate his plans, or simply reorient them.
ILI also feels uneasy with IEE’s ability to “slip out” at someone else’s expense, meanwhile setting up another person for trouble. This is explained not only by egocentrism of IEE, but also by the fact that he highly values the intuition of ILI and believes that he should be able to get out of any scrape without any problems for himself. And if he cannot, let him learn: in life, any lesson is beneficial.
ILI tries his best to avoid any unpleasant situations and troubles, thus he is mortally afraid of a partner who would be constantly setting him up in this manner. This is conditioned not only by the aspect of intuition of potential, which is a repressed and the relatively weak function of Balzac (-Ne), and thus all opportunities reclaimed from Huxley come at a particularly heavy price, but also by the fact that ILI has very strong intuition of time (+Ni) – he better than anyone retraces the cause-effect relationships of all that is happening and knows how all these set-ups will end. ILI knows that trouble never comes alone, and therefore he doesn’t fear one particular misfortune but a whole streak of bad luck which may follow afterwards – he is well aware how a single “failure” can irreparably ruin the situation and close all possibilities and chances for the future. ILI as any intuitive type values his possibilities, thus actions of his partner who easily disregards his reputation and sets him up at every turn will seem strange and incomprehensible to him. A question arises: “Does this person cause trouble intentionally?” Even if ILI’s fears are confirmed, IEE won’t let him off that easily – someone has to be the guinea pig. An interest in conducting experimentation is the cost of interaction of two declaring, negativist, objectivists: it is always interesting for them to know who is able to get out of trouble and how they accomplish this.
7. ILI-IEE. Lack of support over sensing aspects.¶
This point can be considered a turning point in their relationship. Dissatisfaction over intuitive aspects turns into frustration over sensory aspects; their intuitive opposition is the cause of their sensory confrontation.
How does this happen? Subconsciously expecting an “all-capable” and “all-possessing” dual SEE, ILI is inclined to think that unlimited possibilities are just a reflection of the strength of a partner. ILI is suggested and inspired by aspect of volitional sensing (-Se), so he naturally assumes that the more able a person is – the more opportunities are open for him. However, in partnership with the IEE, Balzac sees a completely different picture: the role volitional sensing aspect of IEE is only a pale reflection of his strong intuitive EGO-program (-Ne) and consists of an ability to survive at the expense of others, to find their weaknesses, skillfully out-play others and use them in IEE’s own interests. With such tactics volitional qualities may be rather mediocre – it is enough to be obstinate and persistent, to properly evaluate one’s situational advantages, to be able to construct a certain power advantage, or at least the appearance of such, that is, to be able to bluff, to take someone up on a fright, be able to “intimidate” your opponent, to play on his weaknesses and calculate all his options in advance, meanwhile creating beneficial conditions for your own side. None of this requires possession of actual aptitude and might. It is sufficient to have strong intuition, which is what the IEE deploys. He is a master of camouflage who is capable of bluffing and bullying, frightening and cajoling, misleading and misinforming, disorienting and confusing a person. Such tactics, however, cannot conceal all of IEE’s own problems, which ILI starts to notice with subsequent communication. He notices the impotence and irresponsibility of Huxley, the absence of volitional qualities, his apprehensiveness and unconscious habit to give out in the face of pressure and difficulties, meanwhile yielding to a more powerful opponent and utilizing as a shield a “whipping boy” from his team.
When ILI notices all these “role function fall-outs”, he feels no longer convinced by IEE’s methods that are meant to frighten and impress. At this point ILI doesn’t consider the IEE to be a reliable partner and doesn’t see protection in him. He begins to realize that IEE is merely pretending to be able and strong, and that in some things he’s actually weak, helpless, and defenseless, and himself is often in need of support of a more assured and willful person. ILI doesn’t consider himself to be such a person and thus doesn’t hurry to take on this role. Next to a helpless partner, he himself starts feeling insecure.
That which we condemn in others, for some reason we forgive in ourselves. ILI is not strong in sensing, as this aspect falls into his suggestive function, which is a weak point. Typically he “covers it up” by merits of his strong intuition – he won’t overestimate his strength, won’t claim the role of all-powerful protector-patron, and won’t respond to IEE’s call to take him under his wing. ILI will avoid taking on such excessive load and may simply “take a leave” by which he will disappoint Huxley.
This won’t be the last of IEE’s disappointments: expecting complementary sensing from SLI, the IEE won’t receive such support from the ILI. This aspect (+Si) is normative for the ILI, thus here he produces information very reluctantly and in limited quantities. ILI prefers to receive care from his partner over this aspect rather than provide his own services and expend his own energy and resources. Here he is more of a “consumer” than a “creator.” Occasionally, depending on his mood, ILI may play the role of a caring and hospitable host, may surprise his partner with an exquisite dish prepared by interesting or advanced techniques, but this will be a product of his logical function rather than his normative sensory aspect. This kind of “aesthetic show” is needed for the ILI to make a favorable impression on his dual SEE (high score on the normative function is a prerequisite for successful dualization). However, ILI has no intention in continuously treating and caring for his partner, bringing him coffee to his bed; he assumes that such concern should be shown to him.
However, IEE is expecting the same with sensing as weak point. Frictions arise in their relationship over these grounds. Even if they can learn to somehow yield to one another over intuition, lack of sensory support is perceived rather painfully and may lead to them to break off their relations. Here each of them thinks that his partner knows very well what is expected on him and is capable of providing it, but doesn’t want to for some “unknown” reasons (which is most upsetting).
8. ILI-IEE. Lack of ethical support as a consequence of sensory deficit.¶
Sensory deficit has a negative impact on the ethics of these relations, which is a priority value for both of these objectivist types. If timely, concrete assistance is absent, then there is no trust and no confidence in partner’s good predisposition.
Imagine this story: Two elderly people of types IEE and ILI meet up as friends in the course of a year. She is retired and lives in a small southern tourist town in a one-bedroom apartment with a view out to the sea. He is also retired and lives in a three-bedroom apartment in another town approximately 60km away. The whole year he would come over and visit her on weekends. These trips were as if he is visiting a hotel – with overnight stays and three meals a day, while he did not consider her expenses and expenditures. The “program of events” included swimming in the sea, walking on the beach, abundant meals and prolonged tea drinking with interesting conversations and arguments about abstract topics. All this time our heroine showed herself as a friendly and hospitable hostess and did not mention anything of financial compensation. She was waiting when at last her friend would initiate a conversation about joint plans for the future. Time passed, and they still haven’t had such a discussion, as well as no courtship from him: he arrived, had a nice time, and in the evening in due time returned back to his apartment. One day she realized the future futility of their relations, realized that all this time his relation to her has been rather pragmatic, and that there is no further hope, and therefore asked him to not visit her any longer. However, as soon as she tried to put an end to their relations he attempted to talk her out of it. In her own words:
“… As soon as I turned him down, he suddenly started telling me of his plans for the future. You see, he has only now realized that he has met someone who is compatible with him. He asked me to think about it and not lose such a friend. He considers that his main merit is that he is all alone, he has absolutely no one else, and that he is a considerate and respectable person. Maybe so, but I have started experiencing distrust and irritation towards him. I feel like this “friendship” is weighing me down and has become a burden. The way he behaves is just too foolish. He calls me only if he needs something from me. And sometimes he states: “I promised to call – this is why I’m calling.” And he speaks with such a soft and dull voice that it is disgusting to hear! This time he called me as usual at the end of the week and asked: “How are the waves at the sea? How is the weather?” - Said that he was going to come and only incidentally asked me how I was doing. This was upsetting! And then there was another case: one time he was undergoing a medical examination, which was very painful. He wasn’t allowed to remain at the hospital but was immediately brought home and left there alone. I called him every hour to ask about his health, told him what he should drink, how to prepare it, how often to take it … He muttered something in reply, and I realized that it still hurts him to speak, that the anesthesia has no completely worn off. I called him the next morning and then he told me everything. He said that may be he started all these tests and examinations in vain if his best friend couldn’t come over and offer him a cup of water! To which I replied that he has several friends and relatives living in the same town – his brother, and nephew with his family, and his niece – no one could come and take care of him?
After that he did not call me for three days. Of course, I also did not call him, but at the end of the week he called me again and said he wanted to come over, to swim in the sea, and asked about the waves. I told him two weeks ago that he shouldn’t visit me any longer and stay overnight. I found him a small room with friends, inexpensive … He was very offended by this! Essentially, when he called me the last time and inquired about the possibility of coming over again, I suddenly became angry and told him to not count on my hospitality. What happened at this point … He tried to convince me that I was his closest friend, that he was so lonely and can be a wonderful husband, that he was thinking of moving to my city in a year, that for a long time he was looking for a woman like me and that he valued me very highly, tried to convince me to think it over … But I was tired of it, tired of his insularity, his greed, selfishness, lack of emotion, and some kind of detachment … Tired of the emptiness in my heart. God bless him! Let him be healthy and happy without me. I do not tolerate reproaches, and even more so when I do not deserve them. Neither do I want to be anyone’s nurse .. “
Everything unfolded as could be expected in this story. On the one side, there was the individualism of Balzac, on the other side – the self-centeredness of Huxley. We should give credit to the heroine, however, she was still very patient and polite. Through intuition she could have seen that this situation wasn’t in her favor from the very beginning. Although she can be understood: she got so drawn into “playing” on demonstrative ethics of emotions, so involved with admiring her own generosity and kindness, that she did not notice that her hospitality was being used. However, this use was not with a malicious intent – it was only one of the manifestations of infantile (“consuming”) ethics of relations and problematic sensory aspects of the ILI. Accepting care and services from others, representatives of this types do sometimes lose their sense of proportion, which later is embarrassing to them. In this way, they lose their friends and sentence themselves to isolation.
However, our hero had some other faults: egotism, miserliness, avarice. This, again, is a manifestation of his creative logic of actions (-Te), his “program” intuition of time (+Ni), and his avaricious role sensing (+Si) – why come with gifts, if you can do without them? He was received and shown hospitality in this house even without them. And also a consequence of observing intuition of potential – why use up resources that he can reserve for himself? Therefore, he does not rush things – the situation was already convenient for him. Besides this, he certainly knew that this distance in their relationship is best for each of them. Unlike him, she lived in public housing and not in a privatized flat; thus he couldn’t put a claim to her space and did not want to lose his. Her attempt to apply pressure on him and force him to reduce the distance led to a break-up of their relations.
Additionally, he was looking for a life partner as something inanimate: “she was what suited him”. But this is exactly what we have talked about, the business and intuitive approach of declaring, pragmatic type in finding a suitable partner. Nobody stops ILI from seeking out best and most comfortable opportunities himself. In this case, he “beat” his partner on intuition of time – he managed to reassure her for a long time, prolonged the time of his stay, enjoyed her hospitality, trying not to disturb the existing balance (albeit fragile and unsteady), set a certain rate to development of their relationship. As a consequence of this, a relaxing and inspiring towards trust situation was created – the mechanism of mirage relations has kicked in. As a result, his partner did not notice how she herself has allowed him to abuse her hospitality. In addition it has brought the eternal desire to be out of competition Huxley: she tried to prove to him that she is the best - the most sensual, most responsive, most sweet, sensitive, friendly. So he played it on these ambitions, so it’s a “triumph” turned to her defeat. Now, she also feels “aggrieved” - hurt, devastated, humiliated, is aware of the awkwardness of the situation.
9. Illusionary self-sufficiency of mirage relations.¶
All of this prolonged “fascination” which leads to eventual disappointment is the result of nothing more than self-sufficiency of mirage relations. Partners become too “fixated” on their opposition over intuitive and sensing aspects, too focused on one another by virtue of their own determination in achieving tactical and strategic objectives. He was too focused on “stocking up” with the available to him “benefits”, while she was too focused on getting him to marry her and was willing to wait entire year for the courtship to begin. When she realized that her stubbornness became a burden for him, she broke off their friendship and let him go – let him be happy without her …
She wasn’t a poor match for him, but he didn’t exclude better possibilities for himself. After all, ILI’s observing function of intuition of possibilities does not fall dormant. He considered himself to be a worthy suitor: “modest, respectable” … but was in no hurry to move from words to action (why hurry?). He evaluated her carefully and at length, while she was estimating his worth. This is normal intuitive opposition: each person is afraid of acting too quickly and thereby losing out and striking up a “poor bargain”. In this opposition of intuitive types, the person who shows his interest first is the one who is at greater risk of losing. Thus it is not shown directly. Lets consider the fact that each of them had to find a reason to call the other: he would inquire about turbulence of the sea, alluding to the fact that in bad weather he wouldn’t come visit her, he allegedly was more interested in the weather than in her, while she showed her interest in his health. By the way, if his health was so important to her, why didn’t she come visit and look after him? By this she would have shown her interest. This is demonstrative of the apprehensiveness, watchfulness, and lack of determination of Huxley who is afraid to utilize and expose his vulnerable weak sensorics and to show is interest out of fear of losing in this impasse. Moreover, why do something that he didn’t request? So that he would have a reason to later criticize her of being “clingy”? So that he could later recall how she showed up at his house and started bossing him around? So that he would conclude that she threw herself at him and imposed her company? IEE would never take such a step, not with a partner who hasn’t provided her with any reasons or motivations for this. To his ostentatious indifference she has responded with hers.
Additionally, in this case her partner did not invite her to visit him and did not directly request any specific favor or help. Instead, he was subconsciously expecting that she would extend such concrete assistance on her own and reprimanded her when she didn’t. This is due to the fact that ILI is oriented at his sensing dual SEE, whose call in life is to care and protect his victim-intuitive partner. Another intuitive, childlike, declarative type such as IEE is very much similar to the ILI in all these respects.
Delta childlike intuitive types form the next phase of evolution of declarative intuition in the socion (the next step of mirage switch-over in quadra progression). In the transition from the 4th Delta quadra to the 1st one, declarative intuition is converted to asking form. Just as it happens in the 4th quadra, in the 1st quadra the childlike intuitive types are taken care of and provided for by the sensing type. This care-taking is already conditioned within the 3rd Gamma quadra, where the apprehensive victim intuitive types, ILI and LIE, seek out support from their dual partners ethical sensing types SEE and ESI, gradually switching them over from aggressor into caretaker mode (for as long as they are caring, they are no longer on advance and attack). Ultimately, these demands, the level of which increases with the level of care provided, relax and callow the victim types of 3rd quadra, making them even more spoiled and pampered, more similar to the childlike intuitive types of 1st and 4th quadra, and even more moody, demanding, and irritable.
Lack of sensing support affects both partners in the ILI-IEE dyad in the same manner. This mutual exacerbation of deficits over sensory aspects makes them become alike one another. It is precisely when one of them was most in the need of concrete, specific help from his partner that he wasn’t receiving it, or merely received an opportunity, only a chance to earn such aid. (“If you need medication I’ll give you a recipe – then go and prepare it yourself. If you cannot, then call your relatives to help you.”) From IEE’s side comes the advice and recommendations over the telephone, which he generously bestows from a distance. (“You’re looking for something? I have relevant information, but you have to go and do it and earn it yourself.”)
Furthermore, here we have interaction between a “democratic” type and an “aristocratic” type: IEE dislikes being a servant to and doing errands for the ILI. The mere hint of such a possibility is annoying to the IEE. Therefore, under any circumstances he tries not to give in to any hints, suggestions, requests, or even demands of ILI. He attempts to stay on the dominant position under any circumstances, from the heights of which IEE dispenses the necessary assistance at the right time in the form of valuable advice, as a knowledgeable person and as a seasoned professional.
However, ILI who has gotten into a difficult situation is waiting for specific help from his partner rather than useful advice and mere talk. Such adequate support he receives from his dual SEE, who doesn’t even wait for a request but offers direct and real assistance, who comes at any hour and any day, and does whatever it takes. He may start major projects around the house, do laundry or house cleaning, or cook food in advance. For a loved person, SEE will talk to the ends of the world and defend him if necessary, and won’t consider it shameful for himself (“a warlike nomad”). Ask gamma sensing types how they care for their victim partners, how ESI in relations of activation runs to the other side of the town to bring ILI some pies and other tasty food, how he will stand under the windows until midnight waiting for the ILI to come back home. And then ESI wonders, what kind of picky type this is? And this is merely the “unassuming” and “unpretentious” ILI, trying to create competition for himself.
Such competition is conditioned by the fact that sensing is suggestive function for the ILI – he is always lacking information on this aspect. No matter how much he’s provided for, it’s all too little. As a result of which, he sets something up similar to an auction for himself. The sad fact is that this most “expensive lot” remains unclaimed and into the old age there is no one to give him a glass of water.
Should he simply lower his expectations? The obstinate and farsighted ILI is afraid that in the future he might regret this later on. He’ll have to raise the bar in the course of interaction with his partner on each and every occasion, which will cause an excess stress and load on his suggestive function. Entering into relations with someone, or even getting to know them, ILI is already assessing this person from the point of view of his much needed asking sensory function and creative ethic relations. This is not mentioning other estimates and evaluations, which the pragmatic and prudent ILI cannot help himself but notice.
IEE cannot complement ILI on all the necessary aspects due to a significant incompatibility on psychological traits. IEE and ILI are incompatible on eight out of fifteen traits, primarily on the basis of asking-declaring trait. Interacting with the ILI, Huxley sometimes assumed a mask of an asking type: he plays up being surprised at every turn, displays curiosity, shows a keen interest in any information as if he is hearing it for the first time: “Really? What are you saying! How interesting!” But this role is lacking the main aspect of asking type – IEE lacks in doubt, and with this he is no willing to concede in his opinions. ILI eventually comes to realize this declarative intransigence, rigidity of the IEE, as a result of which occurs distancing and rejection of the two declaring types. Collisions occur more and more often, and this is both annoying and hurtful to both of them. Upon meeting there is a rapid exchange of reproaches. While separated, both of them accumulate their grievances so that they can present them at first meeting. Misunderstanding increases. Attempts to resolve it lead to new quarrels. A sense of hopelessness equally visits them both. This is another reason why these partners don’t hurry to close the distance with one another.
They may come to regret this later, thinking that they have missed a good opportunity. Perhaps, but any additional attempts to get together will lead to the same unsatisfying and disappointing results.