Mirror Relations INFj 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.
Ego Block:Channels 1-2: Intuition of Opportunities (Ne) and Ethics of Relations (Fi)¶
Some similarity between the partners that are based on commonality of their quadral values doesn’t mitigate the conflicts caused by differences in their dyadic values. Intuition of possibilities (Ne), as a “program” function of IEE and his primary aspect strongly dominates his values, while ethics of relations (Fi) is of lesser value to him. Quite the opposite view is held by his “mirror” partner, EII. IEE’s extreme individualism, self-centeredness that is characteristic of many members of this type, excessive or even stupid “original acting out” which is shocking by its extravagance compels the EII to try to constantly adjust the behavior of his “mirror” partner.
No, of course, the EII has nothing against the creative development of one’s abilities, which is exactly the sphere of application of his own creative intuition of possibilities. What EII finds unpleasant is the superficiality, dispersiveness, and inconstancy of IEE’s interests, his desire to embrace it all, to know everything, and at the same time to avoid devoting himself to anything fully. The EII, who is subconsciously oriented at his serious, methodical dual, the LSE, feels resentful and critical of such approach to life. It seems to him that the IEE is a person who is utterly whimsical and unreliable.
The IEE, in his turn, also has some objections on this aspect. It seems to him that the EII constricts and limits him too much in his possibilities, constantly lecturing him as a small child about what he should and shouldn’t do. And who else than a leading intuitive type such as IEE knows better of his options in any given situation?
A person of type IEE who has been brought up by an EII parent always feels somewhat uneasy about his or her “program” functions. Instead of listening to himself and acting according to the circumstances in critical situations, intuitively perceiving the most favorable options for himself, the IEE will be listening to the opinions of people around him and attempting to behave in the most “ethical” way possible in order to not “offend anyone”, which will work only to his own detriment.
An example: One representative of this type giving in to her EII mother has endured 14 years in a conflict marriage with her husband, who has also turned out to be a pathological sadist. The “concessions” to which she has agreed under the influence of her “mirror” type mother has cost her a lot of effort, missed opportunities, health, and many years of her life. Even though her mother’s advice and persuasions were very “wise” and “good-hearted”: “Love each other, compromise for one another, and everything will be fine. And you are selfish–you don’t understand and don’t appreciate your husband!” It was only when her daughter ended up in a hospital and almost departed to the other world that the loving mother with her “good intentions” finally considered that she may have been giving her wrong advice.
There is another example of “mirror” effect that the EII has on the IEE:
Vera, 23, Huxley: “I was born and grew up in a family of intellectuals where the fundamental principle was: “What’s on the inside is everything – the external form is nothing.” Since childhood I was raised on moral and ethical principles. My ideal was: a husband, a family, and four children. At sixteen, I suddenly saw that all the other girls already have someone, and I don’t have anybody. Then I looked at myself in the mirror and was horrified with what I saw – overweight, unattractive, poor skin – who would want to date me like this?
And this is when I said to myself: “Vera, you have to change!” At seventeen, I moved to another city where nobody knew me and started to work on myself. I did aerobics; I dieted, didn’t eat any meat for two years, for eight months I only ate a handful of rice each day; I got involved in shaping and bodybuilding; I went to make-up, hair styling and fashion design classes. Then I completed courses on rhetoric, learned another language, took courses to learn how to work with computers and how to manage my finances. Graduated from a community college with honors and was admitted to a university without examination. (And all this was in five years!) All this time I also tailored clothes for myself, thus I had the kind of wardrobe that couldn’t be purchased anywhere and could only be dreamed of!
I changed myself completely, down to the shape of my fingernails. From my former self the only things that were left were my height and my natural hair color. Right now I am fully satisfied with my appearance. But here is the problem: the men with whom I meet for some reason take me for a high-class prostitute, although this isn’t so. I only had two close relationships my entire life. I want pure, sublime relations, but the image I created for myself turned out to be a femme fatale, a vamp. And now men are either afraid of me or consider me a “woman for leisure”. Talking with me no one realizes that on the inside I am the most ordinary woman. I can be a devoted wife. I dream of getting married and having children. I’ve spent so much energy to attain all of this, and in the end I am alone again.
The second problem is that with all my diplomas and certificates I cannot get a job. It is immediately hinted that what is required of me are “certain services”. Who do they take me for? When I deny these “services”, I am immediately reminded about my lack of experience, and how unsuited I am for the position, and end up losing it … Now I don’t do know to continue. I don’t understand why I cannot combine the outer presentation with the inner content. Why cannot I be myself and also achieve the things that I want? Why am I either desired or feared? Why am I not treated as a human being? What if I don’t want to dress like a nun – now I cannot get married? This cannot be so! I see the example of my friend – a beautiful, intelligent woman who runs two businesses, is married and raising two children – so it is possible to combine these things. Others can do it – why can’t I?”
Why indeed is she having so many problems? Our heroine has two conflicting programs – one intuitive and the other one ethical, where one is extinguishing the other. Instead of using ethics as a relational tool, she is attempting to use intuition, thinking that the more she learns, the more she skills she gains, the more she becomes capable of, the more successful she will be in realizing her ethical program. The values that were instilled into her during her childhood came into conflict with the values that she acquired later in life. This girl became her own “mirror”. All of her problems began when she has looked at herself in the mirror, which itself isn’t a bad thing, sometimes it is useful to look at ourselves from aside, but the trouble was that even though she is an extravert, she began interacting with the world around her as an introvert. Ethics of relations became her highest value and started competing with and suppressing her “program” function of intuition of opportunities. This struggle between two static values is taking place within her: she wants a brilliant career and success, and at the same time a devoted relationship.
The problem is not that she wants to reconcile the irreconcilable, since lack of internal logic is one of the problem of representatives of this sociotype. On the contrary, her wishes are an indication that the situation is not hopeless. She is faced with the problem of choosing between the two programs – and this will be the most difficult part for her – but after this she will be able to reconstitute the instrumental aspect of her TIM and at least partially restore her natural creative ethics, which currently manifests only on an unconscious level (coquettish look, attractive smile). Currently, her ethics of relationships and ethics of emotions conflict with one another. She will have to resolve this conflict, otherwise other people won’t understand: what is she looking for from herself and from others? Hence her problems and dilemmas…
One possible cause for such contraposition of the aspects is the tough “mirror” correction that she was faced with in her childhood, from which she acquired the habit of looking at herself through the eyes of “mirror”. Despite the fact that she is no longer in these these “mirror” relations, this inclination continues on by inertia. Now she is a “mirror” to herself. From this come her problems of interacting with others and her issues with finding a partner. Now she won’t let a dual near herself, and will scare and put off her “activators”…
How did it come to this? Thing is that “mirror” correction is very strict in this dyad. Both types of this pair are declarative statics – both are obstinate, both consider their point of view to be an indisputable truth, and do not accept any objections on the subject. While IEE is somewhat ethically flexible and diplomatic, the EII is a maximalist when it comes to enforcing his point of view. As an intuitive ethical type, EII may seem soft and pliable, but nevertheless he is uncompromising in declaring and imposing his values and opinions. When it comes to trade-offs and concessions, EII is extremely uncompromising and unyielding – that is, everyone else besides himself must agree and give way, because he considers himself to be already exemplary in his accommodating and kind attitude.
Due to EII’s ethical maximalism, he gets into many disputes with the IEE. The IEE suffers from EII’s constant and excessive ethical demands and from his endless accusations in lack of love and attention. No matter how much the IEE loves and cares for him, the EII will always find something to nitpick or reprimand him and complain about not getting enough attention. The problem is not that IEE isn’t able to focus his love and care on the EII (although this also contributes to a degree; after all, members of Huxley type are typically inconsistent and lighthearted, which is why they are often called “Don Juans”). It is not that the IEE frequently creates incidents that fuel his partner’s jealousy and feed EII’s suspicions. The problem is that partners of these types simply don’t complement each other over their weaker functions. This lack of complemetarity and mutual assistance, over time acutely felt by both of them, later spills out into mutual recriminations, accusations, and arguments, should they become close with one another.
In his turn, Huxley also develops some complains and grievances regarding Dostoevsky. Under no circumstances does the IEE agree with the demands of his EII partner that he should focus all his attention and interest only on him. For the IEE this would mean forgoing and missing all the other possibilities, which is contrary to his “program” function – and this he cannot accept! It is further hurtful for the IEE that his natural, innate tendency to be interested in everything and everyone around him brings up unreasonable (from IEE’s view) jealousy, scolding, and objections. All of IEE’s attempts to persuade the EII otherwise naturally do not lead anywhere – the EII is not persuaded and suggested by the aspect of intuition of possibilities; he is not the SLI and the intuitive aspects for him are located in entirely different positions. As a type with “creative” flexible intuition of potential, the EII himself is well aware of “what is possible” and “what isn’t”, and flexibly maneuvers and operates with “this is possible - and this isn’t”, such that dissuading and re-convincing him becomes absolutely impossible. Ultimately Huxley gets tired of wasting his program intuition on all these useless discussions and simply does as he wishes, supporting and reinforcing his actions with his diplomatic, flexible ethics of relations, Fi. This is precisely the quality that in turn infuriates Dostoevsky, because such application of ethics he considers to be hypocritical, deceitful, and cunningly opportunistic, and endows it with many other unflattering epithets.
Superego Block: Channels 3-4: Volitional Sensing (Se) and Logic of Relations (Ti)¶
It is clear that in such disputes and counter-actions partners cannot avoid a confrontation of wills. Here the instigator will likely be Huxley as his sensory aspect is in more flexible position than that of Dostoyevsky. However, as soon as the IEE starts to secretly “do as he wishes”, his actions immediately cause a corresponding angry condemnation of Dostoevsky. The EII feels hurt, even outraged. It seems to him that someone is infringing on his rights, suppressing him and subjugating him to inconvenient for him circumstances and unacceptable conditions. This the EII will not allow for, because such concerns lie within his “complex” and his “zone of fear”. As a result of this, the EII mobilizes and lets out an endless avalanche of most violent recriminations and accusations. These accusations are not as shocking to the IEE as seeing the suffering of his partner. This for the IEE, with all his natural kindness, is the real torture. The IEE then tries to ease his effect over some things, but over other things he attempts to escape from the inert pressuring of the EII. Here, again, confrontation arises between two sensory aspects: the flexible, sporadic, manipulative sensing of IEE and the inert, tough, and uncompromising sensing of the EII.
A whole another set of problems is caused by the aspect of logic of relations (Ti) in this pair. For EII, as we know, this aspect is in normative position. Thus, from his “standard” position he frequently criticizes IEE over lack of logical inconsistency, over IEE’s inability to follow through with anything, over his superficiality and dispersion of interests, likes, hobbies and relationships. (The latter is particularly unacceptable for Dostoevsky: how can one be so fickle with relations?). Understandably, this criticism is not pleasant to hear for the IEE. From such critiques the IEE doesn’t develop more follow-through neither better judgement. To the contrary, he starts to manifest his unpredictability and extravagance more and more frequently and out of place, acting out in the most ridiculous manner. With this behavior IEE is defending his right to be the way that he is, not wanting to seem neither better nor worse. This is disappointing to the EII, who considers such behavior of Huxley’s to be stupid and tactless antics, of which he openly tells the IEE. The IEE takes offense at such interpretation of his actions: EII, in his opinion, simply “doesn’t understand how to joke”. (Indeed, certain problems arise over humor in this dyad because humor of “mirror” types is received only half the time. It’s better that they don’t joke with one another: humor of one of them can be understood only partially by the other.)
Level of Super-Id: Channels 5-6: Sensing of Experiences (Si) and Logic of Actions (Te)¶
The question of who should care about whom is very serious in this dyad. Sensing aspects for both partners are located in weak positions. IEE would be happy to receive the care from the EII (as his sensing aspect is in position of absolute weakness, so it is imperative for him to receive care), but it is not easy for the EII to take care of his partner – he thinks that such a task is rather difficult and burdensome for him. EII, being subconsciously oriented at the creative sensing of his dual LSE, who loves to take care of his family members, cannot reconcile with such “consumerist” position of his “mirror” partner. He will certainly make the IEE take on at least part of responsibilities and chores. He will again reproach and pester his partner with complains, mention that he himself is feeling unwell, that he is exhausted and doesn’t have sufficient strength and energy. And even though IEE cannot replace the LSE, he will take on some responsibilities and carry them out to normative levels. With this he will stimulate the activity of the EII by influencing his activating sensory aspect: the more EII is taken care of, the more he is motivated to take care of others.
The only problem is that the cooldown of one of the partners (brought about, for example, by an overexertion over sensory aspects), will inevitably lead to the cooldown of the other partner: “You haven’t done anything, so don’t expect anything from me. Do you think that I need this more than anyone? Am I to endure through all of this?” At this point their relationship might once again descend into a vicious cycle of mutual accusations and reprimands.
Approximately the same problems will arise on the aspect of logic of actions. This constitutes the point of absolute helplessness of Dostoevsky and it will find only minimum and sporadic support from the impulsive pragmatic activity of Huxley. However, someone must also activate the IEE on this aspect. This is accomplished by the EII who often reminds the IEE of his vulnerability on this area by drawing attention to himself and requesting instructions and help with how to do various things. The IEE is forced to respond to these requests, but this is not easy for him – he would welcome receiving help on this aspect himself.
Thus, extending some basic support for each other on the aspects of SUPERID, partners somehow manage to resolve the challenges and problems that face them. Seeing at what cost this help is provided by their partner, they are often quite appreciative of such support, although this usually doesn’t transpire without any criticism.
Level of Id: Channels 7-8: Intuition of Time (Ni) and Ethics of Actions (Fe)¶
For “mirror” relationship, as we know, this is the level of the most frustration and hassle. It is precisely on these aspects that “mirror” types constantly jab and frustrate one another. This primarily applies to the aspect of intuition of time. IEE cannot calmly perceive the information on this aspect when he is close with the EII. The EII frustrates and tires him out with his constant reminders of the timeliness of actions, what should be done and when. In IEE’s perception, EII’s obliging, demonstrative intuition of time works like a broken alarm clock that keeps going off at random. Not only does IEE get tired of these inappropriate reminders – he himself is well aware of what needs to be done and when no less so than the EII – but he also feels exhausted by having to constantly argue this with the EII, by having to prove his opinions and defend his right to dispose of his time. IEE has his own plans, his own regime, his own prognoses – and the EII has his. On this issue they have many heated conversations. The person who “wins” in these arguments is typically the one who enjoys the most privileges in the family. For example, an IEE raised by an EII can be very punctual and pedantic over living by a schedule without deviations, and demand the same from people who are close to him. In this case, the IEE may “break out” of this regime because he wanted to do so, while his intuition of time will remain on passive, observing position.
Both of these types can be very intrusive and imposing in “being of service”, especially since their services are usually rendered intuitively. This is what it looks like:
EII: “Well, make the call right now, I promised that you would call.” IEE: “It is too early. There’s nobody there.” EII: “And then it will be too late, and you won’t call again. You should have made this call yesterday.”
And so on, in the same manner. Constant back-and-forth conversations and arguments on the topic of “too late - too early”, “now - then”, “it should be this way - it should be that way” unnerve and tire them both. As a rule, neither of them yields in these debates to the other. If one of them yields, he later regrets about it and will be inclined to remind his partner about his concession.
Note
translator’s note: These mismatches in perception of timeliness may be due to differences in Carefree/Farsighted preferences of these types. EII as a farsighted type prefers to keep informed and prepared for all occasions and in advance, while IEE as a carefree type deals with problems as they come along.
As we know, no arguments transpire without emotions, especially when the debate happens between two ethical types. Communicating with IEE, the EII, whose aspect of ethics of emotions is in observing position, is often unhappy with the results of his “observations”. IEE adjusts his emotions to the mood of his partner, which raises suspicions of the EII because this makes it difficult for him to estimate his partner’s true relation to himself. IEE’s emotions seem insincere, inconstant and false to the EII. The EII may then provoke quarrels by means of reproaches and jabs in an attempts to test and verify the relation of his partner. In such cases, the IEE does not realize what exactly worries his partner, what is it that he is looking for? It seems to the IEE that everything was fine – he arrived in a good mood, recounted a joke, made some conversation, and suddenly someone became upset with him!
Conflicts over this aspect usually end with concessions on the part of the IEE. His ethics is more malleable and pliant – he finds it difficult to withstand the rigid, inert emotionality of the EII. Once the EII winds up, he cannot be easily consoled and will continue the quarrel until he himself gets tired of his temper outbursts and unreason. Thus the IEE has no other course than to constantly change his tactics and maneuver with his ethics. In this way, by making tactical concessions, the IEE sometimes ends up being the “winner” of these arguments. Although, all in all, there is usually no clear “winner” in “mirror” relations.