Mirror Relations INTj and ENTp by Stratiyevskaya¶
This intertype description has been written by Vera Stratievskaya. The original article can be found at her blog Socionics from Stratievskaya.
Introduction¶
As with any mirror dyad, one type in this pair is rational and the other irrational. In this case, both are statics. From this follows the collision of two static sets of values, antagonism of two static programs: rational one (logic of relations) and irrational one (intuition of opportunities).
Ego Block: Channels 1-2¶
LII feels frustrated by the manipulative logic of ILE, by ILE’s ability to “juggle” logical arguments and facts, if only to subordinate them to his hypothesis and captivate his conversation partner with his ideas and notions.
On his end feels, ILE frustrated with the logical inertness of LII, his desire to subordinate the idea to the theory. For the sake of elegance of his theory, LII “juggles” various notions and may leave some out if they undermine the logical accord of his theory – this is something that the ILE cannot forgive him. How can one sacrifice all these ideas for the sake of one theory when on their basis one can build a million other theories? What is of prime importance: hypothesis or theory? (What comes first: the chicken or the egg?)
Superego Block: Channels 3-4¶
Normative, respectful of social norms and rules of conduct ethics of LII comes into conflict with the blatantly “hooligan” ethics of ILE. That is, all the conflicts, scandals, and awkward situations that constantly arise around ILE are left to the LII to resolve and clean up the mess. In such conditions, the normative ethical function of LII is put under a lot of stress. Even though LII is capable of some ethical flexibility, it is still difficult for him to function in the role of a diplomat and much easier to ask his partner keep himself in check. LII is subconsciously expecting to see the observing ethical function of his dual ESE. Thus he assumes that his partner should be able to manage and coordinate his relations and monitor his behavior himself.
To requests to “keep himself in check” ILE responds highly inadequately from the point of view of LII. Suffering from complication of ethical situations, ILE seeks to destroy around himself relations that are “unsuccessful” from his point of view and impose on others his “anti-ethics”, with which he further aggravates ethical frictions.
On his end, ILE feels annoyed and disappointed by the softness and amenability of LII, his dislike of becoming contentious with or without a reason, his unwillingness to fight with the “windmills”. ILE is particularly worried by LII’s reluctance to contend and assert himself. The normative sensing of ILE is too weak to constantly lend assistance in protection of the rights and interests of another. That’s why ILE needs a sensing partner who is capable of this type of compensation. ILE can “play” the defender of all those oppressed and wronged, his warrior-like ardor can break out in short bursts of anger or chaotic activity, but to continuously protect another’s interests is not within his capability. Thus, sometime his “mirror” partner will hear him say: “Defend your interests yourself. I won’t get involved in this.” With this he disappoints the LII who is expending the energetic and arduous support of his dual ESE.
Level of SuperId: Channels 5-6¶
Most discomfort in “mirror” relations arises from lack of support for weak, unconscious functions of both partners. Each of them needs reinforcement and guidance on these aspects, but neither of them receives this much needed information from his partner.
ILE feels loved only when he is surrounded by the most meticulous, precautionary care, and the most exquisite comfort. It is clear that he won’t receive such care from his “mirror” partner. LII feels that he himself is in need of this kind of attention. When the LII does not receive such support, he grows irritable, starts complaining and blaming others, becomes sluggish and inert. In such condition, of course, he won’t be able to provide any assistance to his partner.
The sense and he isn’t loved and cared for has a disheartening effect on the ILE. Feeling unloved, he becomes emotionally irritated, tries provoke his partner by quarrels and scandals, arranges for various emotional shake-ups, which for the LII, who is suggestible on the aspect of the ethics of emotions, will be very painful experiences. LII eventually comes to see his ILE partner as a person who is irascible, cantankerous and irritable, and will feel perplexed and disappointed by such relations. As a result of this LII may disengage and stop worrying about his partner at all (“as you relate to me, so I will relate to you”), which will be further exasperating for the ILE and evoke new outbreaks of his wrath.
The inability of “mirror” partners to help each other over suggestive and activating functions of SUPERID turns into never-ending string of problems, a vicious circle from which they have trouble escaping.
Level of Id: Channels 7-8¶
From the standpoint of his observing function of logic of actions, LII will critically perceive any attempts of ILE to show off his pragmatic business capabilities. Where LII considers himself to be a humble “consultant”, ILE will declare himself a “jack of all trades”.
The same happens on the aspect of the intuition of time. When ILE takes on the role of an unassuming observer, LII becomes the active creator of historical events, and, in the opinion of ILE, he always “appears” at the wrong time in the wrong place and not in the right situation. Such evaluations are made because each of the partners has his own “critical time” and his own reference points. Which one of them is right – only history will tell.