Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme

Toggle table of contents sidebar

Mirror Relations INTp and ENTj by Stratiyevskaya

This intertype description has been written by Vera Stratievskaya. The original article can be found at her blog Socionics from Stratievskaya.

Introduction

In this dyad interaction happens between two “theoreticians”, two intuitive logical types, that are also dynamic, which does not ease their relations - especially in the view that both of them are declaring types, that is, each of them believes his opinions to be unquestionable and declares them with a tone that excludes any objections.

The never despondent optimist, reckless adventurer and experimenter LIE interacts with a cautious, apprehensive, “wise mouse” ILI. So where do their problems start?

Ego Block: Channels 1-2: Logic of Actions (Te) and Intuition of Time (Ni)

First disagreements arise over the aspect of logic of actions, which is the “program” function of LIE and function of “implementation” of ILI. Methods by which Jack solves professional and pragmatic issues seem too adventurous, too haphazard and chaotic to Balzac. (Although, as we recall, in this dyad LIE is the rational type and ILI is the irrational type.)

Any method, any action that the LIE takes, the ILI almost always criticizes and judges as insufficiently thought out, calculated, and verified. Most importantly, almost anything that the LIE undertakes the ILI views as untimely enacted. This is due to the fact that the aspect of Ni is located for these partners in different and irreconcilable positions. For ILI it is in the “program” function; he loves and knows how to wait, and is able to make it on time without hurrying. For LIE this aspect is in position of “implementation”: he manipulates with stipulated plans and dates, he hates having to wait for anyone but makes others wait for him, he tries to make it everywhere on time but manages to accomplish only half of what he has intended, he makes haste and still he runs late. For LIE conservation of time is not a goal in itself, but only an instrument: he values his own time like no one else. On this basis complaints arise in the address of ILI, who annoys the LIE with his sluggishness and with his attempts to impose on the LIE his own plans, his own temp for development of events, his own rhythm of action. With his passivity and languidness, the ILI literally kills the activity of LIE - and by this he drives him into rage.

Some of the deepest disagreements in this pair arise on the aspect of Ni. The ILI’s motto “all comes to those who know how to wait” contradicts the motto of LIE “time doesn’t wait for anyone”. ILI’s sayings in the manner of “everything comes and goes”, “we will all be there” are frustrating and aggravating to the LIE. He doesn’t even want to consider that “we’ll all be there”, and in spite he tries to make his life eventful and filled with activities as much as possible. With the statement that “everything passes” LIE is also willing to argue: a person’s deeds shall remain, and thus the LIE tries to keep busy all his life (aspect of logic of actions, Te, is his “program” function). The ILI seems to the LIE as a person who is too idle and sedentary. LIE feels annoyed by the passive attitude of his mirror partner, his aloof position of an observer, his position of fundamental non-interference in affairs of others but rather his aim to be the judge, the inspector, the chronicler. According to the ILI such program is also necessary: someone needs to stand aside and impassively observe correcting other’s mistakes. This is the function which the ILI will also carry out with respect to activities of the LIE. The ILI is intolerant of mistakes and lapses; he considers why blunder, it may be better not to do anything in this case. This position very often drives Balzac into a dead end. When this happens, the time come for Jack to correct him, which he does, and in especially harsh manner. In LIE’s opinion a person who is intelligent and observant shouldn’t stand idle - he should do something, anything, especially if he is so well-versed in the experience of others.

However, ILI’s pragmatic expediency is about not taking unnecessary actions, not doing that which other people will do for him better and much more willingly. This is why the ILI next to LIE looks as an exceptional slacker, while the LIE next to the ILI looks as a kind of “perpetual engine”, an ardent worker.

Eventually, as a result of such a rigid mutual corrections, their professional and ethical relations start to cool off. The LIE is no longer willing to do anything for the ILI, and what’s more he starts to complain and grumble. This happens more often with the female representatives of this type, who in such cases begin complaining about their “immovable” partner: “He spends whole days on his chair - he doesn’t care at all! It came to me having to assemble and hang the bookshelves myself! How should I react to this? What is my husband for?” Someone else asked her, “And how did the shelves turn out?” She answered: “Oh, they turned out great! It’s better that I do everything myself. I can’t ask him enough times for him to do anything!” So it happens that the LIE can uncover unexpected abilities and skills in himself or herself coexisting side-by-side with an ILI partner.

Level of Superego: Channels 3-4: Logic of Actions (Te) and Sensing of Experiences (Si)

Emotionally ILI has a suppressing effect on the LIE. “He as if kills everything that is living,” complains about his ILI friend a merry, boisterous LIE, “Around him all the joy of life disappears, all of its vitalizing nutrients evaporate.” For LIE it is difficult to interact with the ILI for a long period of time. ILI’s “emotional dullness” weighs heavily on him. While for the LIE the ethical aspects are at least held within some norms, then the ILI can be an obnoxious partner in this respect - he either depresses LIE’s spirits by boredom, hopelessness, and melancholy, or irritates him by sudden outbursts of anger, unethical behavior, and unbridled humor and jokes.

And ILI’s jokes can be even more shocking than LIE’s, even more ill-suited and indecent (lets recall ILI’s famous “black humor”!). In this dyad there will always be problems with sensitivity and mutual sincerity of the partners. This is not something that they can expect or “borrow” from each other because neither one of them has these qualities in excess. In this dyad, interaction transpires between two people who are quite indifferent to other people’s problems and grievances. Sensitivity, tact, delicacy are not among their virtues. Thus, there is often a need in exceptional circumstances to bring two such individuals together, circumstances that would move them to display their best personal qualities towards one another, towards their friends and close ones. As a rule, other people usually get offended and start resenting this pair. Meanwhile these partners start reproaching one another for lack of interpersonal sensitivity and arguing who would have shown personal tact and sensitivity under which circumstances and why hasn’t he or she done it. (Who should have congratulated an aunt for her anniversary, who should have called the parents, who should have fed the children and taken them to school, and so on and so forth.)

The other problematic aspect in this dyad is the aspect of sensing of experiences. The questions and challenges of creating comfortable, convenient, organized life always remain open for them.

I recall a dorm room occupied by an ILI and an LIE students. The room was always in disarray, littered with books and random things: dishes, eating utensils, clothing, papers - there was no place to even set foot! The only unoccupied space was the double bed where the ILI would be reclining reading books the entire day. After finishing one he would get another. This is how they lived.

Of course there are “mirror” pairs who have done better for themselves than this.

The organization of comfort usually falls to the shoulders of Jack (especially if this is a woman). This happens in the least since this function for LIE occupies synethetic (creative) position, while for ILI it is analytic. The ILI is willing to take on the role of the judge or consultant on this aspect, but he is in no rush to provide effective assistance. This is with the exception of cases when his LIE partner is doing something important in ILI’s opinion and doing it very poorly (for example, not providing enough care to their newborn child). In such cases the ILI may decide to do it himself, move his LIE partner aside and do it for him/her.

ILI may take on the preparation of food on infrequent occasions, but then again only to show the LIE how it’s done. He has no intentions of taking over the kitchen. However, there are exceptions to this: ILI may do everything around the house and keep up a normative level of order and comfort in cases when he knows that nobody else will do this for him.

An example: mother - LIE, son - ILI, capricious, demanding, infantile teenager whom his teachers and his relatives have always considered to be irreparably lazy and who has been diagnosed with serious psychological deviations. The situation in their family has changed significantly when his mother had to spend a few months in a hospital and came back on disability. Now she runs out of good things to say about her ILI son: he pulls the entire household on his shoulders, works and earns money wherever he can find work, he has also become the first student in school - simply miracles! There were no miracles, and no psychological deviations. Such a change of character for an ILI is not surprising. It naturally arises from his interactions with an LIE, from the mechanism of their mirror relations: mirror partners can be good friends and allies if they combine their efforts to survive in difficult circumstances. Cooperation of mirror partners can only be welcomed - it is always positive, whereas conflict leads to mutual destruction.

Level of Super-Id: Channels 5-6: Ethics of Relations (Fi) and Volitional Sensing (Se)

Jack is literally exasperated by Balzac’s ability to take a large share of responsibilities and obligations from his shoulders and to shift it to the shoulders of another. Moreover, in the beginning these shifting events occur impromptu: Jack gladly takes up any task or assignment, he takes on many responsibilities, in short, he willingly puts himself “into a harness” hoping that his closest partner as a member of his “team”, being endowed with all the same rights and responsibilities, will help him along. In this case, his hopes are in vain. Balzac will certainly make use of his rights in order to evade his responsibilities. Or more precisely, he will see his main responsibility in another activity: to stand by, to point out and correct the mistakes of his partner, but not in shouldering the main burden, since ILI’s extraverted sensing aspect is located in the infantile block of SUPERID at the point of “absolute weakness.” Therefore, the ILI is disinclined to invest any actual effort. However, he will have plenty of demands and objections for a person whom he sees as insufficiently motivated and capable. This occurs because extraverted sensing is located in suggestive position of ILI. Being subconsciously oriented at a goal-driven and highly motivated dual, the SEE, the ILI is likely to evaluate LIE’s sensory capabilities rather lowly. He simply won’t get “suggested” by them. The ILI will refer skeptically and ironically to any of LIE’s demonstration on this aspect or attempt to impose his decisions, and may simply ignore them. In relations with LIE, the ILI will immediately try to place himself outside of any obligations or potential accusations. If he is reproached in his irresponsibility and irresoluteness, he will try not to react: “Yes, this is how I am, but there is certain sense/purpose in being this way.”

However, when the ILI will seek a more committed and responsible approach from the LIE, he also won’t find it: once the LIE gets tired of pulling everything on his shoulders, he will give up on everything and start avoiding his obligations, too (does he really need all of this most of all?).

As we can see, the LIE and ILI can offer little help to one another on the aspect of extraverted sensing, however, they will constantly fault one another in deficits in sense of responsibility and implementation. Additionally, they will criticize one another in lack of conscientiousness, since the ethical aspects are located in weak positions for both of these partners.

Both ILI and LIE are subconsciously oriented at ethical-sensing types of third quadra as their dual counterparts. Both consider that conscientiousness and sense of responsibility are notions that are inseparable. Since both of them will inevitably try to shift a portion of their responsibilities and obligations onto the shoulders of the other, the feelings of guilt and resentment will arise in both: “Yes, I may have wronged her. I don’t always do what she asks me to do. But she is also to blame, for she doesn’t always do what I ask of her.” Thus it turns out that on level of SUPERID they begin to take revenge on one another, thinking and behaving in line with the principle “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”: “Ah, so this is how you treat me? Then receive the same in return!” The LIE, being oriented at high-level, sacrificial ethics of ESI, does not consider that the ILI treats him well: “Where is the good attitude? He can’t be asked to do anything! Everyone else has husbands like husbands, while mine …” Approximately similar sort of criticisms the ILI will have for the LIE: “He stops by to see his friends all the time, while the children are unattended. Constantly squanders money … such an egotist!”

Of course, mutual reproaches won’t motivate these partners to show themselves from a better side. Each of them will have to “pull up” their weaker aspects to at least normative levels. For example, an ILI husband (who couldn’t be made to assemble the bookshelves) had to learn to command his LIE wife (which wasn’t difficult for him as an ex-military). Only he still gives commands while sitting in his chair: “Get up quickly! Get the kids dressed! And no more objections!”

And this is how they live.

Level of Id: Channels 7-8: Intuition of Opportunities (Ne) and Logic of Relations (Ti)

Here, the “observing” intuition of possibilities (Ne) of ILI, the task of which is to ensure the safety of ILI himself and people closest to him, to warn the ILI of potential problems, comes into opposition with LIE’s mischievous, reckless, “stuntman” intuition of possibilities, which despises dangers and tries to push the limits of what is possible. What happens as a result of this interaction?

ILI repeatedly warns the LIE about the possible unpleasant consequences, troubles and dangers. After, in spite of all these warnings, the LIE still runs into them, the ILI accuses him of recklessness and irresponsibility (and it’s possible to understand where he is coming from - he is scared to be on the same team with such a risk-taker). Meanwhile, the LIE feels himself almost paralyzed by the intuitive pressuring of the ILI. The ILI issues frequent warning in the manner of: “If you do this, you’ll lose this. If you go there, you’ll lose that.” Such negative premonitions enrage the LIE, since they subconsciously instill uncertainty in his or her own abilities and actions. What is interesting is that the more the ILI warns the LIE, the more he scolds him for levity and carelessness, the more often the LIE makes mistakes, the less faith he has in his own abilities and potential, the less he believes in his own success. At some point the LIE starts to feel that the ILI is impeding his initiative, his will and pragmatic activities. Demonstrative intuition of possibilities motivates LIE’s “program” logic of actions (Te): if there are possibilities abound then it is possible to do something to realize them. Thus, extinguishing LIE’s vision on the aspect of intuition of possibilities the ILI also dampens and cools off his activity and prohibits him from fully realizing his “program” function, which, of course, the LIE will resist. On the other hand, the LIE constantly juggling his triskter demonstrative intuition of possibilities places the ILI under a blow, inspiring him to commit some kind of poorly thought out and untimely actions, against which the ILI protests since it contradicts his own “program” function. (“Why should I hurry anywhere and assist anyone simply because that person hasn’t carefully evaluates their options and capabilities before getting involved in such a risky enterprise?”)

Many times the projects and activities undertaken by the LIE to the ILI seem poorly-calculated, crudely planned, and insufficiently researched and supported by necessary information. To the ILI it seems like the LIE could have found other additional sources of information (the ILI, unlike the LIE, likes and knows how to flaunt his erudition). For the LIE, however, the purpose of information is in implementing it into action/project as soon as possible. Thus, on the aspect of logic of actions, he often finds himself in a disagreement with Balzac, for whom the amount of collected information is almost never sufficient. The LIE often suffices with gathering some surface data and backing it up with personal experience (not always positive one). The ILI is not satisfied by such trial-and-error approach. He proceeds to criticize the LIE for recklessness, lack of sensibility/reason, and irresponsibility. The LIE, from his end, cannot agree with ILI’s “life-long” accumulation of information and its comparatively infrequent implementation and realization.

Thus the relations in this dyad are in part determined by contradictions of principles of “program” functions, returning them back to the conflicts and disagreements that will now continue on another “turn of the spiral”, on a new level …