Semi-duality Relations INFj and ENTj by Stratiyevskaya¶
This description of semi-duality relations was written by Vera Stratievskaya, 1997-2011.
LIE – ENTj – Jack London (Te-Ni)
EII – INFj – Dostoyevsky (Fi-Ne)
EII-LIE. Interaction of program and suggestive functions.¶
It would seem that only the best can be expected from interaction of two such “sunny” Positivist types - both radiate optimism, both are drawn to communicate, both are welcoming, friendly, open to everything new. Both value amicable relations and both know how to be a friend (the aspect of the ethics of relations, Fi, is a priority value for both).
EII and LIE quickly bridge the interpersonal distance, since for both of them it’s often easier to get along with each other than with people of their dual types. Their duals, ESI and LSE, are Negativist, Asking types, who often keep a large interpersonal distance in social situations and make the impression of being rather cold and insular, with suspicion relating to anything new, including new people and acquaintances. Bridging the distance with a “negativist” dual, such as ESI and LSE, is often a difficult task – one has to overcome their “barrier of negativity”, which requires a lot of effort in the absence of sufficiently high self-esteem. Thus, both EII and LIE often prefer the company of each other - the company of their “positivist” semi-dual type - instead of trying to relate to people of their dual types. Mutually valued ethics of relations (Fi) serves as the “signal beacon” for them to get to know one another and start closing the distance.
The LIE is attracted by EII’s responsiveness, emotional sensitivity, helpfulness, his desire to be of service, to charm, to aid a friend, his inclination to sacrifice himself for his partner (because something like this is also “coded” in the ethical program of LIE’s dual, the ESI).
While the EII is attracted by everything in the LIE that at least partially overlaps with the program aspect of “logic of actions” of his dual Shtirlits (LSE) – LIE’s persistence in achieving goals, logical acumen, inexhaustible energy, his preference for creativity and innovation – as well as by the native traits of this type: cheerfulness and optimism.
Both partners in this pair are of intuitive types – they are romantics and dreamers, visionaries and theorizers who find it easy and interesting to talk to each other and exchange information. LIE, as the Decisive type, can show his feelings for the EII very soon, especially if he feels that he has found the “ideal option” for partnership. However, over time his vigor and enthusiasm gradually diminish, as it becomes more and more evident to him that this “option” is clearly not up to his “ideal”.
In the initial stages of relations, the EII takes most of the initiative into his own hands and does so in an unobtrusive “soft” manner. He proceeds to progressively and very persistently “lock” the LIE onto himself, by entangling the LIE with various requests and obligations, with new priorities and interests, thereby diverting and inhibiting the LIE in carrying out his own plans. Any deviation from EII’s own course is received by he EII with distress and irritation, especially at the beginning of their relationship: “I cannot consider him to be my friend – he doesn’t call me, shows little interest in what’s going on with me. He didn’t even congratulate me over the holidays.”
The LIE will have difficulty understanding and dealing with the “petty” ( “aristocratic”, ceremonious) ethics of relations of EII, since LIE is subconsciously oriented at “democratic” “ethic of relations” of his dual ESI, whose ethical function is directed at providing immediate and effective assistance in critical situations and not at “ceremonious” regulation of people’s relations. Therefore, the callowness and negligibility of EII’s grievances and offenses will soon start to annoy the ENTj: “How is he (the EII) so offended over such minor things?!” When such misunderstandings and misapprehended “offenses” happen, their relationship can falter and even fall apart at early stages.
And yet, overcoming all kinds of contextual difficulties, often partners of these two types quickly get closer and become “locked onto” each other, despite all this “grinding” against each other and mutual fault finding, basing their decision to keep together on their original evaluations of each other’s strengths and positive qualities and, in some cases, commonality of objectives. Once they have made their choice, as “monogamous” rationals with prioritized ethics of relations, they will not change it; once united they remain together and faithful to each other.
Semi-dual relations are labile, concrete, pragmatic, and self-sufficient, and this dyad is no exception to this.
EII-LIE. Sensory deficit. Antagonism of wills and sensing functions.¶
The deficit over sensing functions – the absence of concrete, realistic initiatives – is always perceptible in dyads where both partners are of intuitive types. Each of intuitive partners will feel somehow deprived and not sufficiently cared for by the other. (“He wanted to eat, but cooked food only for himself. He didn’t clean after himself and didn’t help me with the clean-up.”) Neither ever feels that the care extended by the other is in any way plentiful, nor attentive, nor prudently considerate. Both will try to make the other live up to certain standards in sensing, and each will find such requirements too burdensome for himself or herself to fulfill.
Thus, both the EII and the LIE experience certain sensory deficits within these relations. Each of them feels a lack of the much needed signs of attention and respect from the other. The aspect of “resource-grubbing” and “insatiable” (and unsatisfying) declarative “sensing of experiences” aspect for each of these partners occupies a rather weak position in the inert block: +Si is vulnerable function for the LIE and activating function for the EII. Thus, each of them in any, even the most favorable conditions, will feel wronged, deprived of care, opportunities, and attention - this cannot be circumvented.
Both partners in this dyad are quite pragmatic (rational - declarative - intuitive - objectivists). Feeling these sensing deficits, they start to actively “pull the blanket over” from each other over the sensory and intuitive aspects in their ethical and logical interpretation. Both of them will try to counter this and to greedy satisfy their “sensory hunger” at each other’s (or at someone else’s) expense. To compensate for these deficits both EII and LIE require an “excess” in sensing functions – a sensory abundance, a full “storehouse” of experiences, provisions, care, pleasures and entertainment, from which they can draw by full handful for themselves. Feeling this deficiency, each will try to “intercept” and “overtake” a maximum of bonuses for himself or herself. To accomplish this, both of them will resort to a number of permissible and impermissible tactics, tricks, and techniques.
Both LIE and EII are appreciative of sincere, soulful generosity. Initially, by such behavior - by generous advances and ostentatious hospitality - they come into each other’s good favor. Later, however, each begins to notice that this generosity, which initially appealed to them, is being increasingly directed at other people in order to make a pleasant impression on them, to forge new friendships, to strike useful contacts, to get other people interested in oneself in order to implement one’s own plans and ambitions, to discover new opportunities and prospects for oneself. Each of them will see the other being demonstratively generous and kind for others and for oneself, but less so for his or her semi-dual partner.
The broadness of character of LIE, his habit of living with an “open house” and in “grand style”, his carelessness, openness, indiscriminate friendliness and hospitality that was intended for creative, resilient, strong-willed and inexhaustibly inventive sensing of his dual ESI, will be alarming and disturbing to the EII, as well as frustrating and provoking since such a lifestyle requires a large sensory flow and significant expenditures of energy and resources. Strangers will intrude into their space and clean it out! And one cannot save enough for all of them! “I did not hire myself out as a cook for everyone. Someone has to think about me. I’m also a human being, I get tired, I need to rest … How can anyone tolerate this bedlam?”
Both types in this dyad are “declaring” types and both are “strategists”. Once they have outlined a goal they try not to deviate from it, and each tries to set that goal independently, on his or her own: the LIE – as the predisposed to risk, expansive, decisive extrovert, and the EII – as an ambitious, prudent, “judicious”, “farsighted” static. As “strategic” types, once they instigate something, it will be something substantial and they won’t stop halfway at achieving this goal. Partners- “strategists” simply put each other before the fact that something is already planned and requires realization and active participation of the other partner. They do so without carefully considering means and capabilities of the other and without receiving his or her advice and consent. They simply suddenly “saddle” their partner with an activity or assignment, which in itself makes each of them feel frustrated. In dual relations, their enduring, hard-working, tactical, sensing partners LSE and ESI, can usually handle these “assignments” and help them realize their goals and plans (though even their energy and strength don’t last forever). However, in semi-dual relations, these two pragmatic and overly optimistic intuitive types are quickly put before mutual rejection of such plans: who likes it when important and effort intensive decisions are made over their heads, without consideration of their opinion and without their consent? – “You want this – you take care of it. Don’t count on me. I’m going to do something else today.”
When such situations of clashes of wills arise, the declarative authoritarianism of both of these types – the despotism of the LIE and the aristocracy of the EII – will become apparent. Neither of them wants to turn a holiday into a workday for himself and to shoulder all the work and all responsibility for conducting of what has been conceived by the other. In the end, if one of the partners creates some obstacles, unforeseen objections or complications, and if it’s not possible to negotiate with him or her, then the plans can be enacted without him or her, on “another playing field” – at a friend’s place or a restaurant for example – and let him or her sit at home and draw conclusions, such that in the future he/she would be more cooperative and receptive.
Both the EII and the LIE possess “proven” means to subordinate their partners to their wishes. The LIE with his creative intuition of time (+Ni) is able to direct, manage, and simulate a course of events in such a way that the EII will be forced to agree with his decisions and concede to his demands in order to not lower the impression and opinion of himself the eyes of other people (or at least try to create the appearance that he agrees to go along). Still, in an important moment the EII could “go on strike”, “vindicate” himself and “recoup” his “concessions” by means of his creative intuition capabilities (-Ne). He may also deliberately act offended, thus translating an objective interpretation of events into a personal and emotional grievance, and in this manner putting pressure on LIE’s weak ethical functions. He may also actively contend and argue against the LIE’s decisions and directives, turn LIE’s requests into a joking matter, or simply boycott and ignore them. The LIE, in turn, will grow annoyed both by the complaints and the demonstrative (as it seems) helplessness of the EII – his inability or unwillingness to invest the effort and take on responsibilities.
The deficit of sensing in this dyad manifests as lack of productive initiatives and the desire to shift the responsibility for sensing aspects onto the shoulders of one’s partner. This leads to a sense of uncertainty, which is often resolved through conflicts that upset these semi-dual relations and cast both partners to a greater personal distance once again.
Another problem is that neither of the partners wants to serve as a “buffer” in the now, for the moment, instead preferring to reserve the bulk of his or her resources and strength “for the later” (since this interaction occurs between two intuitive strategists). Due to their inherent optimism, each of them believes that in the future he will have another opportunity to prove his loyalty to his partner and to properly show care and concern for him, which ultimately turns into mutual perception of the lack of reinforcement, followed by reproaches, grievances and mistrust: “Prove your devotion to me right now!”
Intuitive “lapses” and “mishaps” in communication also complicate their relationship. Neither of them turns to the other partner with concrete proposals and realistic initiatives, or voices direct requests. Both prefer to signal about their needs vaguely and often speak in hints, being subconsciously oriented at a partner who will figure out what hides behind these insinuations and himself directly and explicitly make the offer and provide the much needed specific assistance. To intuitive types it seems like their partner knows better (or should know better) which “sensing variable” needs to be provided, adjusted, or fixed (and if he don’t know, then this is a “poor partner”). If such assistance isn’t readily offered, both partners feel offended. They turn to one another with requests for more care and attention, since both feel left out of partner’s sphere of care and concern. If they don’t see adequate support from each other, they may begin looking for it on the side – go somewhere where they are provided and cared for, better received, and better treated. Since this will likely contradict their ethical principles, they will blame each other for having to resort to such steps. They will feel uncomfortable before each other, seeing this as an emotional and moral “betrayal”, and they will feel uncomfortable before their “caring friends” (whom they are not always willing to consider as a viable alternative to their current partner). On the other hand, is there anything wrong if one of them spends an evening (two, three) in the warm company of other people? And is there anything wrong even if this even becomes a habit? Nevertheless, this trend in their partner’s behavior is disturbing to both, since both of them have well developed intuition and are capable of percepting where such turn of events could lead. Anticipating complications in their relationship, they may try to sort things out, which is accompanied by a new wave of frustration, snapping, new quarrels and accusations, and categorical demands that complicate their lives even more.
EII-LIE. Influence on vulnerable and suggestive functions of the partner.¶
Feeling offended, the EII will try to exert “pressure” on LIE’s vulnerable sensing and ethical aspects. The EII will present his semi-dual partner with new requests and claims, entangle and restrain him with more commitments, create discomfort over sensory and ethical issues. He will start to openly express his frustration, to act irritated and bad-tempered, to complain and demand a more sensitive and caring approach, believing that after this his partner will soon notice EII’s “suffering” and adjust his attitude for the better. The result of these efforts is usually quite the opposite: the LIE further feels disappointed with his semi-dual partner because he hates complaining and nagging in any form. It is exactly these “signals” for attention that are so well received by EII’s dual the LSE that greatly irritate the LIE, creating in him feelings of uncertainty, discomfort, helplessness, anguish and despair, and eventually leading him to snap in sudden outbursts of anger - that is, they lead to a different outcome than one that was hoped for by the EII. All of this in no small measure is accompanied by clashes over ethics of emotions, by outbursts, temper tantrums, and accusations on the part of EII, who still doesn’t understand why his most “effective weapon” does not have a proper effect, and explosions of irritation and frustration on the part of LIE, who starts feeling resentful of his partner after witnessing all of his attempts at emotional manipulation.
Let us not forget that both partners in this dyad are declarative types prone to authoritarianism – both can be unduly stubborn, both can assert their will and show presence of character. But they don’t do this in situations where it seems appropriate to the other. They will find it difficult to argue with one another. Each of them subsequently starts to feel angered by the apparent “incompliance” and unyielding attitude of the other. This is further aggravating due to the fact that at the same time they can see their partner being more compliant, flexible, and “malleable” around other people: “Others do with him what they want, while my words have little effect on him.” To both the LIE and the EII it then starts to seem that the other is extending himself, his service and talents, for the use of others, that he or she finds ways to invest his concerns and spend his energies on the side, while at home the state of affairs leaves much to be desired.
The EII doesn’t always succeed in mitigating the emerging conflicts and placating his LIE partner. The LIE doesn’t fall for his naive “tactical maneuvers”, in which he only sees feeble attempts to manipulate him, while the purpose of these manipulations is frequently unclear to the LIE. So what prompts them to make up and declare truce? After all, they are able to coexist somehow? Here, their innate positivism and long-term vision come to the rescue, as well as a sense of moral obligation and personal responsibility, that is not alien to either, and that they cultivate and strengthen in one another trying to raise it to acceptable levels.
Both of these semi-dual partners sometimes accuse one another in inability to turn down outside requests, but it is exactly this trait – this generous readiness to help a friend at any moment – that they prize most in themselves and in one another (while often not noticing this quality in their duals, since dual is perceived almost as granted, and at the same time idealizing it in their semi-dual partner and praising him or her for this). Both the EII and the LIE appreciate displays of sensitivity, kindness, compassion, but both suffer from excessively extending their concern and care to people outside of their relationship. At the same time, they cannot make one another give up these “good deeds”: how is it possible to fault someone in generosity and goodness and tell them to stop it? “Ethics of relations” transforms into “ethics of mercy” in this dyad and becomes the dominant value. Neither the EII nor the LIE dares to encroach on it: all that is done by a person out of kindness and good intentions cannot be subjected to criticism.
Defending his position of ethical superiority and importance of individuality and personality, the EII takes on the role of ethical mentor towards his logical partner and exerts similar kind of influence as he would do for his dual, the LSE. However, EII’s “ethical program” was not intended for the LIE and lets him down on multiple counts. Under EII’s guidance, the LIE builds his relationships with other people in a rather risky way: the EII stimulates the LIE to go for exorbitant concessions, deflects him away from his main “orientation points” by over-complicating ethical situations thereby blurring boundaries between good and evil into shades of grey, when the LIE needs clear distinction and strict guidance, and thus he makes the LIE even more indiscriminate in his generosity and in choosing his associates. The EII encourages the LIE to accept many of the negative phenomena and to “soften up” and back down on exactly those matters that call for a tough and principled stance. He encourages the LIE to be receptive to the pressure and demands of unfamiliar people, to yield to the will of strangers, to consider the opinion of unprofessional people, through which the LIE suffers loses not only himself but this also endangers the interests of his “team”. Dostoyevsky is rarely satisfied with the results of his ethical “mentoring”, so he will persist to the point that LIE’s friends and acquaintances if only won’t haul water on his back - they will mpose their own plans on him, distracting him from his own affairs. Under EII’s “ethical management” the LIE feels uncomfortable turning down any of their requests.
EII-LIE. Ethical and intuitive manipulations.¶
If both of these semi-dual partners have a busy lifestyle, they won’t often get a chance to talk, discuss their issues and express their claims. Frequently they are rescued from having to do this by a sort of light and “frivolous” intuitive disposition that is characteristic of intuitive types. By virtues of their positivism, optimism, and a measure of intuitive “lightness” – slight detachment from reality – each of them is able to simply laugh things off, to brush aside the awkwardness of the situation, to “fool around”, to assume a lighthearted and light-headed humorous tone that is especially characteristic of LIE in complex ethical situations but also of EII in “touchy” and logically awkward for him circumstances. This also constitutes attempts to manipulate each other through contact and regulatory functions by alternately changing their “roles” and “masks”. By this “uncomplicated” technique each of them tries to ensure support, approval, and investment from his partner, compelling him to take the initiative and assume a larger share of responsibilities in cases where attempts of direct, willful pressuring did not yield positive results.
Here both the EII and LIE are met with mutual “intuitive intractability”. Since they are both expecting the response of their dual sensing partners, who are much more susceptible to these “intuitive games”, they start to condemn this lack of cooperativeness and pliability in each other. The LIE feels annoyed when someone else challenges his views, forecasts, and his objective directives, especially if it happens in the wake of impending necessity or danger: “Don’t ask what and why – just go and do it! This is very urgent.” But the EII is one of the types that will ask a hundred questions before he or she goes and carries out what is asked of him or her. At the same time, the LIE cannot provide the EII with a strong enough sensory impulse that is required to quickly push the EII to work, since LIE’s sensory aspect is also in inert “childish” activating position (he himself is in need of this kind of volitional sensory impulse). Thus LIE’s patience and willpower don’t last long when he has to work with and deal with the EII. From this arises a feeling of constant fatigue after communication with his semi-dual partner, as well as a sense of disappointment.
As a decisive extrovert, Jack can take the initiative to show his feelings for Dostoevsky very soon, especially if he at the time perceives this option to be ideal: “When I saw her,” - says one of the representatives of this TIM - “I immediately decided that she should be my wife. And proposed to her already on the third day.” But here is how their family looked a couple of years later (from the account of their mutual friend): “The entire house is littered with rags and sewing threads. She (Dostoevsky) is trying to finish up in a hurry a new dress for her client. There is a pile of dirty dishes and food leftovers in the kitchen. Their child is laying the floor of the room, dirty and blubbered. He (Jack) is sitting in a chair at his computer, pretending that everything that is happening in the house doesn’t concern him. But at times he angrily shouts out to his wife: “Calm down that baby! Do something! “… A few months later I met her at the hospital and couldn’t recognize her. She lost so much weight and caught some kind of illness, likely due to being overworked and excessive stress … “
What is the cause of such an overload? Each partner brings his own “scenario of dualization”, his own “spirit of the dyad”, his own vision and expectations of the ideal, his own dyadic values into the relationship. LIE imposes the “roles” of ESI on the EII, hardens and “seasons” the EII, creates increased work loads, and tries to mold out of him a convenient to LIE model of this sort of undemanding worker, who wouldn’t allow himself to make petty complaints, demands, or voice resentments, which the EII finds difficult to accept due to his own dyadic and quadral expectations, that are different from LIE’s, and his natural “aristocracy” as well as the habit to view himself as too unfit and inadequate.
But someone has to take on the increased workload and commitments if the partner is sitting idly and not offering any assistance. And often the excess load falls to the EII, because he, unlike ESI, is not able to harshly “activate” his LIE semi-dual partner – EII cannot with a single angry and judgmental glance give LIE the necessary volitional “push” to mobilize him for work and help.
The EII, in turn, imposes on the LIE the “roles” of LSE – a sort of precautionary caring “gentleman”, generous and magnanimous in his desire to create for his partner the most favorable conditions of life. Any deviation from this scheme is frustrating and disorienting for Dostoevsky because it destroys his idyll and does not fit into his scenario of dualization.
Jack in this uncharacteristic for him role feels very uncomfortable, even more so because the corrections of his behavior he receives from Dostoevsky not in form of sharp, direct, and specific remarks (as he would have received from Dreiser), but in the form of vague hints, subtle insults and indirect jabs: “guess what you are doing wrong yourself!” This form of appeals is completely incomprehensible for Jack and therefore - unacceptable: he strongly dislikes having to guess his partner’s wishes, to conclude something for him. Thus he chooses to act within the the framework of what is accepted, with is disappointing to Dostoevsky.
EII-LIE. Intuitive opposition and confrontation.¶
A large number of clashes in this dyad involves conflicts over the aspect of intuition of possibilities (Ne). This aspect is located in the creative position for EII (where he tries to be exceptionally judicious), and in demonstrative function for LIE.
Trying to prevent any potential trouble and hardships for himself and those close to him, EII attempts to limit the freedom of action of his partner in all that to him, the EII, seems dangerous and risky (especially in regard to his own safety and well-being). EII is therefore unlikely to allow LIE to undertake actions such as risking their family funds and the “roof” over their head. He will resist handing over to Jack their shared money, property, real estate or facilities, or a single inch of their shared living space, and most certainly he won’t allow to turn it into a start-up capital for future ventures - this is not going to happen even if you wallow in his legs!
In this, EII differs significantly from ESI, for whom his creative sensing function serves as an inexhaustible inspiration to all kinds of combinations and manipulations of physical resources. ESI can take a chance and risk money and property if this is in the interests of self-actualization of his partner (even though this decision won’t be an easy one for him). This is also so because ESI feels his own strength and effectiveness in area of sensing, but at the same time he is not always aware of his weakness on the aspect of intuition of potentialities, while EII with his creative intuition is all too aware of everything that could possibly happen – and he is not ready to take such risks. Unlike ESI, the EII does not overestimate his options and potential (strong Ne) but instead he usually underestimates his forces, resources and abilities (vulnerable Se), and as a farsighted declaring type he parts with money and other material resources very reluctantly - it is always better when there is more of them.
Thus EII will stand in the way of LIE risking their resources, even if they exist in excess - hysterical screams will start: “You want to ruin us all!”
EII usually feels like LIE “gets it all” too easily in life. Although it was LIE’s optimism, his welcoming attitude towards risk, his ability to get out of tricky situations with minimal losses for himself, his program function of “logic of actions” implemented through “intuition of time” - it was all of these qualities of LIE that initially pleased and attracted the EII and brought him much delight, now lead to the conclusion that his LIE partner resolves his problems at the expense of others - at the expense of other people’s worries, conveniences, resources, and well-being.
Thus, in defense of his “weak side” in the area of sensing, in defense of his right to peaceful homeostasis and a comfortable life, EII may toughen his “measures” against LIE over the intuitive aspects, and especially over his creative aspect - “intuition of possibilities”.
Therefore, in alliance with EII, the LIE is often lacking this certain romantic aura - the image of a kind of “fearless, daring hero”, “knight without fear and blame” - which is usually cultivated in him by his dual ESI, who permits him a certain amount of “healthy” and “harmless” risk (as it is accepted in decisive quadras).
Conversely, in a partnership with EII, the LIE feels himself weakened and limited in scope of his abilities. In cases where his work involves risk, he often begins to feel guilty about causing his partner all these inconveniences and disturbances, which the EII most certainly will not hide, but to the contrary he will widely publicize them, so that by joint efforts he would finally be able to “reign in” his Jack. And besides, from Dostoevsky’s point of view, his true concern for his partner is shown precisely by such worries - if Jack is worried about, this means that he is loved! (Shtirlits would only be grateful for such care and cautionary advice.)
But LIE is not in need of such intuitive support, more so if it contradicts his own long-term plans and goals. Due to frequent constraints imposed on his possibilities, constantly fueled and creatively imposed fear (“what if something happens!”), LIE does not feel as confident in close association with EII. Simple and natural things start to bother him and turn into an unsolvable problems, such as for example his frequent outings and trips that the LIE has to take being unable to remain in one place. ESI, due to its inert intuition of time, can “stop” and “freeze” their relations at any given point, thus long separation do not change his attitude towards his dual. He can relatively easily part with his partner for a long period of time and therefore Jack’s trips are not considered onerous in this dyad as they are in his partnership with the EII.
The EII reacts differently to such circumstances. As a strategic intuitive type, he prefers to impose his own global plans on his partner and cannot be reconciled with the need to tolerate his “absences” that were imposed on him, during which he cannot fully realize himself as a partner and does not have a partner at his disposal. Therefore, these constant separations EII views as serious obstacles that are destroying the harmony of his relations. Thus, he may consider LIE’s profession, if it is associated with risk and frequent business trips, to be inherently unacceptable for their life together as a couple. “Why does he even need a spouse with such a work schedule?” - this is a question that rarely occurs to ESI, who easily adopts the operating regime of his partner, perceiving it as an originally specified stipulation to which he must adapt himself. ESI readily receives any kind of specifications and “certainty” on the aspect of the intuition of time. This aspect for him requires clarity and well-defined goals and marks: if a spouse is leaving for a month, then one must wait for him for a month, if a year - then a year; ESI will wait for the specified period of time that was created for him. EII in this situation may feel offended and abandoned: how is it to be left alone for an entire year? What is going to happen to me in this time? What am I going to do? The EII needs absolute certainty in his activating sensing aspect - who will take care of everything?
For ESI such doubts do not exist. His sensory aspect does not fall into the “infantile” zone, and therefore he does not require extensive support in this area. Unlike the EII, he is not in need of certainty over the areas of sensing. (And if it somehow complicates his relationship with the partner, then he doesn’t need it at all.) For ESI what is “necessary” coincides with his understanding of what he must do. His program ethical function is realized by his volitional sensing aspect. Thus ESI’s loyalty to this partner is supported by action, by providing for his family and his household - in this he sees his primary objective, his original purpose, and by this he realizes his program function of “ethics of relations”.
And EII isn’t capable of such feat? Implementation of the ethical program function of EII is actuated by intuition of possibilities, which will estimate the potential of his capabilities. He will instead think: “How long will I endure? How long can I go on making such concessions?” Believing that concessions must be mutual, EIIy will require certain sacrifices on the part of LIE, for whom any distractions from his assignments and work (or changes in conditions) will seem as an unreasonable and unacceptable requirement.
In partnership with EII, the LIE finds himself in a difficult, sometimes outright intolerable situation. On his flexible, inventive (creative) intuition of possibilities, EII finds enough ways to put his partner in a no-win situation in order to insist on his own decisions. He will try to anticipate the “dangerous” activities of his LIE partner and prevent by all means possible: he will remain in same position, occupy himself with one task, or throw a scene. Since LIE won’t tolerate these kinds of demands from anyone, he will try to “slip out” of the “area of attention” of EII, as a result of which LIE will tighten his control (as is typical of declaring types) - decreasing the distance, he will follow his every step.
Independence in making his own plans is declared by LIE as one of his principles and upheld as a general guideline - for LIE the matter of self-realization in society is a vital issue! It is clear that he won’t allow any “intuitive dictate” over his persona. LIE himself knows when and what he needs to do and does not need the help of any advisers here.
Thus, the disputes of this pair pass onto the aspect of “intuition of time”. To the questions of: where were you? what have you been doing? how are we going to go on living? - Jack cannot provide a specific and intelligible response to his partner. Meanwhile the EII out of his fears that “something might happen” produced by his creative function of “intuition of possibilities” (-Ne) will try to alter, prevent, or derail the natural course of events that (presumably) should have brought to LIE some positive returns and that has been modeled and predicted by Jack on his creative function of “intuition of time” (+Ni) . Due to such forced “correctives” of EII, which are often out of place, illogical and erratic, the charted plan of action becomes distorted. This leads to unforeseen complications for the LIE, which convinces EII even further to not trust his intuition and predictive abilities.
EII-LIE. Incomplete support of suggestive functions.¶
As a result, confrontations will occur over pragmatic matters in this pair, which are in part provoked by weak “logic of actions” aspect of EII.
If LIE manipulates and manages situations where the decisive factor is the aspect of positive intuition of time (from point of view of: “I know what’s going to happen.”), then EII on his creative function manipulates situations in which the decisive factor is the negative intuition of possibilities - (“How do you know what will happen? Does anything really need to happen? What if things get worse?”)
Intuition of possibilities, a static function, in this case comes into confrontation with the intuition of time, a dynamic function. As a result there is further conflict of program and suggestive functions due to inconsistencies in program objectives and values of these two types: to EII it seems that LIE is acting as he shouldn’t and doing something which he shouldn’t do (“a disappointment” in suggestive function of “logic of actions”), meanwhile to LIE it seems that the EII is behaving inappropriately, that he doesn’t support or believe in him, that he is “betraying” him and “dropping out” of Jack’s “team” (a disappointment in suggestive function of “ethics of relationships”).
On his creative intuition opportunities, EII attempts to manipulate the possibilities available to the LIE. The problem is compounded by the fact that these “intuitive corrections”, that are often delivered in form of reproaches, fall on the weak and easily suggestible “ethics of relationships” Fi aspect of Jack: “you could have called me”, “you could have warned me - you know that I am worried about you”, “you and I could have spent the evening together,” etc. Thus pressure is exerted on the point of weakness for Jack, on his suggestive zone (ethics of relationships) and on is demonstrative zone (intuition of possibilities). As a result LIE “hears” only half of what his partner is trying to get across to him. He receives EII’s information only partially and with reservations, “Yes, I want love, I want friendship, I want to have someone reliable and loyal by my side, but I don’t want for someone else to decide for me what I can and cannot do, and I don’t want my options listed for me. “
Similarly, EII won’t be able to fully recognize the leading aspect of his partner, “logic of actions”, Te, if it is accompanied by intuitive corrections: “this you should do now, this you will have time to do later”. EII with his creative intuition perhaps knows better what he will have time to do now and what he can do later. He feels uncomfortable when someone attempts to manage his time and switch him from one task to another. The simplified methods suggested by Jack may not work out for the EII - “I cannot work as you request. I only have too hands! I cannot do something quickly and do it well at the same time.” Subconsciously, the EII is oriented at “high-quality” “logic of actions” program function of his dual, the LSE, which prioritizes quality over time. Thus LIE’s simplified methods and techniques designed to save time can seem inappropriate and unacceptable to the EII, LIE’s tips and shortcut tricks will seem to him to be a mere formality.
Similarly, in the sphere of “ethics of relationships”, LIE may start having some suspicions concerning the friendship, love, and loyalty of his EII partner, and begin to feel that EII’s attachment is purely formal and superficial in its nature, since in actuality it results in “intuitive” excuses: “I’m busy today,” “don’t count on me tomorrow”, etc.
Just as LIE will be disappointed with “ethics of relations” of EII, the EII will be disappointed with “logic of actions” of LIE, but primarily by its intuitive realization: “I want to be explained and shown what needs to be done and how to do it. I want to helped in action, in actual work, but I don’t want to be hurried or for someone to interfere with my plans - this I do not need.”
We already know that every dual dyad has its own dual “script” - its optimal distance between the partners and its own holistic, uninterrupted, “enclosed world” - “the world of the dyad” - a special world with its own values and rules. Any disparities in values and “laws of the dyad” are perceived by non-dual partners very painfully, causing misunderstandings, confusion, arguments and quarrels. In this dyad, the initiator of such conflicts is often the ethical type - the EII - who, despite all his orientation at harmony in relations, occasionally develops the desire to start up a quarrel in order to sort out his relationship with his partner, to assert in his own positions, and to reinforce and impose the values and goals of his own dual dyad.
EII-LIE. On coordination of goals and objectives.¶
Partners usually cannot interact unless they first try to coordinate their goals. Semi-dual relations initially presuppose a certain concreteness, specificity of purpose, without which there is usually no closing of the distance between the partners according to the scheme “own-stranger”, which is just as important here as in a dual relationship.
Faced with pragmatic or intuitive intractability of EII, the LIE may start seeing him as a partner who is “foreign” to himself. In EII’s persistence, stubbornness, and naive but never ending intuitive “intrigues”, LIE may even start to see malice (which at the depth of his heart he wouldn’t want to believe), or start to suspect the dissimilarity of their goals. Attempts to coordinate their goals, to come to an agreement or at least to clarify the situation are also not always successful - LIE may run into the same stubbornness and lack of understanding on behalf of EII, the same lack of faith in his activities, all the same groundless fears and prohibitions: “Don’t you dare do this! You want to ruin us all! .. “
The idea of his own “death” sometimes seems very attractive way of taking revenge to the EII (in the Socion, this is one of the types most inclined to suicide). But it is precisely this form of exerting influence that to LIE seems absolutely unacceptable - it shocks him and discredits all of the so-called “ethics” of EII in his eyes - his partner starts to seem a vapid, vindictive, and ruthless person.
ESI does not “tease” LIE with suicide, because he realizes that this is an illegal tactic which should be not be used even in extreme cases. Even when LIE’s activities and business ventures lead to ESI’s complete ruination - even in such cases he does not opt out to “leave life”. Most that ESI allows himself is to “disconnect” or “fall out” of life for some period of time, cut all communication and spend time along in seclusion in order to restore his strengths and later regain all that he’s lost.
ESI never threatens LIE to deprive him of support over the “sensing of experiences” aspect - that is not the point where it is customary to “attack” in third quadra. EII can attempt this because he is subconsciously counting on the strong, creative sensing of his dual, the LSE. EII’s “sensory strike” will fall on one of LIE’s most vulnerable and painful spots, which may lead to sharp conflicts.
The closer the distance - the more difficult it is for these partners to peacefully coexist. At close distances, LIE begins to concede increasingly often and give way to the EII, as the later will attempt to actively manipulate him ethically and intuitively: the EII “turns off the oxygen” via his “intuition of possibilities” - limits LIE’s freedoms, controls his every move, does not allow him to take risks or depart for long; while on “ethics of relations” and “ethics of emotions” EII will try to appeal to the conscience of his LIE partner, his feelings as a human being, as a member of the family, as a husband, friend, or partner.
In the end, the EII can break down LIE’s resistance. He can make him change his job or profession, and persuade him to conduct a more stable and settled way of life. But even if Jack “comes down to the shore”, he will still try to get out of control of his partner, find an outlet where Dostoevsky will be powerless due to his weak sensing aspects: he will go spend time with friends, sleep over elsewhere, go out gambling or drinking, even go on a binge. Then Dostoevsky won’t be able to help him.
Dostoevsky about Jack: “Now I realize that the most peaceful time we had was when he departed for the sea. Even though I was worried for him, even though I was very nervous, and even though it was hard for me to wait for him, everything was easier than when he came back to to shore. When he came back home, every day - drinking, partying, friends, card games. And they were not young - all had families, wives, and children. Sometimes they would play cards until the morning. Eating and drinking. I would try to break up their company saying: “Go, go home, your wives are waiting for you! ..” I would feel relieved when he went back into the sea. And when he was permanently assigned to the shore, he soon fell ill and died, yet he wasn’t old … “
EII-LIE. Relations at distance.¶
Tatiana (EII, Dostoevsky), 47 years old.
“Val was a great guy. Our friendship lasted twenty years. The first five years it was only a “nodding” acquaintance - we met on holidays being in the same company.
He was an interesting man - earned three higher degrees and worked as a seafarer in the Arctic. Had many friends - he was an open to communication, simple guy. Jack of all trades, knew how to do everything. Was always smiling and confident. It was easy to be with him. And I felt confident. He was an unassuming person, tactful, did not “climb into the soul”, but neither did he open his. He was a good man! If it were not for his work - he went to the sea for 1.5-2 years …
His relationships with women were difficult. As a child, he experienced a deep disappointment - his mother slept around. He condemned this in her. Women loved him. He dated them, but didn’t have any long-term girlfriends - he thought that he shouldn’t get involved with them.
I have been his friend for the longest time. We got together because I had to “break off” from my husband - by that time it was three years since I divorced him, but I just couldn’t forget him. While Val was a sincere and responsive man - he could be trusted. And all my girlfriends told me: don’t let him go, like cures like.
So I decided to “knock out fire with fire” … I don’t remember the details of how it transpired. I only remember that I cried all night. He was taken aback and did not know what to do with me. I cried from a feeling of resentment - why couldn’t be my husband in his place? I wasn’t very comfortable around Val - many things just didn’t feel right: he didn’t react right, didn’t behave himself in the manner I expected - everything wasn’t right! No, he was a great partner, but there was something about him that I didn’t like… Though the main aim has been achieved - the “medicine” has worked, the barrier has been overcome.
Then, he became my best friend - I could come to him at any time and was always greeted with a warm welcome. He loved to receive guests. He always had some food prepared - and so delicious and beautiful! He loved feasts and knew how to arrange them, but nevertheless for everyday life he seemed to be an uncomfortable partner - he went out sailing somewhere for a year or two, then suddenly appeared: “Hello! Where are you? I am back!” But he wrote often. And called too. He called even from Africa. For sure he sent his congratulations over holidays. He congratulated all his friends - no one was forgotten.
Friends and work - this is what was most important for him. It would happen that once he arrived, he would be all taken up by work, and when everything was settled, he would go fishing, to sauna, or to a hike with friends … It was merry around him! He could get very drunk, and could also start a fight. But not when he had a drink - no! After drinking, he would be merry - he sang, joked, and smiled. In his house there was always a case of vodka - in reserve.
He was a cheerful, optimistic person. Never complained about anything. And somehow he easily arranged his home life. He had a friend - an accountant by profession - who looked after his home in his absence, paid for the apartment, settled everything, etc.
On the ship, Val was indispensable: the cook, and the communicator, and the mechanic - he fulfilled every role - and all at the highest level. He could do any work better than anyone else. Cooked a meal no worse than going to a restaurant. Whatever task he took up - even if for the first time - will do no worse than a professional. I very much respect that in him - his professionalism. And he was generous and kind - always brought me gifts, souvenirs, sea shells, fans from his trips. (1) (1.) Suggestive effect on an aspect of logic of actions, Te.
For twenty years we were friends, and he has never proposed to me. During all this time, our plans didn’t coincide (2). It was impossible to adapt to him - he never went out to sea for less than a year and would come back for only two-three months. While at home, he missed the sea; he was drawn to the north. I would wonder how he can endure all of this - the polar night, the cold, the darkness - his friends couldn’t stomach it, but he felt himself perfectly fine. Such a person he was - he would do only that which he loved. I understood that he wouldn’t abandon his work. It was impossible to ask this of him. And how could I go with him sailing? I had to care for my sick father and my son. (2.) Here and further, the “mismatches” on the aspect of the intuition of time can be seen.
And over the little things it did not go smoothly between us. One day he calls me: “Get ready, lets to to the port to say goodbye to Gene”. I’ve just started cooking the chicken - I can’t simply drop everything and run! Well, while I’ve finished with my cooking, while I gathered and arrived at the port, they have already parted with Gene and disappeared off to somewhere. While I was deeply disappointed - they could have waited for me.
His tied his personal life only with his friends - not with women. At one time he had a long-term girlfriend whom he referred to as a wife. Once he has returned from eighteen months voyage and found her pregnant. He was stunned, “Where did you get this belly?” - he asked. It was a big shock for him. But he didn’t throw her out - she left him herself … In general, he was very attractive to women. Many literally hung themselves around his neck. And he allowed them to love him, but did not permit himself to fall in love …
This is something that I did not like in him - his attitude towards women. He did not indulge them, did not tell them beautiful compliments - he did not idolize his women. No - he was a kind and attentive man. I never heard a bad word from him, but neither did he voice any compliments - such a person he was. He has never told me that he loved me, or even that he missed me … (3.) (3.) Aristocratic, subordinate to rituals ethics of relations of EII is not consistent with the democratic, free from accumulations of ritual relations ethics of 3rd quadra. Each quadra has its own code of ethics.
He never tried to push me into more intimate relations. I didn’t say anything and didn’t even hint that we should get married. I waited for him to say this himself. But he didn’t. Perhaps he didn’t realize it, or may be he was waiting for something else from me… And for me this was very strange - how many men I’ve dated - all of them have proposed to me. I won’t even speak about my ex-husband - before we got married, he courted me for three years. And Val never said anything - not a single time. (4.) (4.) Usual style of communication for intuitive types - by indirect “hints”.
Also it so happened that I have always been tied down by something, hand and foot - either family or work. When there was a need to go out somewhere, pay a visit to friends or go to a picnic - I’m always busy! He even stopped inviting me, saying, “I don’t even ask any longer - you are occupied as always.”
I always liked by his friends and by wives of his friends. I felt fine in their company, and I felt good around Val! I could always come by his home to get some rest. It was always pleasant and comfortable there. He cooked delicious food. You could just come in and eat. He never requested anything from me. I could not just sit for a while and then leave - he never insisted that I stay over for the night, did not inquire why I came by at all - he simply understood me.
He was very purposeful and methodical. Even when he was on one of his trips, he would constantly tell me what to do: he sent instructions in letters, what should be done and how to do it. (5.) And then he added at the end “be happy”. And I also wanted to add: “with another?”. (5.) LIE as a positivist is more inclined to “direct” the enthusiasm of others than do something himself (particularly if it’s boring and routine). This is why at times there is a “team” that does the work for Jack. Negativist LSE prefers to do everything himself which is more convenient for the EII, who also prefers to be more of a “guide” than run errands himself, but at the same time tries not to assume too much responsibility.
It was upsetting to me that he has never asked whether I needed help with anything, whether I needed money or should he bring anything for me… He had little clue about my practical needs, and I never directly asked him for this, thought he would see it himself. (6.) He didn’t volunteer to help me with my problems, but would fulfill any of my requests promptly - at any hour of the day.(7.) He carried my aunt from operating room in his hands and kept on duty in her room without time limits or rest. Anything that I’ve asked of him I was given one answer: “Alright, I’ll do it.” - And he did. (6.) “Sensory deficit” - inability to provide concrete, effective help. (7.) What is implied is a concrete request.
It was only once that he has yelled at me - when I by my own initiative started repairs in his apartment. I did it because I wanted to help him with something, but he didn’t understand this. I was angry at him and left, while he ran after me for several blocked and apologized to me. He never finished the repairs - the next year he returned from a trip sick, irradiated, with cancer that has metastasized. He was the only one in his team who has gotten irradiated - he helped to clean up an accident. Volunteered himself, nobody else would - some didn’t know what to do, others had children. And he knew how to do everything had no family - there was nobody to save himself for …
He was sick for long time - about a year. He didn’t go out to the sea but lived in the city, but again, not by choice, but because he was forced to do it. When he had learned that he was sick, he forged the results of his medical tests to go on another excursion. I told him: “Are you out of your mind? What if you become ill? “And he said:” So what? I’ll be buried as a sailor: they’ll tie a load to my feet - and to the sea!”
If there was one thing I could never understand about him - that was how he related to his own well-being.
“Big deal, health - not the most important thing in life”. I remember one night he suffered an attack - this was when he was already sick - we called an ambulance. The next morning I called him - no one answers. One day - no answer, second day, third day, fourth day - then he re-appears - he was spending time with his friends! I didn’t know what to think. Oh, how I cursed! And for him it was all he-he, ha-ha. He didn’t care that others were worried about him! At least, he could have called .. (8.) (8.) Jacks are often careless about their own well-being. For them it has static value: health was, is, and will be, and “it won’t go anywhere”. Jacks may conditionally consider themselves to be healthy, thinking that this is enough. By and large Jack doesn’t “believe” in sickness in as much as he doesn’t “believe” in death. Such position is certainly disapproved of by Dostoevsky, in whose view everyone is personally responsible for their health, not only for their own sake but also for their loved ones. In the dyad EII-LSE aspect of introverted sensing is an important value.
He was always like this: wouldn’t complain about health - “little things of life”, and now it turned into such a disaster! I had to tell him myself that he had cancer. The doctor initially confused the slips - gave him one slip, and me - another. I tried to catch him for three days - at first I couldn’t find him at home, then I did not have the guts to tell him. And then I thought: he’s such a brave man, why hide this from him? Maybe he has some things to finish up… Later he was grateful that I told him about this.
His friends at first did not pay attention to his illness - they were used to the fact that he was always healthy and strong. They couldn’t even imagine that he is sick. And Val didn’t spare himself either - as soon as he got out of surgery he went to help load the furniture. I said to his friend: “You know, Gene, he only recently was on the operating table. He cannot be moving furniture, his stitches may open up.” Val only brushed it off dismissively, “It’s nothing,” - and lifted up a heavy closet. I screamed, “I cannot look at this!” And he coolly replied, “If you cannot look, then don’t look”. I couldn’t stand it and feeling upset I went home. Val later came by to apologize, “Don’t be upset. Gene has asked for help!” He was always like this - someone asks him and he cannot refuse. He didn’t live for himself but for other people …
Such a man he was - would sacrifice himself for others. On March 8, he ran away from the operating room to send me a greeting. He felt bad on the street and had to almost crawl to the post office - he was in so much pain.
During the last year, when he was already seriously ill, he became a believer - he couldn’t expect help from anywhere else! He attended church as if it was his work and would stand through the service from his last strength. Everything that he had of value he brought to the church. There, he gave out all his money. A kind person he was, couldn’t refuse anyone …
And as his friends loved him so much! He willed the rest to them - his apartment, his car, and garage. His friend - the accountant - sold all of it and with the money each year we would have get-togethers in his name. We rented a bus and traveled to the cemetery … and then arrange a celebration and a feast - this he loved! We remembered him by kind words. Ordered a good monument for him…
It is a pity that there was nobody left after him … I remember I asked him, “Val, may be you have a child somewhere? Perhaps one that born outside of legal union?” And he replied:” I don’t know, nobody has filed for child support yet.” One day I found him at an interesting activity: he was packaging candy and gingerbread in bags before his flight - as a gift for the “abandoned” kids of the North. He also made a joke at the time: “Who knows, maybe one of these kids is mine.”
I always felt sorry for him in this respect. This man was a treasure! Yet no family, no children. Only friends. And they would tell him: “Val, don’t get married, it’s so great to spend time with you.” What kind of friends are these? They would come and depart, and leave only dirty dishes behind …
It was difficult with him - he was always busy, doing something, or with friends. He didn’t live for himself at all.
One time he brought a mammoth tusk from his trip - he found it himself, sawed it into pieces and gave away all his friends - as a memoir. I have one such piece from him that I have saved. This is the only thing that I have left … “
This is a sad story … Perhaps if there was somebody waiting for his man back at home, if he had a family, maybe it would have ended differently? This way it turned out that there was nobody for whom he would look out for himself …
This is not the only reason why he volunteered to clean up the crash - someone had to do it! LIE is a rescuer by vocation. In his life there is always space for a heroic feat. His program logic of actions, creative intuition of time, and demonstrative intuition of potential in combination with suggestive ethics of relations oblige him to it.
The fact that his work and interest for Jack are above all else, does not mean that he shouldn’t have a family - one does not exclude the other. Jack needs to be made certain that he is loved and is needed by somebody. But in this story he was only made a friend, while there was no talk about love of serious intents - it was expected that he would guess himself and be the first to start the talk.
LIE needs others to wait for him. He needs support on an aspect of the ethics of relations and stability on extraverted sensing aspect; he needs a place to which he tied and which he considers to be his home and his family. Such a “place” becomes the main focus of the application of LIE’s static sensing function, which requires absolute assurance and certainty. LIE is in need of strict, concrete and clear directions relayed to his aspect of volitional sensing, which is best be done only his dual ESI via his discrete, asking, creative sensing. Lacking such direct guidelines within his family, LIE will displace them to his circle of friends and his occupation and hobbies, attempting to be useful to others.
EII with his declarative, weak, mobilization sensing is not able to set clear directives and targets for his partner on this aspect. According to the model of this TIM, EII’s mobilizing sensory aspect is oriented at “softening” the harshness and rigidity of his dual LSE - it was not designed to support and reinforce the sensory aspect of overly pliable intuitive type LIE. The heroine of this story encountered exactly the problems that were destined by nature for the pair LIE-ESI to resolve. However, an EII does not have the necessary “toolkit” to surmount this task, thus the EII finds himself or herself spending an incredible amount of effort on redirecting the actions of LIE into the “right course”.
To the credit of our heroine it can be said that she has successfully coped with this task - she accurately estimated her own strengths and capabilities, supported relations with her partner at the most optimum distance, took care of him during the most difficult period of his life, remained a loyal friend and kept him in good memory.