Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Activity Relations ISFj and INTp by Stratiyevskaya
¶
It can be said that each of the partners brings to the activation dyad his or her own model of behavior that is based on the development of dual relations in his or her dual dyad and at which each partner is subconsciously oriented. While for ESI’s dyad this program for dualization is extremely simple and rational, ILI’s dualization transpires according to a very complicated and confusing scenario.
As it has been recognized, it is necessary to win over the ILI. At the initial stages of dualization, the ESI is not aware of this. Had the ESI known this in advance, perhaps he wouldn’t had involved himself from the beginning, since to “win over” a partner, “to break the spears for him” is not in ESI’s style. Despite this, often the ESI cannot help himself but get drawn into this game. Usually, it happens according to the following scenario: Upon meeting Balzac for the very first time Dreiser forms a favorable impression of this person. He sees a man who is humble, friendly, intelligent, and - most importantly - very lonely. Not just lonely, but suffering from his loneliness and waiting for a “savior” who will deliver him from this state. Moreover, this “call for a savior” is often picked up on and “read” not only by Dreiser, but by all ethical types of 3rd and 4th quadra. However, ethical sensing types ESI and SEE use a more direct, assertive, and energetic approach in “rescuing” the ILI than the approach used by ethical intuitive types EII and IEE.
How is ESI “activated” in these relations? When he receives the “signal” of his activator, ESI begins to feel that he is exactly that person who would be able to deliver Balzac from his “imprisonment”. To ESI it seems that the ILI has been waiting for a very long time for someone to release and relieve him from his loneliness - and of course he is deserving of this! This is indeed so. Balzac knows how to wait - he is fundamentally passive and waits for a more active partner to appear on the scene as per his program function of Ni, “intuition of time”. Dreiser, in these relations, assumes the role of such a “knight-liberator”, attempting to pull Balzac out of his shell of inactivity as soon as possible. And by this the ESI commits a mistake, not only because he overestimates his own strength and capabilities, but also because he underestimates his ethical program, which, in principle, wouldn’t permit him to commit such transgressions over someone else’s person.
At first, however, ESI’s ethical “program” makes no objections against him taking matters into his own hands. Meanwhile his creative sensing function becomes activated through the aspect of “intuition of time” - that is, Dreiser decides that this person has been waiting and suffering for a long time, and thus he shouldn’t delay providing him with concrete help. Concurrently, on the aspect of “intuition of opportunities”, the ESI arrives at the following notion: “If I pull this person out of this rut, he will become my most faithful and most loyal partner”. Such ideas become very firmly stuck in ESI’s head, he won’t reject them for a long time. They infuse ESI’s emotions and his perception of his relations with a measure of static-ness and inertia, while ESI’s creative sensory function engages in extensive and active manipulations.
Once activated, the creative volitional sensing of ESI attains pronounced expansiveness in nature and thereby dampens ESI’s introverted ethical function. For the duration of this, ESI’s priorities in leading and creative functions become transposed. At this point, Dreiser almost completely forgets about relational ethics: about having tact, modesty, and restraint.* The highest ethical mission here lies, in his opinion, in saving this person, in rescuing him out of his “prison” and delivering him from his lonely existence - and to this end all methods are acceptable. Here, the flexible manipulative sensing function of ESI becomes very straightforward and determined, similarly to the dominant function of SEE - that is, Se begins to dominate in the model of ESI’s behavior, and all of his modesty and reserve become replaced by assertive expansionism. Many examples can be cited of how the charming representatives of this sociotype pursued their “unassailable” ILI activity partners, providing them with concrete help and attention. An example of this from classic literature is the relationship of Tatyana Larina and Eugene Onegin. How could a well brought up and self-contained girl openly insist on becoming a wife of the young man? This act seems very puzzling, but it can be explained from point of view of the psychology of their sociotypes and the mechanism of activity relations.
Note
translator’s note: This is supposition of sensing priorities over ethical ones is more likely to occur for the sensory “irrational” subtype of ESI. It is rare for the ethical “rational” subtype, who is instead inclined to pine with emotion from a distance for a long time, but keep back exercising self-restraint and self-control (emphasized ethics and rationality).
At the next phase of development and seemingly out of nowhere, the ILI starts to erect obstructions and create blocks. He starts cooling down the activity and ardor of his partner, often by rather unethical methods, which, as ESI’s activity increases, become even more stringent and categorical. (Tatiana Larina, as we know, received a harsh and irrevocable rejection precisely because her letter was too direct and passionate.)
Over time, Dreiser starts to sober up from the “cooling” effect of his activity partner and his ever-increasing resistance. Unlike ILI’s dual, the SEE, Dreiser doesn’t continuously attempt to overcome this resistance, which is somewhat disappointing to his activity partner. It is at this point that Dreiser remembers about his “program” ethical function and all of his ethical principles that he tries to adhere to. He analyzes the “excesses” of his behavior and starts to regret his transgressions and impositions. Then, he distances from Balzac.
If their communication ends on this, the progression of their relationship is interrupted or even halted, but their feelings for each other and mutual sympathies will remain much longer. At this stage, the severing of relations with one’s “activator” is perceived as painfully as a break-up with one’s dual. Therefore, if partners resume communication, their feelings and sympathies for one another will be aroused again. Usually, it is the irrational partner who will want to renew the relationship for he doesn’t understand why the other quit so easily and left him, while the rational partner will want to understand and sort out the relationship, to dot all the “i’s” so to say.
Dreiser in this situation quite clearly sees that Balzac continues to sympathize with him. The ILI may keep flirting with the ESI: he tries to draw his attention to himself, comes up with reasons to meet him, playfully teases him and resumes courtship. In his turn, Dreiser does not shy away from these meetings, but nevertheless he starts holding himself with more estrangement and suspicion. Balzac, feeling this aloofness and coldness, experiences some emotional discomfort (emotions are his painful point) and makes attempts at reassuring the ESI - he drops some promising hints, nudges Dreiser towards taking some initiative, and thereby encourages him once again.
Once their relations turn into a more stable and positive course of development, ESI becomes activated once again and again gives freedom to his feelings and his energy. The longer these emotions were held in check - the stronger this emotional “splash-out” will be, which is especially burdensome for Balzac and hard for him to process and endure due to his problematic aspect of ethics of emotions. ESI’s love is not a burden only for the LIE because due to the “specialization of his sociotype” the LIE remains at large distances away from it, and needs this kind of love precisely at such a distance. The ILI usually does not have the same wanderlust as the LIE - as an introvert he is more of a homebody - and having to interact closely with such an emotional partner as Dreiser, whose passion and ardor steadily increase during communication, the ILI starts to “overheat”.
This relationship develops further along following the same path: as soon as ESI’s activity reaches a certain point, Balzac begins to slow him down, to cool him off, to erect barriers between them. Dreiser again does not realize that he is expected to overcome these barriers and retreats from the intended target. This is not his way, not his goal or purpose, not his program - Dreiser doesn’t want to be a conqueror. The goal of his “program” function is the creation of harmonious and stable relations. If, in spite of the apparent mutual longing of both people, this doesn’t happen, then, Dreiser decides, there wasn’t any “mutual love” and one should step aside. Dreiser, in principle, is not capable of either coercion or “conquest”. However, he doesn’t manage to stray too far, as once again the ILI starts encouraging him, showing some promise, even provoking him to some kind of forceful measures.
In the process of this relationship, activity partners begin to change adopting features or subtypes similar to their dual types. Dreiser gradually begins to turn into a subtype of SEE. In the presence of ILI, for example, he suddenly starts to compare his qualities and performance with others. Gradually Balzac becomes persuaded that this person is indeed worthy of him, or at least he deserves a closer look. At some point, he casts down his defenses and very frankly and explicitly encourages Dreiser to act again. Here, their relationship can take a positive turn if partner’s goals coincide, if the ESI finally decides to go for an “attack”, and if the ILI allows him to do so. Then again, one can never be sure that ILI won’t at the last minute resist the temptation “to jump out through the window”.
One should also take into account that ESI’s carefulness due to having a good memory for his previous mistakes, bad and sorrowful experiences. As soon as ESI begins to waver and show caution in his behavior, this immediately transfers onto the ILI, who begins to erect obstacles “on the last front”, which makes the ESI indignant and infuriated, and finally pushes him away from the ILI.
Upon further development of these relations, partners can even swap “roles” - now it is the offended ESI who is defending himself from the impositions of the ILI. If relations have reached this stage, further closing of the distance is highly unlikely: ESI finally begins to realize that he is being forced into an unnatural for him behavior, that as soon as he puts down his defenses ILI’s initiative will be immediately extinguished. ESI also realizes that he won’t be able to put up with this construction and overcoming of barriers all his life; simple, harmonious, and rational, in his understanding, relations that he longs for are not possible with such a person. Arriving at such a conclusion, the ESI moves away from the ILI and to all his advances responds with a cold and categorical refusal. Moreover, this refusal is often accompanied by ethical reproaches and rebuttals concerning ILI’s previous behavior and actions. A classic literary example is a good illustration of this:
“Onegin, I was younger then,
and a better person, I think!
And I loved you, but what, then,
what response did I find
in your heart? Only severity!”
Or concerning ILI’s ethical inconsistency:
“At that time, I suppose, in the back of beyond,
far from the frivolity of social gossip,
you didn’t find me attractive.
Why, then, do you pursue me now?
Why am I the object of so much attention?”
This last question sounds very much in style of ESI - here we have a real ethical dismantling and analysis of relations. Of course, ESI, does not consciously realize that he is criticizing and reproaching his partner. After all, such fault-finding is unethical that Tatyana (ESI) admits to herself: “But I do not blame you (Onegin, ILI) … In that dreadful moment you behaved honorably.”
This is not true. Of course the ESI blames the ILI, and very much so. ESI will proceed to voice all of his accusations at least for instructional purposes to warn his “activator” of his misdeeds. After all, he doesn’t think that the ILI is a hopelessly flawed person, only very ethically awkward and inappropriate. Thus, the ESI doesn’t lose hope that he can be reformed. Here lies the problem: this “education” doesn’t fall on ILI’s suggestive function, Se, but on his activating-evaluatory function, Fi, which, among other things, is very inert, sensitive, and touchy. Therefore, Balzac’s activity quickly fades when relations get to such a large distance from which there is no longer a return - that is, when Dreiser finally severs them off with his irrevocable rejection and additional instructive “lesson” on aspect of ethics of relations.
Relations in this dyad are very reminiscent of the tale of the Heron and the Crane, who alternately visited each other to reconcile. This can be explained by the mismatch of two program aspects - the irrational aspect of “intuition of time” and the rational aspect of “ethics of relations”. When time comes for one to make amends - the other becomes disagreeable. Similarly to the anecdote: “when she wanted - he didn’t want, when he wanted - she didn’t want, and when both wanted - the play was over and the curtain came down”…