Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Mirror Relations INFp and ENFj by Stratiyevskaya
¶
This intertype description has been written by
Vera Stratievskaya
. The original article can be found at her blog
Socionics from Stratievskaya
.
Introduction
¶
This dyad brings together two dynamic “romantics”, for each of whom the state of his soul is a very fragile, refined, and sensitive sphere. Each of these partners aspires to the role of the “conductor of emotions”, each cherishes his emotional and soulful states and experiences, each feels his extreme vulnerability and appeals for greater sensitivity, each of them considers himself a sensitive and refined person. How would the interaction unfold between two persons of such a sublime essence?
Ego Block: Channels 1-2: Ethics of Actions (Fe) and Intuition of Time (Ni)
¶
The aspect of Fe for the EIE possesses a more fundamental, more global significance than for the IEI. Saving his emotions for great deeds, feeling himself capable of self-sacrifice in the name of a great idea, maximalist-Hamlet does not understand how one can squander their feelings on some commonplace fling, how one can fall in love out of boredom or throw an emotional fit from having nothing better to do. Hamlet’s feelings form a kind of sacrificial fire the purpose of which is to “inflame” and inspire other people. They are a source of great internal mobilization, the sphere of ​​constant internal struggle with oneself as well as with those around – the struggle for elevated ideals, for the moral and ideological transformation of society. EIE’s inspiration and emotional surge is a packet of energy that is capable of moving mountains. It is especially unclear for him how can one emotionally warm up in anticipation of the next “romantic adventure”, or how is it possible to risk the feelings on one’s partner for the sake of some casual romantic escapade?
EIE disapproves of the fleeting nature of the feelings of IEI, his emotional inconstancy and manipulativeness. This is most difficult to accept for the EIE within marital bonds: “My husband and I have been together for several years. We got along well with each other, there was some mutual understanding and common interests. Then came a period when he started to disappear increasingly often and even did not stay overnight. I found this hard to accept, but each time he would give me an explanation for his absence and I wanted to believe him … One day he came home to pack up his things, said that he has another woman, that he needs to be with her, and that this is very serious and left.
I was very upset, but I gradually recovered and my life went back on track. After some some my husband has returned. He asked me to forgive him, said that he couldn’t live without me, that I am very valuable to him … I forgave him, but some times passed and he left again. Then he returned and said that he is not understood there, but with me he feels a spiritual unity. And then he left again and said that he is needed there and has to be there. So it turned out that now he lives both with me and with her and says that he needs us both. I don’t know what I should do, whether I should be forgiving of him or not, but I cannot part with him either … “
When this kind of “exceptional soulful intimacy”, this “deep inner communion” is achieved, IEI begins to speculate on it: “Well, you see how difficult it is for me – how can you leave me? (not forgive me, not understand me, etc.) I am how I am – I can’t help myself. Who would understand me, if not you? …”
Of course, EIE finds it is very difficult to forgive the betrayal of his partner, forgive his change of heart, but on the other hand, he cannot show emotional callousness towards the person, who, as it seems, has fully repented and recognized his own fault. The manifestation of callousness and indifference to others’ emotional pain contradicts the “program” of the EIE. Intuitively realizing this, Esenin picks up a universal ethical “key” to the feelings of his partner, operating with his own manipulative ethical aspects (creative ethics of emotions and demonstrative ethic relations), playing on his partner’s love, compassion, forgiveness.
The “program” intuition of time of the IEI, his ability to impose his own tempo and pace to his relations, also comes into conflict with the manipulative intuition of EIE, who prefers to wait out unfavorable of himself periods of development. No matter how difficult for this woman was the separation from her husband, instinctively she felt that he will come back to her and found the strength to wait for his return. On the other hand, it was he who “out-played” her in this intuitive opposition: now he has two wives and is able to run from one to the other when it is convenient for him, while she has to share her partner with a woman who is her contender, and, moreover, a partner who has freed himself from any obligations.
That is, her creative intuition, her ability to endure and wait for the “celebration on her own street”, her short-term victory turned into a long-term defeat – for a long period of her life, she fell into an incredibly difficult and ambiguous for her situation. As a rational, it would be very uncomfortable for her to be dependent on the constantly changing plans of her mercurial partner; for her rational ethical program the constant betrayals of her husband, which he has imposed on her as a norm of their relations, are highly offensive; and, finally, as a representative of the second quadra for her it is extremely painful and humiliating to realize that she is basically being used by him if only to escape from any responsibilities and obligations before the other woman, and that he will run off to the other woman every time when some responsibilities will arise in respect to herself.
In intuitive terms, IEI “wins over” the EIE: while Hamlet enjoys his short-lived victories, Esenin forms long-term relationships on favorable terms*. (Let us not forget that the mirror relationships are quite pragmatic).
Note
translator’s note: These may be due to differences in Carefree/Farsighted preferences of these partners. IEI as a farsighted type prefers to prepare him/herself well in advance, while EIE as a carefree type resolves problems as they come along.
Intuitive opposition in the dyad (who will “set up” whom, who will “use”, outwit, “out-play” whom), leads to constant confrontations, quarrels and disputes, where the powerful emotionality of the EIE breaks down against the light, shallow diplomacy and flexible emotionality of the IEI, who, if needed, can pretend to be a meek lamb or a sly fox, can flare up or repent, may exacerbate the conflict or right a wrong and smooth over a grievance – the main thing for him is to timely change his tactics, while his partner is restructuring his strategy.
Superego Block: Channels 3-4: Logic of actions (Te) and Sensing of Experiences
¶
Here “mirror” partners are especially thwarted by their inability to help each other, as well as by certain similarity of their shortcomings.
IEI with this normative sensing of experiences, with his exaggerated elegance and his tendency to “judge the book by its cover” may feel irritated and even shocked by EIE’s carelessness in aesthetics and appearance. (For example, by a manner to dress in black, by slovenliness and neglect of his living space, by gloomy expression on his face, and so on.) EIE, in turn, feels annoyed by IEI’s messiness and chaotic arrangements, his manner to hide and stash certain things, to pick up everything that is “poorly placed” and appropriate it “for a rainy day”. Especially if the EIE has a passion for collecting certain items (typical “Hamlet” craze), the IEI develops an irresistible attachment to the exhibits of the collection, and a desire to regard them as his own property and to dispose of them as he wishes, without control (for example, to gift his lover with some “trifle” from the collection of his wife) – it is safe to say that the conflict between the partners is inevitable.
The intrinsic sloppiness of IEI, which disguises his lack of pragmatic and business skills, will be unpleasant for the EIE with his normative logic of actions. A person who doesn’t do anything, doesn’t make mistakes and cannot be criticized. And for the IEI it is important to not only avoid criticism, but also tiresome work, for the quality of which he will then have to answer. Therefore in solving business issues the IEI always tries to take a stand of a casual observer, of the critic and the consumer, which is particularly unacceptable for the EIE, who is subconsciously oriented at pragmatic acumen of the LSI. The EIE receives the criticisms of the IEI almost as taunting and derision: “Not only do his hands grow out of the wrong place, but he also jeers where another would keep quiet!”
The level of SUPERID: channel 5-6.
Logic of relationships (Ti) and volitional sensing (Se).
The first problem is the weakness and immaturity of IEI on the aspect of volitional sensing and his blatant irresponsibility (if he wanted to, he went to his wife, if he changed his mind, then back to his mistress – what can be expected of him?). It is precisely due to chronic irresponsibility of his partner that EIE will have to take on a larger share of responsibilities. EIE’s sensory aspect is in activating position; although it is inert, it is principled and “synthetic”, that is, it gets actively involved in events. IEI’s sensing is flexible, but essentially evaluatory – IEI collects information on this aspect, but capitalizing on it being his “area of absolute weakness” he manipulates the situations to achieve certain advantages in this area. Someone else will do something for him, someone else will take on the responsibility – the main thing is to persuade his partner, which for Esenin does not constitute much difficulty, since this involves his strong functions.
The situation is reverse on the aspect of the logic of relations. Here, Esenin will have to assume double the responsibility, but such heavy “load” is justified, if only because it is in IEI’s own interests – he will try to convince Hamlet of anything, to proven anything to him, if only to gain some advantages for himself in various situations. Instilled by the “logical arguments” of his partner, EIE will accept some of his explanations, even though he will intuitively feel that his partner is somehow “fooling” him – he just won’t have any other choice. The more logically Esenin proves his case, the more persuasive it will sound to Hamlet, who will believe him in the first place in order to keep a partner for the sake of ethics of relations, an aspect which for EIE is located in position of “reckless self-sacrifice”, at the level of ID.
Level of Id: Channels 7-8: Intuition of Opportunities (Ne) and Ethics of Relations (Fi)
¶
Ethical “endurance” of the EIE, his dedication and sacrifice will constantly collide with the manipulative, diplomatic ethics of relations of the IEI. And, at the same time, there will be confrontations over the aspect of intuition of potential. IEI, whose Ne occupies observing position, will not want to miss out on some opportunities, especially if it seems like they are floating into his hands. (For example, having a mistress, he wouldn’t want to let go of his wife, especially since she trusts and “understands” him.) And in order to “sit on two chairs”, one needs to be a diplomat, one needs to know how to manipulate relationships with different people, which the IEI will do as a result of flexibility and mobility of his demonstrative function.
On the other hand, via his demonstrative intution EIE will intersect some of the actions of the IEI at some points in their relationships. He will warn the IEI of any inappropriate or unethical, in EIE’s view, actions. He will do so in the interests of his ethics of relations, in the interests of his alliance with Esenin, trying to prevent and any “foreign” associations and alliances and to forcefully “mold” the IEI into a faithful and devoted partner. Working on his flexible intuitive aspects, by means of clever intrigues and manipulations the EIE can neutralize his contenders and “clean out” his partner’s immediate circle, much to displeasure of Esenin. Immediately there will be complaints of the kind: “Why are you meddling in my private affairs? Who allowed you to do this?” IEI will try to prevent the EIE from narrowing down some of his possibilities and options. Previously, he could easily go elsewhere and pleasantly spend the evening. Now, good times are over, and he is forced to find new acquaintances, establish new contacts, find new opportunities – that is, do all the work all over again.
When EIE finally realizes that the IEI in alliance with him in principle is not able to be focused on one person, that he has to have other options “on the side” in form of random friends and possible romantic liaisons, then, defending the ethical principles, the EIE will have to “work” on his aspect of intuition opportunities to decide what can be expected from such an inconstant partner, and whether he needs to keep this relationship at all.
Why is there so much ethical confusion in this relationship? It seems like Esenin is “fooling” Hamlet all the duration of their relations. The reason lies in the hypertrophied and suffocating emotionality and sentimentality that arises between representatives of these types in the process of their interaction.
How does this “suffocating sentimentality” manifest? Here is an example:
Her type is EIE and his type is IEI: “Some time ago I had to have a surgery. While I was recuperating, the doctor who was assigned to me visited me several times in my room. He inquired about my health, about how I am feeling. The conversation developed and we talked about this and that. Once he has inquired about my living situation. I said that I have a place, and he sighed and said, “And I’m still not settled.” We never came back to this subject again. After I was released from the hospital, he and I started dating. It was a very beautiful and romantic relationship. We strolled around town holding hands, went into different cafes and restaurant. I’ve never felt so elated and so at ease as I felt with around him. I knew that he was eight years younger than me and that he was married. But I couldn’t do anything with myself. I grew more and more attached to him. I loved him more and more, though out relationship was more platonic. One day he has confessed to me, “I need to tell you one thing. Some time ago I suffered a spinal injury and since then I am impotent.” I imagined what a tragedy it must have been for him. However, I kept seeing him and loved him even more. And I felt very sorry for him. Then I decided that for his birthday I will help him with his living situation.
At this point we have been seeing each other for two years and there was nothing physical between us – only elevated feelings and friendship. I remember one time I was sitting with him in a restaurant, and he poured the champagne into glasses and said, “How can you love me, knowing that I am impotent? ..” And then he cried …
Then one day, when I was on my way to see him, I was stopped by one of his colleagues who told me, “Girl, you shouldn’t believe him. You should know that he is only seeking material benefits from you. He doesn’t love you. He tells us about all of your meetings and then he laughs at you. Most of all, he laughs at the fact that you believe in his impotence. He says that before he goes to meet you, he must sleep with one or even two women so that he has no desire afterwards.”
I listened to all of this, and then went to meet with him and relayed all that was said to me. I thought that he would try to explain something, to repent, to ask for my forgiveness, but he behaved very strangely – he lowered his head, and then lifted his face and said with a sneer: “I’m so tired of your adulation! You are already 40 years of age as just as boring as my back-country wife. You must understand: I don’t love you and don’t want to love you. If I wanted, I could have the best girls in town, but I don’t need a relationship. I’m happy as it is. From you all I needed was your help in obtaning more living space…”
Such a story … Now I don’t believe and trust anyone. When I remember of my relationship with him, I am surprised: how did I go on trusting and believing him for so long? Perhaps he has directed out relations so that I would feel sorry for him a little longer …”
Why didn’t he try to ask for her forgiveness? Why did he behave so defiantly and contentiously, as if he was the offended party? As any intuitive type of second quadra, he won’t admit his fault if he has been found guilty of improper actions, orienting by the principle “for as long as you haven’t admitted your guilt, you cannot be blamed”. Moreover, he will try to further humiliate the “victim” since she has admitted herself to be thus in this story, letting her know what his actions were intentional and that he used her for her his own goals, and that he wasn’t going to condescend to love towards her. Thus, in the value system of second quadra, he comes out as a winner of this situation, while his ex-girlfriend felt deeply insulted.
As it is said “offense is the best defense” – is this why he pretended to be so offended by this relationship? He couldn’t pretend so convincingly if he did not believe in the fact that he, indeed, has been deeply offended. There was something for him to take offense of: he spent two years creating a kind of incredibly beautiful and romantic relationship that came to an end. Perhaps this is why he came up with the myth of his impotence, to not “ground” this relationship with sex. After all, we are dealing with a person from second quadra, where the aspects of Si and Te are displaced. Therefore, when his frank pragmatism was pointed out to him, he, too, was offended. He preferred to see in everything only a beautiful story which he was trying to materialize. He saw only the “celebration of the soul”, the “birthday of the heart” that he so ardently created for her, and which, in his opinion, was worth the cost of her apartment in Moscow.
That is, this is a consequence of the sweet, charming, naive impracticality of the IEI? More precisely, this is his problematic logic of actions – the person as if doesn’t understand what kind of practical damage he is causing to others. He just wanted to lighten thing up, to tell a beautiful story and did not see anything wrong in that for it to pay him an apartment – it’s such a minor thing! In doing so, he as if pulls the situation under his system of values, thereby devaluing the value system of his partner. It is only an outsider who will sharply react to the comment of an elderly, modestly dressed woman: “… and then I decided to help him with his living situation” - As if this is a superfluous bottle of perfume.
That is, all this feigned friendship, this flattery and reorientation of values ​​was merely to lead this woman into improving his standards of life? Just like in the fable “The Crow and the Fox”! But why did he need to laugh at her in company of his friends? This is just the normal male bravado. In this case also done out of necessity for self-assertion and self-persuasion. After all, if a person is so deeply living into an image that he can cry while he talks of his imagined impotence, he indeed was in need of some protective psychological measures in order to counter this imagined role. Recall that the IEI is very suggestible on the aspect of volitional sensing; this also the area where he is very capable of self-persuasion. That is, if he speaks of his shortcomings, whether physical or sexual, he can move himself down to tears; speaking of his physical strength or sexual power, he can be in admiration of himself since he believes in this so thoroughly. For the IEI his own mental projections are as actual and serious as the real world around him. He won’t allow anyone to trespass on these or destroy them, because this is his own story, a “crystal castle” of his own creation.
Is this why he needed the extra living space in Moscow? Perhaps he needed it in order to get away from his “boring, back-country” wife. But it is safe to say that the breakdown of these “fabulous” friendly relations, the collapse of his “crystal castle”, he perceived more painfully than the loss of an opportunity to obtain an apartment in Moscow. To understand this, one must look at the practical values through the IEI’s eyes, which of course the EIE is unable to do. So, again in this relationship we are dealing not only with the inconsistencies of points of view, but also with the mutual misunderstanding of each other’s value systems, which is one of the causes of conflict between “mirror” partners.
However, mirror relationships are symmetrical, while in this example, there is a clear bias: a kind of villain - IEI, and a gentle lamb - EIE. Allow me to disagree. Our heroine clearly does not live up to the image of a “gentle lamb”. There was a certain measure of self-interest in her actions, too, at least in the fact that she explicitly encouraged his initiative while she knew very well that his actions could be seen as emotional infidelity, which is far more important than a physical one. (And who doesn’t understand this as well as Hamlet!). She, in her own way, attracted him over to her side, thereby distancing him from his wife. She did not consider gifting more living space to both of them on their anniversary, but only to him alone on his birthday. Thus, this “gift” wasn’t completely altruistic – it was a crucial asset in her “game”. She certainly did not consider his “impotence” to be a shattering problem, so the plans and intentions of our heroine were well-defined, and, as she thought, they were implemented quite successfully.
But here came a situation where both partners had to “reveal their cards” to one another, and it became clear to her that his “hand” was the winning one. She was unprepared for such a situation, unprepared that he would claim himself to be the victor rather than the conquered – and this she couldn’t forgive him (even though this situation was a typical intuitive confrontation between the IEI and the EIE with all the subsequent emotional issues).