Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Mirror Relations ISTj and ESTp by Stratiyevskaya
¶
In this pair, interaction happens between two strong-willed, imperious, static, declaring types, both of whom firmly impose their point of view and declare their thoughts in a confident tone that leaves little room for objection.
Relations develop with difficulty in situations where these two “mirror” partners are on unequal terms (from the point of view of one of them) as members of the same family. For example, father-SLE and son-LSI: “My father always suppressed me as a personality. In childhood, he humiliated me and even beat me. Never, in anything did he support me. He considered only his own opinion to be important. When I grew up, he refused to help me, just picked up my things and threw me out of the house. I consider that it is partially his fault that I became so insecure. He suppressed my will as a child.” The very same story could have been told if they exchanged places – father-LSI and son-SLE.
There is a strong contention of priorities within this dyad, making equality between partners be a rare occurrence. A single intuitive mistake is enough for the one spouse to lose his or her authority in the eyes of the other spouse, irrespective of their types. Every time the assessment will be: “if you cannot see ahead, don’t try to lead”. The struggle for priority, for dominance, for leadership is constant and pervasive in this pair. Partners alternate criticizing each other’s actions. These criticisms for the most part come down to the insistence that one of them cedes power and the right to lead.
Couples where the husband is of type LSI and the wife of type SLE is a widespread combination of types among Russian couples, a sort of average Soviet family. Partners in this dyad associate not only on the basis of common interests. The pragmatism of their alliance is usually clear: hard-working, jack-of-all-trades, industrious LSI seems to be an almost perfect partner for a woman SLE, who in turn appeals to him by her strength, determination, thrift, and perseverance in achieving goals. This perseverance manifests especially distinctly when the woman SLE becomes determined to marry him. This period of their relations is well illustrated in movie “Sweet Woman”: female factory worker of type SLE literally takes by the storm a single and positive in every respect “war veteran” LSI, who has his own living space and awards of merit. What came out of this and why differences and collisions arose between them can be explained by the interaction of their informational models.
The level of EGO: channel 1-2.
Logic of relationships (Ti) and volitional sensing (Se).
LSI feels suppressed by the tough, expansive authoritativeness of his “mirror” partner. He feels annoyed by any manifestation of her overbearing: the tough, commanding tone, her authoritarianism, her statements that are disputable from his point of view, which she, nevertheless, considers to be an invariable truth. The values that she imposes are unacceptable for him. He does not see them as a priority and considers them to be of secondary and even minor value. He feels disgusted by her inclination to hoard, her desire to show off, to live “no worse than others”, her whims to “get the better of someone” and ostentatious displays. It is unpleasant for him that she goes to mark her attendance in the queue “for some carpet” to hang it on the fourth wall instead of sitting down and doing homework with her son. Her wish for a “rich life” irritates him – he does not consider this to be an end in itself.
From this we can see that the aspect of volitional sensing as an end in itself, that manifests in rampant overbearing and hoarding, is unacceptable for the LSI. For the LSI extraverted sensing is subordinate to the recognition of his personal responsibility, to self-discipline, accuracy, and logical order. Any of his partner’s attempts to subdue and subordinate him, to impose her own point of view, are intolerable for him. On his side he attempts to counter her “program” sensing function with his own flexible, manipulative, diplomatic sensing: in some things he agrees to give in to her, somewhere he strikes a compromise, but in other things he acts as he finds it necessary, over some points he even claims revenge. This she cannot forgive to him; due to this, she quarrels with him and calls him a “difficult man”.
The second aspect of their EGO blocks, logic of relations, is the “program” aspect of Maxim. The conflicts over this aspects are also shown in the movie: any way she turns their relations, he always sees her as a silly woman, ignorant and limited. The limited scope of her interests exasperates him. He tries to make her study, puts her before textbooks, sends her to continue her education at an evening school. All of these attempts don’t lead to anything. Her categorical statements seem primitive, her logic is only an ornament to her predatory “program” sensing (how to obtain something, how to get material benefit). He feels annoyed by the manipulative nature of her creative logical function, her ability to manipulate facts. For example, when she talks about her relations with those around her, she distorts the actual course of events and places the blame on other people. Of course for a SLE it is very difficult to admit to own mistakes – representatives of this type think that this undermines their credibility and authority. This creates major problems for them on the aspect of ethics of relations.
Level of SUPEREGO: channel 3-4.
Intuition of opportunities (Ne) and ethics of relations (Fi).
LSI with this normative ethics of relations is shocked by the blatant unethical behavior of SLE. Subconsciously expecting the refined ethical sensitivity of his dual, the EIE, Maxim receives the frank cynicism and harsh rudeness of Zhukov rather painfully. Moreover, any attempt to put his partner “in her place” and make her comply with at least some norms of behavior turns into a scandal for Maxim, which he won’t be able to smooth over due to his own weakness in ethical functions; it is more likely that he will resort to shouting and coarse language or simply slamming the door and leaving the house. He won’t go far and not for long – possibly to a company of his friends – but this will be enough to make his partner feel abandoned and insulted (how did he dare to not hear her out!) and begin to panic and work herself up over this (yes, how did he dare to run away from her! he as a husband should be at home, not hanging around in other people’s backyards!). This is a typical situation where the husband LSI runs away from a grumpy wife to any random company and to deal with his worries and sadness, while his indomitable partner with her characteristic energy searches for him across various streets and apartments, finally catches her “no-good” husband and force-drives him home. It presents no problem for a SLE to catch the LSI, who is way too predictable and always has some kind of familiar, limited circle of friends where it presents no great difficulty to find him. Another thing is that LSI can viciously avenge this incident because his wife has humiliated him in the presence of his friends. (“She appeared, uninvited, and then tried to make me go back home. And I told her, what am I, a boy?”). For this he will get back at her when they are alone, and she might beat him with anything that falls into her hands – in short, they will sort it out.
SLE’s habit to fear-monger, to sow panic and create extreme circumstances, creates very difficult and unnerving conditions for the LSI. That which for the SLE seems to be within the framework of what is normal and optimal, for the LSI is already an overkill – it exhausts and overstrains him. Therefore, he is especially annoyed by SLE’s habit to exaggerate and “create a storm in a teacup”. To the LSI it is not clear why someone needs to “play on his nerves” and manipulate him by creating tensions and pressure – in this he sees only a manifestation of poor attitude towards himself, of disrespect and harshness, and he responds to it just as sternly.
Ethical confrontations, shake-ups, and disputes eventually lead to mutual alienation and distancing of these partner, to mutual distrust and fears, and possibly jealousy and suspicion.
Level of SUPERID: channel 5-6.
Ethics of emotions (Fe) and intuition of time (Ni).
At some stage of their relationship, both partners will sense the fragility and futility of their union. And the more they will feel this, the more both of them will tighten their pressure and exasperate one another with jealous fits and fault-finding. It is precisely because neither of them receives much needed information on their intuitive aspects that they will have to over-exert their sensing to gain control over their partner for at least a short period of time and to retain their advantage. Moreover, such a motion would be more typical of Zhukov, since for him the aspect of the intuition of time is the “point of absolute weakness”. Without intuitive “tips”, SLE will not want to postpone the problem “until later” – he will want to sort it out immediately, at any cost. Inability to solve their problems intuitively will bring all sorts of troubles for both of them, and lead them to panic, to act in agitation and undertake wrong and irreversible actions. Here, neither of them can help the other. Troubles will grow like a snowball. Partners will become “locked” into mutual recriminations and won’t move further than this. LSI, feeling exhausted by SLE’s “alarmism”, can take on an increase load on the aspect of intuition of time. He may try to bring some order to their joint future plans and introduce some kind of “minimal program” to cut down on this disarray and panic.
On the aspect of ethics of emotions, LSI attempts to smooth over SLE’s emotional inertness with his own manipulative emotionalism. For example, if the SLE came home from work sullen and angry, LSI may try to distract her with some joke. The problem is that LSI’s attempts to dispel SLE’s poor moods can be very inconsistent and sometimes ineffective. For the LSI this aspect is located in a very weak position, that is evaluatory in nature and charged with collecting information. Therefore, if the LSE fails to defuse the situation, he himself can succumb to the general depressed mood and then fly off the handle himself (and even resort to use of physical force). Then there will be a need to calm, comfort and reassure him, which for the SLE with his inert Fe is very difficult. Here, if there is an offense then it lasts a lifetime; and if there is a scandal, it comes with “a hurricane and an earthquake.”
Level of ID: channel 7-8.
Sensing of experiences (Si) and logic of actions (Te).
Maxim feels unnerved by the unnecessary, as it seems to him, fussiness of Zhukov in resolving various business issues, as well as his vanity over his pragmatic and business skills. With much pleasure Zhukov will talk about how she “obtained a Finnish washer”: how she went looking for it everywhere in all stores, how she has purchased it it, how much all of it cost, how the salesman switched it for another one but she saw his trick in time, how she carried this unit through public transport thereby avoiding taxi costs, and so on, in the same spirit. Maxim finds such conversations to be irritating. Zhukov’s actions to him seem to be excessive and filled with fuss and commotion that isn’t appropriate or proportionate. Zhukov, in turn, feels disappointed by the fact that these conversations irritate Maxim: she is demonstrating her practicality in order to be praised, not criticized. Therefore, Maxim’s commentary that all the same could have been done with less effort and hassle, is offensive to Zhukov; she is ready to spend even more effort than is required, if only it was appreciated. (“There is never a kind word from you! Try running around yourself! Then I would have looked at you. Other wives live with everything all ready for them, and here I am bringing all of this into the house, and he is still unhappy!”) Maxim can also demonstrate and talk about his business skills, but unlike Zhukov he always emphasizes simplicity and rationality of his business decisions. Zhukov does not see any special achievements in this – if everything was much more difficult and complex, and he overcame it, then that would have been a different matter.
Zhukov’s observing sensing of experiences also plays a significant role in all of these hectic business displays. She feels that they shouldn’t live any worse than anyone else. Here, Maxim will have to implement the aesthetic dreams of Zhukov (for instance, a molded cornice in the Baroque style in a small two-room apartment). Maxim, of course, is not always impressed by the pompous chic of “Zhukovsky” aesthetics, but sometimes he sees in this an opportunity to apply his creativity and practical acumen.
In any case, on the level of ID these partners assign to one another a lot of necessary and unnecessary work. Whether they receive for it an adequate assessment or satisfaction – this is another question.
Yet, the analysis of the relationship in this dyad would be incomplete without mention of some of the principal differences between the partners on aspects of sensing of experiences. Sexual experiences that are acceptable in the dyad EIE-LSI may be unacceptable in any other dyad, even in relations with their closest “quadral” associates SLE-IEI. The following monologue illustrates this problem as well as other aspects of relationship in this dyad sufficiently clearly.
Wife - SLE, husband - LSI, their son - LSI: “My husband and I have been together for several years with constant arguments and quarrels. He had a very difficult character. He often beat me up, left the house, came back drunk and insulted me and beat me in presence of our son. At first I wanted a divorce, but then I decided to sacrifice myself for the sake of our son, because even though he treated me so poorly, he treated our son well – read books and played with him, devoted all his free time to our little boy. I decided to keep the father for my son, but this also didn’t work out. One evening, after a scandal, my husband beat me up and left home. People said that he then found another woman. I was left to raise my son alone. Eventually I calmed down, my spirits soared again. My son treated me very well. He was a quiet, calm, considerate boy. He is twenty years old now, studying at a university. At some point he told me that he has a girl, it’s serious, and they want to get married. He introduced me to her. I liked this girl. One day he told me that on weekend he would go with her to the country. I didn’t mind and didn’t wait for him the next evening. I didn’t worry, as I knew that they were out in the country. Suddenly, the doorbell rang. The girl was standing there all battered and bruised, telling me that my son tied her to the bed, put a neck collar on her and whipper her with some whip that he got from who knows where. I didn’t believe her. I don’t know, maybe I acted wrong in this case, but I asked her to leave the house. Three days later, my son returned home. I began to question him, but he forbade me to interfere in their affairs. At the same time this girl called and said that if I don’t bring him to a psychiatrist, she will file a complaint with the police. We went to the doctor. The doctor talked to me first, and then talked to him for three hours. And made a terrible, in my opinion, the diagnosis. He said, “Your son has sado-masochism.” And appointed a course of treatment. I don’t know how I would manage this. I barely persuaded my son to go receive medical treatment. He went through three or four sessions of treatment, and then told me that he no longer wants to go to these sessions because he considers himself normal. He also said that if I ever intervene in his personal life again, he will leave the house. And he left. I went looking for him to all our friends all over the city. I searched through all of his belongings in hopes of finding a phone number or an address. I found a newspaper page with an ad circled in pencil. It said: “Looking for a slave. I enjoy being beaten.” But it only had a mailbox number. Thus I couldn’t find him via this ad, but at least I knew where he disappeared and why … Now, I think I’ve lost my son. He very rarely comes home, doesn’t talk to me about anything, doesn’t answer my questions. He only demands that I don’t interfere with his life. But for me, what should I do? My soul, my heart are in pain. After all, I sacrificed everything for his sake! .. “
Such a tragic story, but it illustrates very well various aspects of “mirror” relations, especially their pragmatic nature: the woman always had some reason, some tallied motive to not divorce her husband. (The child must have a father; the family must be complete.) In her relationship with her son, with all her maternal love, there, too, were traces of pragmatism: she brought him up for herself, so that she would feel loved at least by someone, and he left her for some kind of “pervert”. Fear of being unloved, the persistent feeling of being unappreciated or even detested, the fear of becoming hated, all of these are constant emotional torments for the SLE, his “complex” - a manifestation of his “problematic ethics of relations”. We can also see clashes and constant confrontation over the sensory aspects between husband and wife, and between mother and son.
Of course, this story depicts the course of events only from her side. In the words of this woman family members perhaps it would have been very different. (Something along the lines: the wife (or mother) constantly put me down, interfered in my personal relationships with friends, did not give me any personal freedom, rummaged through my things, etc.) Of course, they didn’t take well to her expansionism, her attempts to grasp and control all areas of their lives. Of course, they tried to slip out from her control – this is a natural defensive reaction. But the more they distanced, the more she tried to pressure them. She did this not because she is a horrible wife and mother, but because this is also her natural reaction to such a situation. She, as a volitional “program” sensing type in principle could not have resolved her problems any differently – only by direct demands. The fact that she was left alone is not her fault – it is a natural and predetermined outcome of her relationship with her husband and son. Her story once again confirms the stability of “mirror” relations, their predictability and independence from random occurrences. Of course, not all “mirror” couples end up exactly as was described here. Sometimes partners do find an optimal distance for their communication and try to coexist peacefully and with respect for each other’s identity and interests. However, this is frequently not the case.