Identical Relations by Stratiyevskaya
LII and LII
In ethical terms, the relations that unfold between two representatives of this sociotype are rather dull – emotionally unsaturated, reserved, cool, and aloof. Each of them won't feel sufficiently loved, attended to and cared for. Both initially will strive for a committed and stable relationship, because both partners in this union are static types with aspect of ethics of relations in the mental block.
The aspect of ethics of relations is not the main value of either partner, thus each of them will try to reclaim the emotions that he's lacking, which are in such short supply, since neither of them can provide this for the another. Each of them gets energized by the emotions of another, but both of them are least inclined to squander them (ethical aspect of emotions for them is in position of weak suggestive function). On these grounds, mutual complains will start, which will undoubtedly affect other aspects of their interaction.
Arguments will arise over the distribution of responsibilities and household work – who should look after whom, and who should be cared for and how. Neither of them will extend care on impulse, since emotional impulse does not easily arise in these relations. At the same time, showing care out of sense of duty feels awkward to both of them and will put strain on them once again, which neither of them wants.
Couldn't they switch places in carrying out this work or simply talk it over and divide the tasks somehow? This should be convenient and easy for them as program logical types. Perhaps they can agree on some order or schedule, but it's doubtful that it will seem fair to either of them, if only because each of them has a very subjective understanding of justice that is based on calculation of their own benefits and conveniences. For a woman LII it would be more advantageous to achieve equality in the distribution of responsibilities, while to her male LII partner it would be more convenient to fall back on some tradition that makes men exempt from any household duties. To the same end, all the work loads and earnings will be compared: "I earn more than you so I have the right to rest when I come home. It's unfair that I should work like a horse both at home and at work." Neither of them will want to take a larger share of duties and chores (and why should they? that wouldn't be fair!) At the same time, the desire of each of them to shield themselves against excess loads (protect their mobilizing function) will offend and upset the other, leading him to think that his partner must be a cold, egoistical, uncaring person ("it is so difficult for him to do anything for me!"). Each of them will then become convinced that the other doesn't actually love and care for them.
Partners can resort to using small intuitive tricks in order to fortify in their positions and not end up doing extra work. They can refer to some circumstances or excuses, may simply shirk from doing anything, coming up with some reasons in justification. They can harshly and stubbornly defend their "right to be weak" forcing their partner to take on the greater load.
Gradually, each will become more and more discontent with their partner. Feelings of dissatisfaction, bitterness, and disappointment will arise. They will blame one another in absence of sensitivity, lack of attention, unwillingness to help the other, meanwhile feeling distraught over dissipation of their own strengths and emotional energy, viewing each task they have accomplished as a major feat ("I helped her wash the floor and the dishes, and she ...")
Two LIIs in the same family are two philosophers-observers, each of whom insists on his right to live his life in a way that is most convenient to himself. These partners often come together on basis of some common interests and later part as strangers who are indifferent to one another, quickly forgetting everything that has transpired between them.
IEI and IEI
One of the sweetest representative of this type has requested help during relationship counseling with the following problem: for some inexplicable reason she was attracting to herself weak and childish men.
What was the cause of this? This reason was very simple: this charming woman became acquainted with these men through her ad, which advertised such qualities as sensitivity, warmth, sincerity, compassionate and accommodating attitude, and ability to listen. Candidates who sought her to pour out their hearts she found a plenty. She met with many of them, listened to all, and after hearing them out she came to the conclusion that all men are weak, worthless whiners, that other types of men simply do not exist, and if they exist why isn't she meeting them?
What was going on here? Initially, she found these new acquaintances to be interesting. At first, she found it to be surprisingly easy and pleasant to talk to them and discovered that they have many shared interests and tastes, as well as views on life. Gradually, at some stage of communication, she began to notice that the vast majority of these people are trying to draw her attention to some kind of unresolved problems of their own: they seemed to be always alluding to the fact that they need help and support of a loving and caring woman.
Noticing that her relationships with her "new friends" develop along the same scenario, the girl grew seriously worried: "Yes, I am a sincere and sympathetic person, but this isn't to be taken advantage of – I am not always strong and need support, too. I don't see myself coddling a weak-willed man for the rest of my life." Determining in this way which qualities she actually prefers, she changed the text of her ad, and instead of advertising her softness and pliability she began searching for a strong, confident, and purposeful partner. That is, through communication with her identicals and similar types, she independently came to realize the necessity of dual complementarity and that what she really needed was a complementary opposite.
Why is communication between ethical intuitive types so discomforting? At neutral distance, their communication is usually a sweet and friendly conversation, where each partner tries to entertain the other with cute and charming trifles, each tries amuse, enchant, and captivate the other. However, this is not all. In the process of communication each of them is subconsciously evaluating his companion. For IEI, this is done via observing function of intuition of possibilities. In the course of conversation, each partner implicitly gauges the social status, importance, and capabilities of the other, probes for their chances for success and advancement, and checks for how settled and secure they are in life and in their household. Each of them gathers information about their new acquaintance: who this person is, what he or she represents and stands for, how adapted he or she is to life. Each of them asks questions such as: "Have you already made all arrangements? .. Do you know anything of this? ... Have you already purchased it? ... What are your plans for the future? ... Has anyone helped you? ... Are you acquainted with so-and-so? " ... and so on, in the same manner.
Of course, these questions are rarely asked directly but rather in a very polite and unobtrusive form. Nevertheless, such inquiries alarm the other partner, and thus, with time certain tension arises in their communication – each of them feels himself to be the object of observation and reconnaissance.
In the absence of clear informational advantage of one of them, communication of two representatives of these sociotypes does not last long. Neither of the partners feels like he receives the necessary support over sensing and logical aspects, neither of them gets the right information for their suggestive function, so pretty soon each begins to realize that he is dealing with a languid and diffident individual, who rarely takes initiative and who himself is in need of strong-willed support and assurance and a partner who could help him resolve his problems.
Eventually their communication turns into a rather sluggish dialogue between two intuitives, each of whom sighs and laments about how he is unsettled, each delicately hints at his unresolved problems and expectantly looks at his partner – would there be an offer of effective help from him? Subconsciously being oriented at demonstrative practicality and active helpfulness of their dual, the SLE, Esenins will feel disappointed by each other's inertia and expectant wariness: both understand what specific assistance they are looking for, both make allusions to it, both wait when their partner will finally "break" and respond to this call for concrete activity. Both also realize how burdensome it is to offer this assistance themselves and consider that it is better to wait until somebody else makes the first move.
When this intuitive opposition starts feeling awkward, burdensome, and so blatantly useless for both of them, their relationship is interrupted and partners part, feeling frustrated and disappointed with one another.
ILI and ILI
At first, communication between members of this sociotype is sufficiently interesting and informative, especially if it happens in context of a "teacher-student" relationship. Nevertheless, whichever common interests they share, it would be difficult for them to become couple on this sole basis. The reason: insufficient activity and initiative over sensory and ethical aspects of both partners within this dyad.
Each will find it difficult to take the first step forward to become closer and feel uncomfortable in taking this sort of initiative – this would require too much willful resolve and ethical exertion. At the same time, each of them wants to be taken almost as if by a siege – ILIs expect this kind of initiative from their partner because they are subconsciously oriented at all-overcoming activity of their dual SEE. Most that they will be able to accomplish in this pairing is to try to provoke their passive partner into activity with demonstrative indifference.
However, this tactic can be misinterpreted by both identicals and can therefore be counter-constructive. Such "demonstrative indifference" could push them further away, deter the formation of a relationship, cool off and slow down their already difficult to awaken activity.
The result of this intuitive confrontation is that both ILI partners "freeze" in a kind of long-term stasis and wait. They will stay in this state for as long as the lack of initiative from each won't become seriously disappointing to both of them. At this point, each of them will realize the futility of any future relations, and communication, as such, will be discontinued.
EII and EII
Relations in this dyad develop approximately along the same scenario as the one outlined in Dostoevsky's novel "White Nights" – the "dreamer" and Nastia. Two people, similar in their spirits and their hearts, meet one another, and have a sincere and romantic conversation, rejoicing at having so many shared views and entrusting each other with their innermost secrets. At the same time, neither one of them can help the other and do something that would in actuality improve the other's life. They eventually part as "brother" and "sister", and everyone understands that the need for further interaction has disappeared in itself.
And really, how can two "idealist-dreamers" help one another? They cannot aid each other with anything, except by endowing one another with their own passionate romanticism and lyrical idealism. Incidentally, this sweet, harmonious demeanor disappears as soon as they are faced with the challenges of everyday life. At this point, they demonstrate their utter unwillingness and inability to provide real practical support for one another. The aspect of the business (operational) logic is located in weak functions for both of them, thus each finds it too exhausting and drudging for himself to concern with practical tasks – it's so much better to have countless discussions and talk about the vision of how well they will live together in presence of such complete understanding and surprising commonality of views.
Relations fall apart when they get tired of dreaming, or when at least one of them finds a partner who is able to provide real and effective assistance. The other partner will find it uncomfortable to interfere with the happiness of his "soulmate"; in other words, the situation will be exactly as the one detailed in Dostoevsky's story.
SLI and SLI
Communication in this identical pair is rather sluggish and impassive. Aspect of ethics of emotions lies within the "zone of fear" for both partners. Thus, evaluating and adjusting to one another in conversation, each of them lowers his emotional threshold further and further. This has a discouraging effect on the other partner, such that eventually their dialogue turns into a sort of languid, lazy, dull exchange of remarks.
Each of the partners here is secretive, reserved, withdrawn and insular (SLI is one of the most private of all sociotypes). And at the same time each of them is internally highly independent, each upon feeling internal discomfort attempts to escape from communication, to "slip away" from his conversation partner, to close into himself, or to simply "drop out of the situation" resorting to any excuse.
Two SLIs, even if they are in close relations, in communication are usually quite distant and isolated from each other. It is rare that two representatives of this sociotype unite their lives together, and, as a rule, such marriages are short-lived. Each of them is subconsciously oriented at enthusiastic, active, chaotic and unpredictable IEE, thus they quickly become disappointed in their identical partner. Not receiving the necessary information on their intuitive and ethical aspects, each of the partners starts feeling bored in the company of his "identical", and then feels an irresistible desire to change the situation and find someone who is more befitting, more emotional and interesting.
Relations of identity easily fold with matching subtypes, and vice versa - a mismatch in subtypes aggravates the distrust and friction between partners. In this case it seems that a person is behaving in a way that is unnatural, too simple and primitive, or responding in too exaggerated a manner. This increases the distance between "identicals", leading to lack of acceptance of one another and further alienation. Information exchange is reduced to a minimum or almost fully ceases.
Nevertheless, interaction with people of same type allows them to take a look at themselves from the outside, which is not always pleasant, and to make an objective assessment of their strengths and weaknesses - and in this lies the great positive significance of relations of this type.
It is always useful and interesting to read the works of writers of the same type as us, especially outstanding writers. Regardless of the historical, social, linguistic and stylistic differences, their belief systems and problems that occupied them are usually common and invariable. Writers of the same type as us often feel familiar and easy to understand. Reading their works, we are able to take all the best that relations of identity can offer us in intellectual sense.
LIE and LIE
Light and pleasant friendship based on shared interests that quickly connects two representatives of this type might eventually end in disappointment.
Both of them will be acting on the basis of their own pragmatic interest, the goals and objectives of their own program. At the same time, they will seek boundless devotion, utter self-sacrifice, unlimited trust, and unconditional recognition of own authority – that is, everything that they are expecting to come from their dual partner. Since neither of them will be able to provide all of this, both of them will feel dissatisfied by this partnership. The exchange of information will be limited to a discussion of some ideas and plans, while it remains uncertain who will implement them. Neither of them will follow the other. Each will want to be a leader on equal terms.
Opposition of their pragmatic interests soon becomes apparent in the course of their interaction. While discussing various proposals, each of them will primarily be thinking of his own benefits or potential losses. Of course, from two representatives of this TIM one will prove to be less pragmatic than the other and more willing to go for concessions in the name of friendship. Even then, his agreeableness and compliance won't be unlimited. At some stage he will resist the abuse of his friendly attitude and try to distance from his excessively high-handed "identical".
Friendship and pragmatic cooperation between the two members of this sociotype can be quite durable and long-lasting if their interests overlap, or if their life depends on mutual cooperation, that is, if they are in the same "harness" (for example, being part of same "team" in an expedition). In this case, each of them starts acquiring some traits of their dual in the process of interaction. Each of them will show endurance and self-sacrifice, readily mobilize their will in times of danger, display their best ethical qualities: loyalty, devotion, selflessness – that is, emphasize the qualities of their immature and weak Super-Id block, which nevertheless was not designed for continuous mobilization and workload.
It is unlikely that two representatives of this sociotype will tie their lives together by marital bonds. Let's start with the fact that their relationship won't initiate easily – each of them is expecting his partner to take on most of ethical initiative, but they will have to wait for a while to see it. If there will be any initiative, then it will be heavily coated with pragmatic notes: "Common, let's be friends!" or "Let's live together and see what happens." Such offer may be accepted by the other partner in absence of any alternatives and in lack of objections. However, even these kinds of proposals cannot be extended without some measure of ethical initiative on the part of one of them.
Where will it come from if both of them have the aspect of ethics of relations (Fi) in the immature, weak position? Instead, each of them will continue waiting for a partner who is likely to take initiative.
What happens if neither of them takes this initiative? Their relationship falters and either becomes suspended or falls apart. If the partner doesn't show clear interest, how can one build a serious relationship with him or her? From this arise all sorts of misunderstandings: "He was such a great guy! We met and soon became very close friends ..." - recalls one of the representatives of this sociotype, "We understood each other perfectly, from half sentence – he was like a brother to me ... Suddenly, he disappeared and nobody knew where he was, and six months later he showed up with his pregnant wife. For me, this was such a blow! I still feel so hurt over it ... " Later, this LIE woman has married her dual, but she still regrets her failed relationship with her identical partner. To her it seems that this old and strangely familiar friend was indeed her ideal match because they understood each other so well.
What would happen if they tied their lives together and gotten married? If they had common work, common project or goal, it would have united them. In all other respects this alliance would have been burdensome for both. Such partners rarely cross each other's paths in terms of family interests. Both are very mobile, dynamic, and hyper-active. Each has his own urgent matters, his various interests, his wide number of contacts and acquaintances, and both are quite distant from concerns of everyday family life. Neither of them wants to limit himself or herself to family and household chores. Each will view his home and family as a back-up supporting option that should be taken care of by somebody else.
Obviously, neither of them will receive adequate support over sensing and ethical aspects. Neither will feel sufficiently loved, attended to and cared for by their partner. In the end, such spouses can quietly forget about their family ties and return back to simply being friends – this is the best that they can hope for.
SEE and SEE
under the condition that the student watches his teacher from a far distance. In such unequal arrangement, it would be difficult for them to overlap in the same area. It is hard to imagine that the two bright, unordinary, striving for undisputed leadership personalities would allow themselves to get locked within the bounds of a closed system.
If each of them has at first attracted his identical by his extraordinary spirit, charm, and ability to achieve the desired, and if there was an "informational superiority" and one of them turned out to be a wonderful person who is in every way worthy of imitation, then, as their information exchange equalizes, their relationship will become more and more strained.
Two SEEs in the same family are like two "divas" on the same stage – each insists on own primacy, asserts a claim of superiority, disputes partner's successes, and seizes new spheres of influence. The two partners of this type are like two suns on one horizon, scorching and blinding one another. These are two strong-willed and highly motivated leaders who will try to impose their own priorities on each other. Among other things, these are also two powerful ethical manipulators who seek to charm, warm up, and trick one another.
SEE needs constant appreciation, admiration, reverence. He needs someone who would constantly denote his successes and achievements. He needs to be heard no matter what he is telling. It is important for him that he is believed unconditionally, that he is followed to to the end, that all his wishes are fulfilled, and that he is warned about possible mistakes. SEE needs a "following" – he needs to be the first among others – so how can he share an equal partnership with someone who is so much alike himself?
The wider the scope of their influence, the smoother interaction between representatives of this sociotype transpires. As an example consider how three leading artists of our national stage, Alla Pugacheva, Masha Rasputina and Hope Babkin, have divided their spheres of influence. They are of the same sociotype, similar temperament, and about same artistic abilities. At the same time, each of them has her own style, her image, her own stage personality, and each has her own audience. It is difficult to say which of them is the teacher and which one is the student – each of them has won a place under the sun and each will lead in her field for a long time – such is SEE's purpose: to get ahead and maintain her superiority and primacy for as long as possible.
But what takes place on stage is not always possible in family. Two representatives of this sociotype won't get along within a small self-sustaining system. Pursuit of distractions and openness will be the natural and necessary condition of their coexistence. Feeling themselves constrained over sensory aspects, each of them will be seeking out an ethical sphere of influence in the parallel non-intersecting planes. Each of them will have own social circle, own friends, own secrets, their own interests and "adventures" on the side. Each of them will try to live a bright and fulfilling life in their own sphere. Neither of them will want to limit himself in anything in favor or benefit of his partner – "you live only once and must take everything from life!"
What is there left to their partner? – Appearance of family well-being, ostentatious friendliness, ethical and diplomatic manipulation tricks, helpless and naive attempts to smooth things out and justify their behavior.
Alliance of the two spouses SEEs is an unpromising, out-of-control, and chaotic union of two inconstant and self-centered partners. Moreover, they cannot even be considered "partners" in the fullest sense of this word. This union will be lacking in reciprocity and mutual support, because there is no complementarity here and neither of them receives the necessary information on intuitive and logical aspects. Each partner makes the same mistakes and slips, allows for the same blunders, while neither of them is able to either warn or correct the other. Each of them wants to fully have the attention of others, but neither will be heard by his partner – he only hears himself. Therefore, it is easy to imagine what the outcome of this coexistence will be: feeling tired of one another and disillusioned, the partners will move to a neutral distance and perhaps keep in touch from personal or purely pragmatic reasons.
IEE and IEE
How can relations of two "Don Juans" unfold where one of them is the husband and the other is the wife?
The correspondence of views in this dyad sometimes manifests in a very interesting manner: for example, living for several years in an identical marriage, spouses, for both of whom this was a second union, almost simultaneously came to the conclusion that the relative constancy and the need to respect spousal fidelity is rather burdensome for them. In this regard, they proposed to one another (again, almost simultaneously) to have "open relations" and not deny themselves in the possibility to have intimate relationships "on the side". Such proposal suited both spouses, thus both agreed to it with enthusiasm.
Since then so it went: she had her friends, he had his friends. Joint plans for the evening were negotiated in advance. Individual plans were declared spontaneously: "I won't be spending night at home today. I'll be busy." Busy where, with whom – neither of them would ask such questions. This couple had long ago established a tradition to not delve into such inquiries. Some form of balance was maintained between them by the fact that each tried to keep up with this partner in the intensity of their entertainment and lavishness of their experiences. In this respect, these spouses didn't have any prohibitions.
It wasn't ruled out and nobody was shocked even by "group pastime" – each of them saw this just as a more sophisticated form of interaction, which involved a more sophisticated culture and communication. Thus they would say: "Our friends are good and respectable people", since their friends would also take part in their "family games" and were usually aware of how these spouses spent their leisure time. Their children (girl 10 years of age, and boy - 6) are not yet in the knowledge of the "sophisticated entertainment" of their parents. They are fine and even welcoming of the phone calls of "casual friends".
Neither of the spouses makes a secret of their open family relations. Both of them believe that this form of marriage is more harmonious, optimal, convenient and mutually beneficial for both of them – the pragmatism of identical relations manifests even in such unexpected forms.
Both partners believe that in this manner equality is established between them, and their mutual rights and obligations are balanced out. Each of them entertains himself for however much time and his strengths allow, and nobody is offended. Each also makes a contribution to the family that corresponds to his duties, and each is entitled to the amount of leisure that he is able to provide for himself.
Despite the abundance of refined pleasures, one look at their family is sufficient to realize that they lack proper standards and norms sensing. The problem here isn't in the distribution of chores and responsibilities – both of them could deal with these more or less – the problem is in overflow and abuse of sensual entertainments and gratifications that are destroying them both morally and physically.
Is this the example where the interaction of identical partners leads to eventual degradation? Well, it is safe to say that they have started between them a very dangerous game that won't be beneficial to their intellectual and physical evolution.
"Don Juans" of the opposite sex rarely come together. Usually they attempt to "out-play" each other intuitively, try to figure out the other while taking care not to reveal much of themselves. The marriage given as an example above apparently took place under conditions of blatant pragmatism: first, mutually convenient "conditions" were discussed, and then on the basis of this agreement their relationship came into existence. Both the husband and the wife here recognize that such an arrangement is convenient for both them. Both also realize that such accord in their relations as they have achieved is due to having many coinciding views and beliefs. In essence, this is interaction of two like-minded allies who have found for themselves a suitable and bonding "hobby". Nevertheless, they are still quite disconnected and distanced from each other.