IEI – INFp – Esenin (Ni-Fe)
LSI – ISTj – Maxim (Ti-Se)
Type and Intertype Descriptions by Stratiyevskaya
Quick Intertype Chart
Wikisocion - Vera Stratiyevskaya
This interaction is between two introverted, emotivist and positivist types. Their reciprocal emotiveness enhances their mutual sympathies. Both of them see each other as friendly, attractive, and helpful. LSI protectively cares for the IEI, effectively courts his partner and caters to his needs. Enthusiastic and impressionable, the IEI is generous with compliments, expressing his willingness to extend his support and aid. IEI admires the elegance and aesthetics of his "activity" partner, his manners and behaviors, the way he holds and presents himself. All of this in combination with strength of LSI, and often masculinity of his temperament, produces a very favorable impression on the IEI.
Interaction over functions 1 - 6 and 2 - 5 (Ni, Se, Fe, Ti)
In IEI's company, LSI demonstrates a tendency to become more expansive, more assertive, sometimes even more controlling. This is not only because in his EGO sensing function becomes the main aspect. LSI is also hardened in his attitudes due to IEI's ethical directives. LSI does not like it when someone is being too vague, artful, and encouraging in vain.
The optimistic and amorphous forecasts of his positivist activator, his "castles in the air", his non-binding promises which he is liable to forget, surely have the effect of activating the LSI, since on the aspect of "intuition of time" LSI is dependent on the objective circumstances and the conditions of his surroundings. Thus the LSI, at first, takes IEI's forecasts and outlooks very seriously, treating them as long-term plans which has been designed for him by his partner. Over time, however, he begins to feel disappointed in some of the illusory promises of his activity partner, since frequently they aren't backed up by any concrete reasons. Esenin's "mirages" are primarily intended for inspiration and relaxation of his dual SLE, but Maxim doesn't recognize this and for a long period of time treats them as serious prospects. Even after being disappointed in the promises of his activator, Maxim, nevertheless, repeatedly gives in to the temptation and allows himself to be carried away by them. (For example, husband Esenin persuaded his wife Maxim to take out a loan to buy a car, suggesting that he will use it for work purposes. When the car was bought, the husband started using it to visit his friends, several times getting into accidents. As a result, all the money that was meant for loan repayment went to car repairs and gasoline. He justified this by poor luck and felt very offended when he was reproached for this.)
However, after seeing how careless the IEI is with plans and his time, LSI comes to the conclusion that his partner is simply "fooling around". LSI feels upset and offended by this and forwards even harsher requirements to his activity partner. With this he seeks to discipline his "activator"*. As a consequence of this, the LSI can commit some "excesses" via his strong-willed sensing. IEI sincerely does not understand what has caused the dissatisfaction of his partner, and therefore feels offended himself.
[*Translator's note: Which is actually not that different from what happens in LSE-IEE relationships where the LSE attempts to "discipline" the IEE and inject more rationality into his or her life.]
LSI is not always prepared for these forthcoming eruptions of emotions, especially since his activator expresses his offense not only by emotional outbursts but also by demonstrative distancing, which is especially painful for the LSI, since the aspect of "ethics of relations" for him is in fairly vulnerable position (at the level of the superego). After throwing his partner off to a large distance, the IEI gradually begins to warm up and smooth over the conflict – he once again becomes helpful, friendly, willing to share all his news with the LSI, sincere and principled. And then, in a burst of revelation, he again begins to orient the LSI at some new prospects, encouraging him again and giving promises which he may not fulfill.
The logical arguments of his activator, at this point, no longer inspire the IEI, since LSI's logic does not lead to any "great goals" and does not justify any large scale actions. Meanwhile, IEI is subconsciously oriented at the creative logic of his dual, SLE, which is designed to justify his expansionism. Therefore, over time, IEI begins to see the LSI as overly conservative and rigid person for whom there is nothing more important than his own set of opinions and principles.
Additionally, with LSI partner the IEI doesn't feel himself completely protected*, though he doesn't consider his partner to be weak either. And yet, sometimes and in a certain mood, IEI feels the desire to provoke and prod his partner, to show him his "edge". At such times, he can blame the LSI for lack of audaciousness, for inability to "take" that which according to the IEI itself falls into his hands.
*[translator's note: Lack in mutual protection is also felt because the demonstrative functions of activity partners do not overlap with their PoLRs as is the case of duality relations. Demonstrative Si of LSI cannot compensate for Te PoLR of IEI. Having Te as "ignoring" function the LSI takes the role of passive observer and post facto critic on this function, much to discomfort of the IEI. The same is true vice versa: Ne ignoring of the IEI won't compensate and cover Ne PoLR of LSI. This extends to all activity relations.]
Interaction over functions 3 - 8 and 4 - 7 (Fi, Si, Ne, Te)
LSI is, of course, grateful to the IEI for intuitive-ethical information with which the IEI supplies him with from time to time, telling him who and how relates to him and what should be done and when. However, from point of view of IEI, Maxim does not respond to this information in appropriate manner. LSI reacts incorrectly because he takes this information as a guide to action to "clean up" his environment from his "opponents" (since LSI is subconsciously oriented at precautionary ethics of his dual EIE.) IEI considers such measures to be extreme, and therefore does not approve of them: "You already "cut from the shoulder", and then you create more reasons for this and wonder why you have so much opposition".
Ethical directing of IEI often causes worries for the LSI. IEI's habit to speak vaguely and employ subtle hints to convey his meaning is especially frustrating to the LSI. His activator's unstable emotions and flirtatious light manner of relating evoke mistrust in Maxim. After all, EIE's are not flirtatious, even women. Even when EIE actresses portray flirtation it seems heavy and unnatural. This is because Hamlet is "programmed" for the suspicious nature of Maxim and rarely provides him with a reason to be jealous. Another thing is IEI with his light ethical agility and maneuverability, his desire to satisfy both "ours and yours", his ability to feel good in the "enemy camp" – all of this gives serious reasons for concern. Thus the LSI increasingly frequently begins to question the loyalty and devotion of his partner. He may assume that he is being "taken for a fool" or even being used.
IEI's complex of not being put into disadvantage, which is more vividly expressed in non-dual relations, is also unpleasant for the LSI. The IEI may start to pull to his side over very minor things, for example, take other people's things and stash them at home. IEI very quickly gets used to the things that he borrows for temporary use and parts with them extremely reluctantly - he will more willingly part with his non-dual partner than with the thing that belongs to his partner.
LSI is observant enough such that this kind of behavior does not pass unnoticed. After all, he has a very good eye and memory for details. Moreover, LSI reacts rather harshly and categorically towards everything that he dislikes and readily puts to use his creative sensing, which nevertheless is never inflated to the scale of SLE's. Thus IEI sees in LSI someone who is still limited in how much he is willing to do and someone who can still be thrown off the track. IEI interprets this as signs of insecurity. He readily feels LSI's "weak spot" of "intuition of possibilities".
IEI periodically criticizes the LSI for his excessive, in Esenin's opinion, straightforwardness and lack of foresight: "You're as straight as a hypotenuse, there is no maneuverability in you". It is clear that such remarks Maxim does not take well to, more so because what he is expecting from his partner is not criticism, but specific operational actions: "And where were you before? If you are so smart why did not you warn me? You should have told me beforehand." As he sees it, there is nothing good in allowing the person to first make mistakes and then criticize him for carelessness.
LSI is also irritated by passive nonintervention of IEI. He cannot understand the reasons for this behavior – he sees only one thing: his partner does not have enough solidarity with him, is not devoted to him, and therefore does not behave himself correctly. Of course, this behavior of IEI is not due to malicious intent, carelessness or irresponsibility, as LSI often assumes, but rather that the aspect of "intuition of opportunities" for IEI is in the position of "observing function" and is designed for the normative intuition of SLE, which in comparison to intuition of LSI is not imperative. Therefore, the IEI only observes and monitors the operations of his partner and offers corrections for his behavior.
Over time, IEI starts to provide the LSI with warning of possible dangers that lie ahead. That is, he slowly begins to adjust himself to emulate LSI's dual the EIE, picking up on his partner's need in such precautionary advice.
Analogous thing occurs on an aspect of "logic of actions" where IEI is in need of operational assistance from the LSI. Here he may receive only criticism of his actions, and even then, in retrospect. This is unpleasant for the IEI, because if he doesn't receive directives in time, he will have to act on his own, which sometimes leads to the most undesirable results. Without prior explicit and direct instructions the IEI has trouble carrying out his tasks. He always needs to be explained very clearly what he should do and what he shouldn't. If Esenin does not receive such instructions, this could lead to unwanted consequences which will require the help of his partner to correct (if they can still be corrected). Therefore, LSI in partnership with IEI, also won't remain a passive observer for long – he will either completely remove the IEI from participation in the affairs and take matters into his own hands, or he will scrupulously and strictly control Esenin, giving him exhaustively detailed instructions, that is, he will attempt to emulate IEI's dual the SLE.