Questions regarding SLE/ESTp Female and IEI/INFp Duality:
Thanks and all assistance is greatly apprecaited!
Warning: I am not trying to offend any personality types or make generalizations, and I apologize if anyone is. I am just curious about the subject.
What does this description by Stratiyevskaya mean, I thought ESTps were aggressors and initiative in attraction? A few statements I am specifically (bolded) confused about, I would appreciate if people could elaborate on what I highlighted and share their opinion if they view it as an accurate characteristic of the beta duality.
-Why is this caused by a spoiled IEI, and is the SLE really "patient, loyal, selflessly devoted woman"?
-Why is the situation further agrravated the longer the relation remains "uncertain"?
-"On the hook", what the ****, would an ESTp female really put up with being "on the hook"?!?
-Why and how do the ESTp female become more ethically dependent on the IEI male? Does the ESTp female look at the IEI male for ethical guidances and right or wrong?
-Is this duality more common between SLE logicial subtype and IEI ethical subtype?
Under which conditions does this happen? Most often this occurs when the IEI is a spoiled, over-pampered man with elevated self appraisal, while the SLE is a patient, loyal, selflessly devoted woman who takes on the function not only of his wife but also that of his mother (we have already discussed such an example). It is clear from the first glance that this is not the most beneficial and successful coupling. The situation is further aggravated the longer their relations remain ethically and socially uncertain. Let's recall that the first mistake of the SLE woman in our previous example has been that she was in a hurry to legalize her relations. And she is not the only one who commits such a mistake. For a SLE woman, as for any other woman of logical-sensing type of the second quadra, it is very important to consolidate her relations with a certain social status. This is understandable: she strives to reinforce her weak ethical and intuitive aspects with her stronger aspects of sensing and "localized" logic of relations (logic of "systems" or "hierarchical structures"). That is, the reasoning here goes something like this: "It's not clear how our relations will develop, but at least there will be a stamp in the passport. Then he won't be able to simply leave me. I'll take it up to local union/court - I will find him anywhere ..." Such a straightforward and ambitious partner may resort to any means and make any sacrifices and concessions in order to "get the man" that she wants.
But here the IEI won't be in a hurry, because it will be important for him to first secure his own influence. He finds himself in a situation where his every wish is being met, and even makes his partner beg him for this "favor". Acting in this manner he intuitively "out-plays" his partner, keeps her "on the hook", and sets his own pace and tone to the development of their relations. At this stage, the IEI may be tempted to fall into a role of a pampered, moody child who pulls and pulls from his "good aunt/mother" (as much as it's permitted by his "intuition of possibilities" which outlines for him the "permissible limit" of what he can get).
Here it would be nice for the SLE to apply his "knowledge of life", to assess the situation from the point of view of "opposition of partners", to understand that he is being tested and invited to measured up his skill. This is the situation to use his authoritarian tone and to "show who's boss". And how could it be otherwise? Should he tolerate the tantrums of his dual? Give in to the demonstrative sentimentality? We have already seen where this will lead him. Here what is important is the level of development of SLE's normative "intuition of possibilities" (channel 3-7): will he pick up "which way the wind is blowing" and notice that his partner is testing him for how easily he will give in, by which the IEI also asserts his own rights to all-permissiveness?
In the meantime, the situation becomes more complicated ethically. The SLE becomes more and more ethically vulnerable to and dependent on the IEI. Besides, the SLE is very limited in his actions: certain ethical inertness and straightforwardness typical of the representative of this type prevent them from changing their tactics at the right time (especially since they aren't always able to sense the "right time"). Again, a SLE woman may decide to not force things due to gender roles: "a woman should not impose herself on the man". In this respect SLE men have certain advantages: they can take their dual "by the storm" giving the IEI little time to think things over. SLE woman cannot press things in such a manner, especially if she holds herself to typical gender prejudices. Thus, an IEI man is often able to "stretch out the time", and therefore subordinate his partner to his will and wishes and restrain her by fear: "who knows if we'll get married or not?" She, in the meanwhile, grows nervous and painfully aware of her ambiguous position (in understanding of the second quadra), and at the same time she starts developing a way to "guarantee" her future; for example, she may even become pregnant to oblige him to marry her.
Even the IEI men? For them this sometimes manifests this even more vividly than for IEI women. It is clear that such an emotional range practically deprives the SLE of any ethical initiatives (and this is another aspect of these dual relations). It is clear that on emotional-ethical plane the SLE is not only relaxed by the IEI but also almost hypnotized by him. (Zhukov relaxes and becomes suggested by the aspect of "intuition of time" which is the "program" aspect of the IEI.) IEI's emotions have a fascinating and alluring effect on the SLE; the SLE is not only open but also helpless before them.