# Conflict Relationships - Any IEIs married to LSE?



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

I have recently realized that I am an IEI... INFp in Socionics, INFJ in MBTI, and my husband is LSE. We have had a long, emotionally difficult, but stable relationship. According to intertype relations theory, we are conflictors, and it seems that the theoretical likelihood of being able to relate in a positive manner is almost nonexistent.
I came across an article on this type of relationship that seems to be biased in favor of the LSE in this dynamic. It was written in Russian and rather difficult to read with auto-translation. But the underlying theme seems to be that IEI is a worthless parasite who continually and selfishly takes advantage of the LSE. The examples given describe an extremely immature person regardless of what type they are. Socionics - the16types.info - Conflict Relations INFp and ESTj by Stratiyevskaya

My husband and I have had a LOT of fights over allocation of money and time, so there are vague underlying truths in the article. However, most of it does not apply to our relationship at all. 
In this article (after the first few paragraphs), the implication seems to be that IEI is an evil, conniving, manipulative asshole / witch who will stop at nothing to get what he / she wants. It seems that this author must have had some particularly hideous experiences with IEIs! 

Has anyone else had real life experience in dealing with an IEI / LSE or other "conflict" relationship?


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Stratiyevskaya is bad author. I don't know why she's so known on Enlgish sites.
Conflictors perceive each other similarly. Generally, they think the other wants too much from them, while gives too few.

> INFp in Socionics, INFJ in MBTI

INFP in Socionics is INFP in MBT, as preferences are compatible and "INFP" says preferences only
Your type may be different, not only INF*. I recommend to check it by creating a typing theme with videointerview.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Sol_ said:


> INFP in Socionics is INFP in MBT


You may say INFp in socionics has some differences from the INFJ in mbti. But to say the INFp in socionics is the same as INFP in mbti is too much. Specially when you read early description by Augusta. INFJ and IEI are very similar if you take the Ego Block as primary functions.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

wildrose2 said:


> Has anyone else had real life experience in dealing with an IEI / LSE or other "conflict" relationship?





wildrose2 said:


> I have recently realized that I am an IEI... INFp in Socionics, INFJ in MBTI, and my husband is LSE


Why do you people like marrying your conflictors? Geez, it's the 3rd time I hear about it. Isn't that the toughest way to go? I know, I know "but we love each other", I get it. Still...


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Sol_ said:


> Stratiyevskaya is bad author. I don't know why she's so known on Enlgish sites.
> Conflictors perceive each other similarly. Generally, they think the other wants too much from them, while gives too few.
> 
> >
> ...


I disagree. There is not a straightforward translation from one system to the other. MBTI is preference based, but it is based on a model of Fi-Ne preferences. Socionics is function based, but the functions are described a little differently than the MBTI functions are described. Whether an INFP in MBTI is also an INFP in Socionics depends on several factors, but an important one is how it was determined that they are INFP, and the strength of their "feeling" preference. If they tested INFP on an MBTI test, but the feeling preference was weak, I would suggest taking a second look. The confusing factor is the J/ P dichotomy, which I believe adds an unnecessary and arbitrary layer of confusion. This has been discussed at length elsewhere, but the bottom line is that this dichotomy does a poor job of predicting functions, yet the online MBTI type descriptions are a mixture of behavioral and function based.
In my personal experience, I could not figure out a consistent best fit MBTI type without looking at functions. I am a strange mixture of IN(F/T)(P/J). Yet when I look at functions, I am clearly Ni dominant, which is pretty similar in both systems, and INFJ fits much better than INTJ. In Socionics, I identify strongly with the IEI description, but not at all with the EII description. 
However, I have a family member who tests strongly INFJ in the MBTI dichotomies, yet she is clearly Fi dom when looking at functions, and she fits the Socionics EII / INFj description. I have another family member who tests INFP in the MBTI system, but is clearly Fi-Ne, and fits the Socionics EII / INFj description.
I believe that how the MBTI NF types will translate to Socionics types depends greatly on the strength of the feeling preference, although I am still researching this. Socionics Model G uses Ni-Fx instead of Ni-Fe for an IEI. I am very interested in learning more about this, but it is hard to find good written information. There are a few videos, but I HATE videos when I am looking for an overview!


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Sol_ said:


> Stratiyevskaya is bad author. I don't know why she's so known on Enlgish sites.
> Conflictors perceive each other similarly. Generally, they think the other wants too much from them, while gives too few.


This probably wasn't Stratiyevskaya's best article -- and she is probably biased towards LSEs, as she types as ESI herself -- but I generally find that her articles are of _excellent _quality, especially when they describe gammas. Her SEE-ILI duality description is fantastic and actually widely quoted throughout the Socionics community, as are her other intertype articles about gammas, and I especially liked her description of the ESI's personality.


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Springwood Slasher said:


> Why do you people like marrying your conflictors? Geez, it's the 3rd time I hear about it. Isn't that the toughest way to go? I know, I know "but we love each other", I get it. Still...


Actually I married him because he had qualities that I saw lacking in myself. Love is a decision...
I wish that I knew then what I know now, because in a lot of ways, we have brought out the worst in each other. :-(


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Sol_ said:


> Conflictors perceive each other similarly. Generally, they think the other wants too much from them, while gives too few.
> 
> .


I completely agree with this, and it is exactly how my own relationship has played out. We are both determined to make it work, but neither of us are getting what we need. However, Stratiyevskaya's descriptions of conflict makes IEI sound like a real villain in these relationships, who cannot make it on their own without support from others. She says very little about how the LSE contributes to the dysfunctional relationship dynamic.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

wildrose2 said:


> I completely agree with this, and it is exactly how my own relationship has played out. We are both determined to make it work, but neither of us are getting what we need. However, Stratiyevskaya's descriptions of conflict makes IEI sound like a real villain in these relationships, who cannot make it on their own without support from others. She says very little about how the LSE contributes to the dysfunctional relationship dynamic.


Um, well I'm not sure how much saying this will help but conflictor relationships are easier to start than duality relationships. Did you perhaps fall in love a bit too quickly and married before really knowing one another? Because I think after a few months of living together does the conflict in conflictor relationships begin to really emerge.

Also, are you sure he's not really an ESE or that you're an ILI? It doesn't seem to occur as often anymore but even among people who know and understand Socionics, Supervision marriages do still happen at times and isn't completely uncommon. Usually due to factors that minimize the intertype relational aspect in favor of other aspects. Like say physical attraction, financial situation, generosity, etc. I used to believe that Supervision relationships were one of the worse relations but it turns out a Supervisor and Supervisee can be happily in a relationship. It's not until the Supervisee tries to assert control is when the sparks fly... in a bad way.


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Um, well I'm not sure how much saying this will help but conflictor relationships are easier to start than duality relationships.


I believe that!



Scoobyscoob said:


> Did you perhaps fall in love a bit too quickly and married before really knowing one another? Because I think after a few months of living together does the conflict in conflictor relationships begin to really emerge.


I have no doubts of this. It may sound terribly old fashioned, but we did not live together before we were married.



Scoobyscoob said:


> Also, are you sure he's not really an ESE or that you're an ILI?


That is one thing I am very sure of. No way he is ESE. I don't think I am ILI either. IEI descriptions fit me very well except that I am a lot more independent than Stratiyevskaya describes in her tale of conflict relations. 



Scoobyscoob said:


> Supervision marriages do still happen at times and isn't completely uncommon. Usually due to factors that minimize the intertype relational aspect in favor of other aspects. Like say physical attraction, financial situation, generosity, etc.


I am pretty sure we don't have a supervision relationship. I would say we are equally disenchanted with each other, although I have a much better understanding of the underlying relationship dynamics than he does. He looks at what is right in front of him, but isn't good at seeing the big picture of how actions and events affect other actions and events. We are both capable of being pragmatic, but doing so is painful for me and does not affect him as long as he gets what he wants superficially.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

wildrose2 said:


> I believe that!
> 
> I have no doubts of this. It may sound terribly old fashioned, but we did not live together before we were married.


Hm, I see. Any particular reason why you didn't co-habit before marriage? Pretty much every relationship counselor says that's a must to really determine if you can even live under the same roof. :\ Also, why is divorce not an option? Is the marriage really not that bad but now that you've found out it's a conflictor relationship you're having second thoughts? Conflictors can have a long marriage and even manage to form a stable family. It might get kind of ugly at times but there are conflictor couples who have made a marriage last. It just becomes very distant as you two grow older though.



wildrose2 said:


> That is one thing I am very sure of. No way he is ESE. I don't think I am ILI either. IEI descriptions fit me very well except that I am a lot more independent than Stratiyevskaya describes in her tale of conflict relations.
> 
> I am pretty sure we don't have a supervision relationship. I would say we are equally disenchanted with each other, although I have a much better understanding of the underlying relationship dynamics than he does. He looks at what is right in front of him, but isn't good at seeing the big picture of how actions and events affect other actions and events. We are both capable of being pragmatic, but doing so is painful for me and does not affect him as long as he gets what he wants superficially.


Hm okay well you do seem pretty IEI, so I won't really question you on that. Also why do you suspect LSE instead of LIE? A lot of LIE aren't big picture people but think about goals and things they want to accomplish. I think to a Te-PoLR, Te itself seems pragmatic and that may be what you're describing. I suppose what does point to conflictor is that LIE-IEI marriages tend to not be that bad. Both may end up completely out of tune with reality but it's one of the less painful supervision relationships. Also, Stratiyevskaya article goes into way more detail than I would like to know but that more or less sounds like an IEI-LSE conflictor relationship. When young, a lot of IEI, especially females tend to describe in what they want in a man as having Te. Not knowing that a Te-leading man is not good for them really. Yes, the LSE guy would fall for an IEI purely based on her looks, true. lol

Well, it's up to you two really. A conflictor relationship likely won't improve as time goes on. There may be periods of relative peace and stability but Deltas have a strong urge to stabilize, while Betas have a strong urge to destabilize, especially when bored. Exception being is if the Delta is an 8 and the Beta is a 6, then there's more of a balance and less clashing involved. If that's not the case with you two and you two are conflictors then the both of you will always be operating at opposite wavelengths, and no neither of you are the bad guy of the situation. You're simply opposites in how you want to live life.


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Also, are you sure he's not really an ESE or that you're an ILI?


Actually the only type other than LSE that I think could be a possibility for my husband is LIE. Which if true would make ours a Supervision relationship. I can see how there may have been elements of that dynamic early in our marriage because of his superior social / financial position. He also has had a tendency to underestimate me. And I have had a tendency to prove him wrong. He does tend to act superior and patronizing, and in a weird sort of way it is hard on his ego when I succeed in certain areas, like at work. However, for the most part, he simply ignores all aspects of the relationship and focuses on his own work. 
I will have to do a little more research on this. He is definitely an MBTI ESTJ, but I have not yet researched LIE very well.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

wildrose2 said:


> Actually the only type other than LSE that I think could be a possibility for my husband is LIE. Which if true would make ours a Supervision relationship. I can see how there may have been elements of that dynamic early in our marriage because of his superior social / financial position. He also has had a tendency to underestimate me. And I have had a tendency to prove him wrong. He does tend to act superior and patronizing, and in a weird sort of way it is hard on his ego when I succeed in certain areas, like at work. However, for the most part, he simply ignores all aspects of the relationship and focuses on his own work.
> I will have to do a little more research on this. He is definitely an MBTI ESTJ, but I have not yet researched LIE very well.


I'll save you the trouble. If he's an MBTI ESTJ then he's not an LIE. LIEs are described as being much more intuitive than typical ENTJ descriptions. Well, he may _seem_ ESTJ to you if he's a Te-subtype. Does the Te-subtype seem to describe him in any way? Because behaviorally, there is a world of difference between subtypes, even though cognitively they're the same.

LIE subtypes - Wikisocion

Hm, I think he might be a more Te-type if he sees your Te-PoLR as something you can't really help yourself on. Yes, the acting superior and patronizing is more likely due to his upbringing than his type but he would likely come off that way if you're the Supervisee. As for that, I would say try to gently assert yourself more and maybe pick one or two things you'd want to become good at that he thought you couldn't do and work on becoming good at it and prove him wrong.

Hm well Supervision marriages aren't all bad, but it sounds like you're trying to prove yourself to him and when he says mean things to you he feels bad about himself. Like I wrote in an earlier post, a Supervision marriage only turns sour when the Supervisee tries to gain an upper hand against the Supervisor. That's when tensions and regrets can start to form.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I'm not in such a relationship myself, but I worked for a number of years for a very happy IEI-LSI couple (caregiving for their child, so I spent a lot of time interacting with both of them in their house and in the community). They functioned very differently - they saw things very differently - but they shared priorities and therefore almost always came to the same conclusions. It ended up being that they had quite a stable, well-balanced relationship, even though they bickered (as almost all couples do). Let me know if you'd like my thoughts on any particular facet of their relationship. I think she was 2w1 soc/sp and he was 6w5 sp/sx. They were both a little overprotective but also really generous, caring people. 

Personally, I don't put a lot of stock into Socionics (or any sort of personality type) relationship compatibility prediction. I believe that what matters most in a relationship is shared values - while excellent personality compatibility can ease daily life, without values compatibility, a relationship is sort of like a house built on sand, prone to collapse as soon as its original foundation is impacted by any external factors. Beyond that, personality is useful for assessing where strengths and weaknesses may lie, but it can't foretell whether or not your relationship is workable. All couples have issues. My parents are duals and both reasonably healthy people, and I firmly believe that duality is not some kind of magical panacea. They're very different people with very different ways of perceiving and judging, which often cause disagreements and misunderstandings, but their shared values allow them to live in harmony and pursue life goals together.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

wildrose2 said:


> Actually the only type other than LSE that I think could be a possibility for my husband is LIE. Which if true would make ours a Supervision relationship. I can see how there may have been elements of that dynamic early in our marriage because of his superior social / financial position. He also has had a tendency to underestimate me. And I have had a tendency to prove him wrong. He does tend to act superior and patronizing, and in a weird sort of way it is hard on his ego when I succeed in certain areas, like at work. However, for the most part, he simply ignores all aspects of the relationship and focuses on his own work.
> I will have to do a little more research on this. He is definitely an MBTI ESTJ, but I have not yet researched LIE very well.


You might want to look into Enneagram + Instincts if you want to get further insight into how your relationship with your husband. The enneagram literature is written english, so you don't have to second guess and read machine translations; second, socionics types are not the end to everything -- a significant portion of relationship dynamics are based on how your relate in other typologies, which might offer some insight. (Based on this description your husband sounds like a type 3.) 

There was an IEI woman posting in the ESTJ forums about her recent marriage to her ESTJ husband. They were both religious and got married through church if I remember correctly; of course, they haven't lived together because the church doesn't sanction close premarital relations. After marriage they have argued and clashed many times. She was seeking some advice on how they can improve their relationship. To make the matter worse, she said she is type 1 and he is an 8 -- the two types that clash the worst. Idk if they stayed together, but 2x conflicting relations must have been rough.


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> I'll save you the trouble. If he's an MBTI ESTJ then he's not an LIE. LIEs are described as being much more intuitive than typical ENTJ descriptions. Well, he may _seem_ ESTJ to you if he's a Te-subtype. Does the Te-subtype seem to describe him in any way? Because behaviorally, there is a world of difference between subtypes, even though cognitively they're the same.
> 
> LIE subtypes - Wikisocion


That is a possibility. I see him as being more of a sensor type, but in some ways he isn't. Here is the description of Te-ENTj with my own comments in italics...
Logical subtype Te-ENTj (Te-LIE)
Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov
Appearance
Makes an impression of a mobile, energetic, action-oriented and strict person. _*YES*_
Facial expressions lack in emotionality. _*Maybe to those who don't know him well. To me, he seems expressive*._
Looks directly, at point-blank range, studying his conversation partner, with his gaze focusing for a long time on his conversation partner or on objects in his surroundings._ *Yes, but not for a long time*._
A bit timid and diffident, though tries to hide this. _*Yes. He will yell, bluster, and rant about something he is angry about, but will almost never take decisive action against an offender. He is insecure about his ability to negotiate with others. I have had to step in and mediate conflicts between him and others. I also have had to be the one to discipline the kids after they reached adolescence... He would try, but lacks tact, diplomacy, and understanding of relationships.* _

At times, he is overly mistrustful, critical, and excessively categorical. _*YES. Often imagines falsely negative motives for things both with me and with others, but at other times he is overly trusting. If someone else is mad at him, he usually blames me for it even if I had nothing to do with it*._
It is difficult to distract him from what he has planned, tries to bring everything he has conceived to completion. _*YES. But does not plan much outside of his work.*_
Despite his tendency to think and reflect, he is decisive and impulsive in words and in action. _*He doesn't seem to spend a lot of time thinking and reflecting, but he can be decisive and impulsive in words and actions. Has very low tolerance for unexpected challenges, although he is very negative and always sure something will go wrong. He makes poor decisions under pressure that might fix the immediate problem, but will cause more trouble later*._
Inclined to have longs talks. _*No*_.
Seems somewhat uptight and strained in conversation due to his desire to appear self-controlled, composed, serious person with foresight. _*Yes. Until he loses his temper or something unexpected goes wrong.*_
His apparent slowness suddenly changes to haste and hurriedness. _*He has 3 speeds: Off, Full speed ahead, and FRANTIC RUSH. He is only off when he is watching TV or something similar.*_
In most cases, his figure looks solid and stocky in built, though somewhat rigid and angular in movements. Tries to hold himself with dignity and confidence. _*Solid yes, stocky no, rigid sometimes. Tries to be dignified and confident - usually*._
If he jokes, does it with a serious look, smiling only with the corners of his mouth. _*No. He can be very jovial, but only under certain circumstances*._
Character
Hardworking and alert. Eagerly gets involved in various activities and business that bring concrete results and benefits. _*YES*_
Usually well-informed, and tries to be credible and authoritative. _*Yes but doesn't pay much attention to things outside of his business and work related issues.* _
Plans everything advance, collects needed information for data driven solutions. _*Obsessively plans business related things, but usually terrible at planning anything else. Procrastinates and puts off family obligations as long as possible. Conveniently forgets promises. Gets angry if he is required to follow through*._
Strives for clarity and accuracy in all matters. _*Mostly. But has a narrow focus*._
Pragmatic: will not take up useless and payless work. _*Yes*_
Leery of new proposals that are not supported by convincing evidence. _*YES*_
Cautious in his new endeavors. _*YES*_
Prefers testing new ideas in practice, to avoid making mistakes. _*Yes*_
Being convinced in future benefits of a certain idea, tries to realize it into real life with much enthusiasm and energy. _*Sometimes, but does not adapt well to change*. _
He is never satisfied with the current events. Always searching for ways of changing, polishing, and improving the existing. _*No. Although he is often critical of others*._
Has a critical turn of mind, and an inclination towards polemics. _*Critical yes, polemics no*. _
Enjoys developing new projects and promising plans. _*No. Hates change.*_
Separates a given goal into steps, and subsequently carries them out, thus bringing his given goal to its completion. _*Only with work / business*._
Dislikes being distracted from his work or business, and when others interfere with his focus or try to impose others methods and courses of actions. _*Very much so*_
Quite principled in his views and convictions. It is difficult to persuade him, or convince him otherwise. _*YES*_
Strives towards order, logical and rational sense in everything, though he's not always able to achieve this. _*Yes*_
Interested in the worldly value of things. Stimulates other people to activity and work by his own example, _*YES*_
as well as by making agreements on mutually beneficial conditions. _*Totally cannot be relied on to keep promises, except in business matters. Will promise the kids or myself something if they work hard or if we reach a goal, but he will back out after the condition is met. He has accused me of all manner of betrayal just for insisting that he keep his promises to the kids... He thinks I should back him up regardless*._
Poorly tolerates trickery and cunning. Respects people of their word and deed. _*Yes. But while he is honest trustworthy in business relationships, he can be a real jerk in personal relationships. Does not honor promises, and can be manipulative - although I see right through him*._
Not afraid of challenges and obstacles. Interested in testing himself in extreme conditions, in overcoming all hardships and coming through as the winner. Under any circumstances, shows fortitude, tenacity, optimism and endurance._ *Absolutely not. Hates change. Hates taking chances. Is negative and pessimistic*._
In matters and issues of principle to him can show firmness and intractability, defending the ideals of fairness and humanism. _*Yes - but only what he sees as important*. _
Negatively refers to unceremoniousness and abuse. Correct and restrained in his statements, tries to create a casual atmosphere in conversation by his democratic attitude and humor. _*Not really. He is a little bit of a snob, although he tries to act correctly in public.*_
Good storyteller, describes events in all detail. _*He can make up fictional stories for children, but is ridiculously bad at relaying factual information - mostly because he doesn't see it important unless the information is related to something he wants someone to do*._
Readily shares his impressions and sensations with people around him. _*Sometimes*_
Holds himself with seriousness and dignity, shows good manners, politeness and courtesy. _*Yes when in public, not with family*._
Doesn't tolerate when he is treated with disrespect, can flare up and lose his temper in such cases. _*Absolutely*_
Likes people who are serious and restrained in communication, in whom he sees solid support in the future. _*Yes, but he hates depending on anyone. Privately very sensitive to perceived slights.*_
Reliable as a friend, provides real concrete help in difficult situations. _*Usually, but depends on the situation*_
Critical towards the mistakes and flaws of others, but delivers his reproofs and rebukes in a soft form, even if he is deeply upset. _*NO. Tends to say nothing unless he is really angry, then explodes with a flash of fury and sometimes emotion. When he does this, he can be brutal in his accusations and condemnations*._
Poorly discerns feelings of his partner, suspicious, afraid of making a mistake, of making himself look ridiculous. Therefore careful in his emotional expressions and admissions_ *(YES)*_, tries to deliver them in a joking humorous form _*(NO. He can be physically affectionate, but almost never verbally).* _
Prefers to prove his relation to someone by deeds rather than by words. Strives for solid, durable, stable, and reliable relations. _*YES, but lacks understanding of what others need*._
Feels upset if he is unsure of his external attractiveness, thus tries to look good, aesthetically pleasant, and appreciates good aesthetic sense and good manners in others. _*Somewhat*_
Practical, good at managing his household, knows how to do much with his hands. Cleverly and adeptly solves any household problems that he encounters. _*NO. Focuses ALL of his creativity and energy into his business, and ignores everything around the house. Not at all good at troubleshooting problems. *_
A supporter of healthy lifestyle _*(mostly)*_, but visits the doctors with much reluctance _*(YES)*._ If he happens to fall sick, inclined to use folk and alternative medicines _*(NO)*_, patiently trying to get better using various health systems. His persistence, inexhaustible optimism, and will to live help him overcome any obstacles on the way to achieving his goals_* (He has no optimism, but the man is a machine. He goes to work even when he is sick. But if he is stressed out, he will complain about not feeling well, even if he is not really sick. The same is true if I ask him to do something.*_



Scoobyscoob said:


> Hm, I think he might be a more Te-type if he sees your Te-PoLR as something you can't really help yourself on. Yes, the acting superior and patronizing is more likely due to his upbringing than his type but he would likely come off that way if you're the Supervisee.


I am pretty sure that he mostly sees my Te-PoLR as me being deliberately difficult and unsupportive of him. I think it makes him even more anxious and obsessive about money because he thinks I am careless and don't have a clue. Meanwhile, I feel like his arrogance and obsession with money at the expense of relationship issues has made it hard for me to focus on Te things, but I have nevertheless been absolutely determined that I will not be indebted to him and will not be treated like a child. Early in the relationship there was an imbalance in power because he was well established financially and I had nothing but debt (mostly student loans). Now that dynamic has changed... I am contributing as much as he is financially, and have for several years, although I work less hours. That has hurt his pride. He is also insecure about the fact that I learn a lot faster than he does, and somehow manage to be successful even though I do things much differently than he does. I don't mean this in a bad way, but in some areas, my general IQ is probably higher than his. He is not dumb, and I would NEVER say that to him. But he brings it up enough to let me know that it bugs him. When we are fighting about something totally unrelated, he will say things like "oh you just think you are so smart, you can talk your way out of anything and do whatever you want". Of course statements like that just make me mad, especially when I feel like I have been bending over backwards to compromise with him...
So In the beginning, our relationship had elements that seem familiar when I am reading about Supervision relationships, but I think that dynamic has definitely changed, and that he is at least as insecure as me, if not more. My guess is that would not have happened if it were truly a Supervision relationship.



Scoobyscoob said:


> As for that, I would say try to gently assert yourself more and maybe pick one or two things you'd want to become good at that he thought you couldn't do and work on becoming good at it and prove him wrong.


At this point I am more interested in making him feel good about himself and making our whole relationship more positive. Thanks for the input!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I get the vague impression he could be ENTP-Ti, personally. This looks like Mirage relations. It doesn't look Conflicting at first glance. There are too many positive sides, although to be fair I am skimming. 

Socionics Types: ILE-ENTp Subtypes

EDIT: I think at the least he does not value Se, and you clearly do. So he finds your Se valuing confusing, and you find his Ne valuing confusing, whether he is sensor or intuitive. Maybe he is a Si type, sure.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

wildrose2 said:


> That is a possibility. I see him as being more of a sensor type, but in some ways he isn't. Here is the description of Te-ENTj with my own comments in italics...
> Logical subtype Te-ENTj (Te-LIE)
> Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov
> 
> ...


It sounds like everything you've said yes to and in some instances emphatically so would indicate he's an LIE and a Te subtype as well. You might want to maybe introduce him to Socionics as a way of understanding you and maybe even perhaps your children better. Especially if you're unhappy with him as a family man. Yes, LIE and Gammas in general can become workaholics, especially if one believes that one is not quite where they should be financially.



wildrose2 said:


> I am pretty sure that he mostly sees my Te-PoLR as me being deliberately difficult and unsupportive of him. I think it makes him even more anxious and obsessive about money because he thinks I am careless and don't have a clue. Meanwhile, I feel like his arrogance and obsession with money at the expense of relationship issues has made it hard for me to focus on Te things, but I have nevertheless been absolutely determined that I will not be indebted to him and will not be treated like a child. Early in the relationship there was an imbalance in power because he was well established financially and I had nothing but debt (mostly student loans). Now that dynamic has changed... I am contributing as much as he is financially, and have for several years, although I work less hours. That has hurt his pride. He is also insecure about the fact that I learn a lot faster than he does, and somehow manage to be successful even though I do things much differently than he does. I don't mean this in a bad way, but in some areas, my general IQ is probably higher than his. He is not dumb, and I would NEVER say that to him. But he brings it up enough to let me know that it bugs him. When we are fighting about something totally unrelated, he will say things like "oh you just think you are so smart, you can talk your way out of anything and do whatever you want". Of course statements like that just make me mad, especially when I feel like I have been bending over backwards to compromise with him...


Wow well good for you! That changing in financial dynamic might have kind of made him angry with you. Sometimes outbursts like that do happen, especially when it comes to the matter of hurt pride. You just have to stick up for yourself without making the situation worse.



wildrose2 said:


> So In the beginning, our relationship had elements that seem familiar when I am reading about Supervision relationships, but I think that dynamic has definitely changed, and that he is at least as insecure as me, if not more. My guess is that would not have happened if it were truly a Supervision relationship.


Hm, well just because you're in a Supervision relationship does not mean you will always be worse off than your Supervisor. Especially not when it comes to money and your finances. My Supervisor, the SLI usually don't care too much about becoming wealthy and would rather live a comfortable and happy life with an occasional luxury enjoyed. What Supervision means is that you tend to give more control to your Supervisor over time and if the Supervisor isn't an ass about it will mange the additional responsibilities the best they can.



wildrose2 said:


> At this point I am more interested in making him feel good about himself and making our whole relationship more positive. Thanks for the input!


Ah, that's very sweet of you and best of luck with your husband and you. I would perhaps recommend that you introduce him to Socionics and maybe even MBTI in general to get him to understand you and your relationship better. Good luck!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I'm reading the Stratiyevskaya article now, and to be perfectly honest I am not seeing much of a problem here. This does sound exactly like how an IEI and an LSE behave in a relationship, with the caveat that both are typical representatives of the type - which essentially just means that both are young/inexperienced. In particular I find the interpretations of IEI behaviors and how LSE perceives them to be accurate. I do see that the article isn't as much written "from the other side". That is, it doesn't talk as much about how IEI perceives LSE or what problems IEI has with LSE and the 'corrections' that IEI wishes to impose on LSE.

....is what I would have said, until I got to part where it outright refers to IEI behavior as parasitic and exploitative. Now I am waiting to see if the shoe will be on the other foot, similarly painting the "poor LSE blinded by love" in its own negative light. 

I'm not seeing the ways the author says IEI sees LSE, but I can tell you I find people similar to the example LSEs talked in about throughout to be trying and irritating people. Hopelessly convinced that everything will work out if we just all work together. Maybe that's worth something.

I'll finish this later, I need to sleep. Got to section two


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> It sounds like everything you've said yes to and in some instances emphatically so would indicate he's an LIE and a Te subtype as well.


I am not ruling it out, but the parts that make me think he is not LIE is that he really HATES change, does not think well "on his feet", does not anticipate the outcome of his actions EXCEPT in business matters, and does not have much ability to handle a crisis. He also loves history, military stuff, and traditions, which (at least in MBTI descriptions) seems like Si. 
The parts that make me think he is not LSE is that he lacks attention to detail, especially at home. He is messy and disorganized, in some ways worse than me, although in some ways he is a lot more structured. So I think that if he is LSE, maybe it is stress that does this to him... still researching.


Scoobyscoob said:


> You might want to maybe introduce him to Socionics as a way of understanding you and maybe even perhaps your children better. Especially if you're unhappy with him as a family man. Yes, LIE and Gammas in general can become workaholics, especially if one believes that one is not quite where they should be financially.


I have actually done that, but very briefly. He hates being given a lot of information at once. At first, he said it was nonsense. But when he saw the IEI descriptions, he admitted that it was me to a T.


Scoobyscoob said:


> Wow well good for you! That changing in financial dynamic might have kind of made him angry with you. Sometimes outbursts like that do happen, especially when it comes to the matter of hurt pride. You just have to stick up for yourself without making the situation worse.


 Yes that is very true. His whole ego is based on his financial success, and he is traditional enough to think the man is supposed to be the provider.


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I'm reading the Stratiyevskaya article now, and to be perfectly honest I am not seeing much of a problem here. This does sound exactly like how an IEI and an LSE behave in a relationship, with the caveat that both are typical representatives of the type - which essentially just means that both are young/inexperienced. In particular I find the interpretations of IEI behaviors and how LSE perceives them to be accurate. I do see that the article isn't as much written "from the other side". That is, it doesn't talk as much about how IEI perceives LSE or what problems IEI has with LSE and the 'corrections' that IEI wishes to impose on LSE.
> 
> ....is what I would have said, until I got to part where it outright refers to IEI behavior as parasitic and exploitative. Now I am waiting to see if the shoe will be on the other foot, similarly painting the "poor LSE blinded by love" in its own negative light.
> 
> ...


I definitely see that the underlying feelings are familiar to our situation. I just disagree with the whole "IEI is a parasite" attitude. I sensed that attitude from him long ago and have worked hard NOT to be like that. The Stratiyevskaya article is a like an exaggerated compilation of all the awful things that my husband has either said or implied over the years. Things that I have made sure to not allow to be true. Yet that article implies that it is inevitable... and the IEI will just keep coming back to torment the LSE even if they break up. This is definitely not something I relate to. I was divorced many years ago, and slammed that door so hard that there is no way that room in my life will ever see the light of day again. Of course my ex was an unhealthy SEE, but I cannot imagine harassing someone after a breakup... At least not in a way that they would know it was me :smile:!


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Hm, I see. Any particular reason why you didn't co-habit before marriage? Pretty much every relationship counselor says that's a must to really determine if you can even live under the same roof. :\ Also, why is divorce not an option? Is the marriage really not that bad but now that you've found out it's a conflictor relationship you're having second thoughts? Conflictors can have a long marriage and even manage to form a stable family. It might get kind of ugly at times but there are conflictor couples who have made a marriage last. It just becomes very distant as you two grow older though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry I missed this post earlier. We didn't live together and will not divorce because of religious issues. I would divorce under certain circumstances... infidelity, physical abuse etc., but that is not an issue. 
As far as Enneagram is concerned, I am pretty sure about tritypes, but I am not sure about which one is dominant. I am 4-5-9, he is 6-3-8. I used to think I was 4w3 when I first learned about the Enneagram in my 20's, but I became more "Fivish" in my 30's, and now feel more like a 9 in a lot of ways. One of those things I am also researching further... I think he is a 6, but has some 3 and 8 characteristics as well.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

wildrose2 said:


> I definitely see that the underlying feelings are familiar to our situation. I just disagree with the whole "IEI is a parasite" attitude. I sensed that attitude from him long ago and have worked hard NOT to be like that. The Stratiyevskaya article is a like an exaggerated compilation of all the awful things that my husband has either said or implied over the years. Things that I have made sure to not allow to be true. Yet that article implies that it is inevitable... and the IEI will just keep coming back to torment the LSE even if they break up. This is definitely not something I relate to. I was divorced many years ago, and slammed that door so hard that there is no way that room in my life will ever see the light of day again. Of course my ex was an unhealthy SEE, but I cannot imagine harassing someone after a breakup... At least not in a way that they would know it was me :smile:!


I think that is how LSE generally see IEI, unfortunately. Because IEI is ever the romantic, and money is for nothing more than tactical use to achieve maximum positive effect (Fe+) while keeping in mind future consequences (Ni-). Thing Stratiyevskaya describes, like squirreling away little money or food caches, this is very much IEI in my experience. The idea that what is being put in these caches does not belong to the IEI - such as leftover grocery money given by a partner - offends me a little. I do in fact make these caches myself, but they are not kept secret from my partner.

I have a little speech I outright tell a partner of mine "I like to hide my extra money or snacks away for use in the future. If you suddenly find a twenty dollar bill in one of my jackets or something, chances are it was not left there on accident. Understand that I like to save resources for future events, and that because I don't always trust my ability to handle money, I also prefer to keep a savings account separate from checking and I never check the savings account balance except when an emergency occurs. If I know how much money I have I will likely spend it!" (not word for word, some variation of this as needed when I decide to tell said partner)

Oh, hey quote from the article:



> A more tolerant and less exacting partner could afford to take the illusion for reality, especially if its humdrum, real life is not so rich in significant events and colorful impressions. And *there are patient, modest and unassuming Yesenin is also able to track featuring, apart from the crowd* ...


So not all Yesenin are like this, according to Stratiyevskaya, but nothing more is said on how many Yesenin he believes are in fact like this. Note also that all his examples are male Yesenin.

Another quote


> According to an aspect of their software involyutsionnoy intuition of time (b.i.1) - archaic, subjectivist aspect - Yesenin inclined to mysticism and superstition. Inclined to focus on the signs, is inclined to believe them. And this mysticism, belief in omens and portents in the dubious predestination - too deep and archaic aspects involyutsionnoy intuition of time, forcing Esenina to be cautious and prudent, although based on a practical and pragmatic calculation: if a partner is often sick, so it is not reliable in everyday life and in life. (Just like a lame horse is unreliable in battle: the very first fall and rider for a pull). Provident Yesenin may terminate the engagement only on the grounds that the bride complained of pain in the heart. Listen to the complaint, keep silent, and the next day - the other will say, *"Sorry, but we can not get married with you, because you have a bad heart." (During this time, he had already consulted with the right people and all agreed). And what will happen next with her and her heart condition - it is not his concern.*


See, this sort of thing I outright disagree with. IEI is still Humanitarian Club with 4D Fi. If an IEI did something like this, the IEI would be internally torn apart. Their dreams of "perfect love" shattering around them. This is where Stratiyevskaya fails, because IEI may *take this sort of action sometimes*, but the reasons for it are not touched upon. If my partner I was about to marry started showing signs of a bad heart, I'd be devastated. It would feel like everything is falling apart, like my destiny is to suffer trials and tribulations of watching the people I love die. That doesn't mean I would leave this person, because I love them! No, I would primarily be *afraid and unsure*. Stratiyevskaya assumes that subjectivist emotions - the experience of ethics as subjective and relative - necessarily means that those decisions are *wrong*.

I'm glad I was able to finally word this. Its been bothering me about Stratiyevskaya for a while.

Anyway, the rest of the article is nearly unintelligible or unimportant due to translation issues. I do feel I should say that Stratiyevskaya does have an excellent handle on what it means to be Ni- dominant. It's the issues around Fe+ that make his understanding of IEI questionable to me. For example: 



> - So, the spontaneity of intuition *has a predestined time and orderliness*?
> 
> - Far-reaching plans - the prerogative aspect involyutsionnoy intuition of time (-b.i.), which in itself (and its fractal properties) - provident information aspect (as well as dynamic, determined, irrational, introverted), *which includes the
> program to build your own goals, plans and far-reaching intentions,
> ...


This is a great example of unethical use of Ni-. And any type can be unethical in behavior, even an ethician, for obvious reasons. The problem is that Stratiyevskaya seems to think that the Demonstrative and Creative do not inform the plans that are being made with Ni- together; he seems to think that only Fe is playing a role, or that Fi is being used only for destructive reasons every single time without exception.

It lacks understanding that the IEI is still in the NF Club, still thinks people are important, still wants to get along with others. it fails to see that IEI can be self-sacrificing without having to be false about it, to aggrandize the self because "look at me I sacrifice so much". To me, this seems like Stratiyevskaya is viewing IEI's devalued Fi from the lens of valued Fi in the DS position or possibly the HA.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

> Using the imaginary rumors (which later disbanded them and work as a real and actual shtirlitsu complicate the situation), Yesenin knocks Shtirlitsa with business sentiment, trying to shock him with this news: "And as you say, that you have already worked their, has exhausted its potential!" - He says shtirlitsu with *impudent grin and watches produced effect. If the impression seems to Yesenin not strong enough, he can throw out shtirlitsu a whole bunch of the same dirty gossip, of which one is worse than the other: "But this - that ... (followed by first and last name) said that he hates you. And this - that said he would never work with you ... And will not contract with you no not sign, he does not trust you ... "- blurted it all again with Yesenin impudent grin peering partner's eyes, expecting to see in them something that will convince him the correctness of the chosen method of terror*
> 
> Shtirlitsu this behavior seems strange and outrageous. In his business qualities (as in the field of innate professionalism), it is certain enough that can not believe all of this. But in view of the fact that all this is most defiantly informed him of his closest partner (who is paid a lot of energy, attention, and time), then the partner's behavior itself perceived betrayal, like a punch in the back, as arrogant, nasty, outrageous, and monstrously abusive act.
> 
> ...


Aaaaaah, I see. It is clear to me that in this example the IEI is doing that thing I do sometimes, making jokes that are quarter-to-half true as a way of letting the tension drain out. This is quite clearly intended to be a joke, not a vicious attack. IEI does this because something is bothering them about the situation. The Delta perceives it as "beating on potential" - but to IEI, what something could potentially be *is* a joke. It only matters what it will be. This is Ne Ignoring with Fe wanting to ramp up emotional atmosphere.

It is important to note that this is *legitimate and accurately portraying a major source of tension between these two types*, but what is implied here is that this is IEI *deliberately* terrorizing LSE - *this is not the case*. This is IEI being an IEI, the IEI would likely be offended that LSE finds this terrifying! This is supposed to be a moment where the LSE gets that it is a joke, laughs, says "yeah right" impudently back at the IEI, and the two laught together sharing in the good times while the LSE takes control back in this situation. Because the IEI is seeking to be given direction by the confidence of their partner here, that much is obvious. The impudent comment is made with the unconscious desire for the partner to be assertive and smack it down while maximizing enjoyment, while enjoying the feeling of power play and struggle. In other words, this was the IEI appealing to desired duality and the LSE reacting in revulsion to their chosen partner apparently going directly against what they seek in their duality relationship. This happens just as much between LSE's Si reaching out to the IEI, because what is talked about over and over throughout with the IEI taking advantage is that the IEI expects for their partner to _only offer them things they can reasonably afford to give_ and to _refuse to give things when they cannot afford to give them_. LSE wants to take care of their partner and their needs, but IEI wants to be taken care of as much as their partner feels is appropriate and then test those boundaries. The IEI is "parasitic" to the LSE because unlike SLE the LSE is not setting up hard boundaries for what can be given. The LSE expects their partner to intuitively grasp where the boundaries should be with Ne!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Section 16 of the article, while hard to parse, does talk about how IEI views LSE. Finally.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

wildrose2 said:


> I am not ruling it out, but the parts that make me think he is not LIE is that he really HATES change, does not think well "on his feet", does not anticipate the outcome of his actions EXCEPT in business matters, and does not have much ability to handle a crisis. He also loves history, military stuff, and traditions, which (at least in MBTI descriptions) seems like Si.


Well, history, military stuff and traditions are all broad enough to be of interest to include both Ni and Si, because I like all 3 of those as well. Although my interests in such subjects would likely be different from an Si person's interests though. Also, liking or disliking change comes from experiences with change. If I experienced change and always ended up worse after the changes were made, I'd learn to resist change. However, LIEs with Te- and Ni+ tend to believe that stagnation or a lack of progress leads to decay and also believes that the future is always brighter and more promising than today. However, if he's experienced some major failures involving change and has received a lot of ridicule, especially from his Supervisor, then he may learn to hate change when it comes to certain aspects. Back during my University days, my senior engineering+research lab had an SLI as the lab manager and he'd always put up signs by machinery saying (which was his favorite line), "If it ain't broke, THEN DON'T F****NG TOUCH IT!". Also, I don't think LSEs hate change as an LSE is also a dynamic. The LSE mindset is less apt to endorse change for the sake of it. Hating change would be more a quality of a static type (IJ and EP), IMO. With the IJ temperament being most resistant to change.



wildrose2 said:


> The parts that make me think he is not LSE is that he lacks attention to detail, especially at home. He is messy and disorganized, in some ways worse than me, although in some ways he is a lot more structured. So I think that if he is LSE, maybe it is stress that does this to him... still researching.


Well, in Socionics, unlike in MBTI, LIE are actually described as being kind of messy and disorganized from a Ti and Si perspective. 



wildrose2 said:


> I have actually done that, but very briefly. He hates being given a lot of information at once. At first, he said it was nonsense. But when he saw the IEI descriptions, he admitted that it was me to a T.
> Yes that is very true. His whole ego is based on his financial success, and he is traditional enough to think the man is supposed to be the provider.


Well, LIE still seems likely but have you also considered LSI and LII as well? Well, saying that the man should be the provider is a very Ne/Si sentiment, but if the both of you are religious then being part of a traditional organization is more likely to hold other traditional views as well. Did you try showing him the LIE description?



wildrose2 said:


> Sorry I missed this post earlier. We didn't live together and will not divorce because of religious issues. I would divorce under certain circumstances... infidelity, physical abuse etc., but that is not an issue.
> As far as Enneagram is concerned, I am pretty sure about tritypes, but I am not sure about which one is dominant. I am 4-5-9, he is 6-3-8. I used to think I was 4w3 when I first learned about the Enneagram in my 20's, but I became more "Fivish" in my 30's, and now feel more like a 9 in a lot of ways. One of those things I am also researching further... I think he is a 6, but has some 3 and 8 characteristics as well.


Okay, so the marriage isn't really horrible and he hasn't done anything egregiously bad but you do have some issues with your hubby. Got it. Well, if those tri-types are accurate then it sounds like you stung his 3 fix, which is why he seems to throw himself at his business.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Repeat.


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Thanks Scoobyscoob. I really appreciate your insight. I posted a typing thread which includes more details about why I originally typed him as ESTJ in the MBTI system.


----------



## wildrose2 (Oct 1, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I think that is how LSE generally see IEI, unfortunately. Because IEI is ever the romantic, and money is for nothing more than tactical use to achieve maximum positive effect (Fe+) while keeping in mind future consequences (Ni-).


 Oh my gosh yes. What else could it be for? :friendly_wink: 


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Thing Stratiyevskaya describes, like squirreling away little money or food caches, this is very much IEI in my experience. The idea that what is being put in these caches does not belong to the IEI - such as leftover grocery money given by a partner - offends me a little. I do in fact make these caches myself, but they are not kept secret from my partner.
> 
> I have a little speech I outright tell a partner of mine "I like to hide my extra money or snacks away for use in the future. If you suddenly find a twenty dollar bill in one of my jackets or something, chances are it was not left there on accident. Understand that I like to save resources for future events, and that because I don't always trust my ability to handle money, I also prefer to keep a savings account separate from checking and I never check the savings account balance except when an emergency occurs. If I know how much money I have I will likely spend it!" (not word for word, some variation of this as needed when I decide to tell said partner)


 I don't give the speech, but I do the same thing. My paycheck is never exactly the same amount. I have a base amount deposited into my checking account. Whatever is left goes into savings, and I seldom look at it. My husband knows about it, but even if he didn't, it's not stealing. I also found that implication to be offensive. Did you notice that the LSE had also squirreled money away in that story, but nothing was said about it being wrong for her. Only wrong for IEI.


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> So not all Yesenin are like this, according to Stratiyevskaya, but nothing more is said on how many Yesenin he believes are in fact like this. Note also that all his examples are male Yesenin.


Most of the examples were male, but not all. There was a story of two women at the bus stop and Yesenin made a scene, grabbing onto her LSE friend because of some man she wanted an excuse to talk to. I cannot imagine doing that. 



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> IEI is still Humanitarian Club with 4D Fi. If an IEI did something like this, the IEI would be internally torn apart. Their dreams of "perfect love" shattering around them. This is where Stratiyevskaya fails, because IEI may *take this sort of action sometimes*, but the reasons for it are not touched upon.


Absolutely. She makes it sound like IEI is totally calculating and manipulative. 


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I'm glad I was able to finally word this. Its been bothering me about Stratiyevskaya for a while.
> 
> This is a great example of unethical use of Ni-. And any type can be unethical in behavior, even an ethician, for obvious reasons. The problem is that Stratiyevskaya seems to think that the Demonstrative and Creative do not inform the plans that are being made with Ni- together; he seems to think that only Fe is playing a role, or that Fi is being used only for destructive reasons every single time without exception. It lacks understanding that the IEI is still in the NF Club, still thinks people are important, still wants to get along with others. it fails to see that IEI can be self-sacrificing without having to be false about it, to aggrandize the self because "look at me I sacrifice so much". To me, this seems like Stratiyevskaya is viewing IEI's devalued Fi from the lens of valued Fi in the DS position or possibly the HA


----------

