SLE Relationships — People are Afraid of Me, But I am a Soft Person (Interview Transcript)

Sergey: So, your initial impressions of those girls—how well did they match the expectations you'd formed from chatting online?

Nastya: Honestly, about 90 percent, I'd say. Because I pictured one of them being really calm and soothing, exactly like she turned out to be. The other one is super wild and restless, but online it felt like she was only like that in bursts.

Sergey: Mhm. Listen, not to ask which type you like more—that's the wrong question—but which ones do you feel most comfortable around?

Nastya: You know, I’m actually comfortable with both, but they give off different vibes. Like, one is very calm, and the other is upbeat. With the upbeat one, I catch her energy—and that’s it.

By nature, I’m a pretty quiet person; I can sit silently for hours just minding my own business. But when I'm around high-energy people, I get energized—and boom, we’re having fun together. Or, say, if I'm in a group where some people are partying and others aren't, I feel the need to get everyone interacting a bit. I’ll start gently stirring people up, very carefully.

On the other hand, when I was having morning coffee with the girl who’s really calm, we just sat there peacefully. We had this cozy, serene chat over coffee. She isn't big on loud outbursts of emotion, so I tried to keep it low-key around her. Plus, her aura just naturally makes you feel calmer.

I honestly enjoy both. But for the most part, I've noticed that the people drawn to me are either one extreme or the other—there’s no middle ground. It's like I'm the middle ground: I can be quiet or emotional. But the people around me are either super expressive or super calm.

Sergey: Got it. So you balance them out, right?

Nastya: Yeah, I'm like the balance between them.

Sergey: I see. Okay, so that’s the girls. What about the guys?

Nastya: Well, I have two guy friends as well: one calm, one wild. Things clicked faster with the wild one. They both did most of the reaching out initially, but with the wild one, it was just more fun. Just shooting the breeze—blah, blah, blah—and we clicked in no time.

Sergey: Well, naturally, that's how it usually goes.

Nastya: Yeah. But with the quieter guy... it also started online. At first, we’d talk maybe once every two weeks, strictly about our game (we’re all text-roleplayers). We’d discuss a few plot points, and that was it. I didn't really try to take initiative, and neither did he.

But then we struck a chord: he made me a piece of digital art—a gift picture. I thanked him, of course, and started describing how I saw the artwork and what associations it sparked for me.

The picture showed a girl leaning back in a car seat, all in sandy-gold tones. I said, "You know, I can totally picture her driving down a highway. A desolate Texas desert road, nothing around, scorching sun, maybe a dilapidated house or a shed standing off in the distance..."

And he latched onto the idea! He was like, "You know, and then this happens, and then that..." And basically, after just a couple of sentences: "Wanna start an alternate game thread?"—"Sure, let's do it."

Honestly, the game was totally unplanned. Which is completely unlike me—I’m used to having a structure with my writing partners: "this will happen here, that will happen there, and we’ll wrap it up around here." But this time, without even discussing it, we just agreed: apart from the starting point, you write what you see, and the other person builds on it.

It was brand new for both of us. But it turned out that we were literally—roughly speaking—reading each other's minds. He’d say, "I was just about to say that!" Or I’d go, "Yep, that’s exactly what was on my mind."

And that's how it took off. We wrote the story, and people on the forum praised it as one of the best. It felt amazing, especially considering it was our first time doing something like that. As a result, we’ve got two more sequels lined up!

Sergey: Listen... So, are you completely shutting down the romantic angle?

Nastya: What do you mean by "completely shutting down the romantic angle"?

Sergey: Well, there’s a guy, right... And you're describing everything purely in terms of businesslike collaboration: "We did this, he sent me a picture, I started thinking, we got a plot, we co-wrote the story. It turned out great, people liked it—one of the best threads." But that's... devoid of any romance. A romantic angle focuses on feelings, on how you feel about the person.

Nastya: Well, how can I put it... it's not that I shut it down completely, but I wouldn't say I give it much fertile ground either.

Sergey: Okay, but why is that? Why? Does this apply across all contexts? I mean, are you always this strict?

Nastya: Oh, I wouldn't say strict per se, though a lot of people think I am. Some people are even a bit intimidated by me, to be honest—that actually happens.

People tell me... Even back on the forum at one point (tangent alert): I was a moderator, and many were afraid to message me or ask questions. They worried I’d snap at them or tell them where to go, things like that. I just prefer speaking formally and keeping a professional tone—well, you've noticed.

It’s not like I was barking at people for no reason. We had members like that who were super sarcastic—whatever question you asked, they’d...

Sergey: Right, yeah. So, I mean... Let’s get back to the romantic angle.

Nastya: I’m not like that! But for some reason, people were more afraid of me than of them. And that kind of... Actually, it happens in real life, too. A lot of people admit they were terrified to even walk up and say "hi" at first. But then we start talking, and they go, "Wait, you're actually positive, fun, and you don't look like you're about to eat us alive!" I tell them, "Relax, don't worry, you just taste bad." So yeah.

That’s why, in general, I always build communication on friendship first. Honestly, in any relationship—whether business or romantic—it's essential for me to have a solid friendly foundation.

Sergey: Yeah, I get it. But have you ever been in a romantic relationship?

Nastya: I have, yes, but let's just say it didn't turn out well.

Sergey: Mm-hmm. Why do you think it didn't turn out well? And what does "unsuccessful" mean to you in that context?

Nastya: For me, "unsuccessful" means we broke up without ever really connecting properly, so to speak.

And why did that happen? Well, first off, we were quite young. Everything was driven way too much by emotions. Though for me, the emotions were mostly internalized—I don't really like showing raw emotion to people I'm not close to—whereas with him, everything was out in the open. It was too performative. It scared me: he didn't understand me, and I didn't understand him.

Sergey: Listen, why did that scare you? Was it his openness that scared you?

Nastya: Yeah, his openness scared me. And, you know, he was a bit pushy. Plus, as luck would have it, there were other interested parties involved, so that pushiness spun completely out of control. It wasn't calm or manageable; instead, literally in the first week, it was practically "we running off to get married." I mean, that's a huge exaggeration, obviously, but just to give you an idea of how emotionally intense it was.

Sergey: That's a metaphor, right? Like having to run off somewhere in the first week?

Nastya: So I was kind of like, "God, oh boy, what do you want from me? We're just chatting! Back off, everything was fine!"

Sergey: Well, what do you mean, "chatting normally"... You mean nothing clicks inside you at all?

Nastya: No, why not? It clicked for me big time back then—love at first sight, you know! But like I said, it was my first relationship, and it freaked me out because I wasn't used to that.

Sergey: And there was no second relationship?

Nastya: Well, the second relationship developed smoothly and is still progressing nice and slow, no rush.

Sergey: So, let me guess, you're mostly talking business with him too?

Nastya: No, we're just friends. It's just that, how should I put it, I drew a line in the sand: if anyone pushes me, we're done. And people accepted my terms just to stay on friendly terms with me.

Sergey: In short, you need a rulebreaker. Because otherwise you're just going to keep everyone at arm's length—and keep yourself at a distance, too.

Nastya: You know, both of my guy friends are rulebreakers, actually.

Sergey: Well, they must have been breaking them the wrong way then.

Nastya: You see, first of all, we all live in different cities, so it's not that easy...

Sergey: Oh boy, why is it always like this! Everything's so complicated, huh?

Nastya: Nothing in my life is ever simple! And secondly, when it comes to the guys around me... Honestly, they just don't interest me as people. And for me, it's crucial that a person is a friend, a comrade, a like-minded soul.

Sergey: "Comrade"—that's actually a great word, by the way.

Nastya: Interesting choice of words, yeah. So that's why... I don't know, maybe these guys are interested too, but they're just afraid to show it. Because that's happened in my life so many times: people seem really interesting, but I only find out after we've stopped talking or drifted apart.

Sergey: Wait, wait. Interesting in what way?

Nastya: As people, as individuals. People aren't always... how should I put it... in my presence...

Sergey: Are you scaring them that much?

Nastya: Well, apparently, yeah!

Sergey: What is with you, Nastya? You're completely terrifying these guys!

Nastya: Because all my life I've mostly hung out and been friends with guys. But then, when it comes to any romance, they get scared off.

Sergey: (laughs) What is going on? Do they lack the courage?

Nastya: (laughs) You know, sometimes... maybe I react wrong, to be honest. Because for me, intense displays of emotion sometimes cause me to freeze up.

Sergey: Mhm.

Nastya: I'm not a super romantic person myself. Like, all that mushy, overly cute stuff...

Sergey: I can tell. Yeah, it shows.

Nastya: So whenever people start doing that with me, my immediate thought is: "Wait, I thought we were friends. How am I supposed to take this? If I react now, then what? Next thing you know it'll be: 'But you were cooing at me, you must love me!'" Hold on, just cooing a little doesn't mean anything!

(both laugh)

So yeah. Fun times, basically. Anyway, with these guys, we flirt a little bit, so to speak.

Sergey: Aha.

Nastya: Yeah, flirting. But I've made sure that he won't turn around and go, "Alright, sweetie, now you're handcuffed to me and you're never getting away." Thankfully, there's none of that. So I can allow myself to flirt casually with them, and we'll see where it goes. I don't try to plan ahead with these things, because I think it's useless.

There were even times when at first it was like... well, just a guy, cool, interesting. But then... there's a pull, a spark appears, you know?

Sergey: So you don't fully understand what's happening to you, right?

Nastya: You see, sometimes I'm afraid of confusing my intellectual interest in someone with actual romantic feelings. Because if someone fascinates me as a person, I can get really obsessed with them. When you get obsessed, you think about them a lot... and when you think about them a lot, something starts brewing.

Sergey: (laughs) Yeah, probably.

Nastya: (laughs) Exactly. So if I compare it to how it was the first time... Well, obviously, first love is the most intense, that goes without saying.

Sergey: Wait, are you comparing it to your first love?

Nastya: Well, if I compare it to first love—no, it's not anywhere near the same spark, it's something different. But I realize that all other relationships will be completely different, and each will be wonderful in its own way.

So naturally, when we mostly communicate online, it's harder for me to figure out what I'm actually feeling. Because online communication is still not in-person interaction; they're two totally different things.

Sergey: Of course.

Nastya: And in real life, there were situations where we'd talk amazingly online, but when we met in person, it was kind of boring, couldn't even find things to talk about. Even though online we went all out!

Sergey: Well, Nastya, maybe they're just in shock? They see you and think, "Damn, okay... how am I supposed to act around her?" Maybe they just need a little time to warm up. And then you come in with: "Well, what's up, why are we sitting in silence?"

Nastya: No, no, no, not at all! That's not how I act!

Sergey: (laughs) I'm just kidding.

Nastya: (laughs) Really? Alright then. But no. If we're sitting together in silence... okay, we sit quietly for a minute. I try to find a topic, though starting conversations isn't really my strong suit. It's easier for me to build on something. Both of my guy friends are like that: they know they just need to toss me a topic, I'll start thinking about it, and off we go.

Sergey: Throw you a question, right? Some food for thought, a direction?

Nastya: Exactly. Even though one friend loves to philosophize about all kinds of topics and debate. I don't particularly like debating because, as a rule, people often see an argument as a confrontation. And for some reason they think that if I argue, my main goal is to push them into accepting my point of view.

Sergey: Finish them off?

Nastya: Yeah.

Sergey: Phew...

Nastya: No, that's not it at all! Sure, I can argue, I can stand my ground for a long time...

Sergey: Nastya, maybe there's a reason people are scared of you! You steamroll them!

Nastya: What, are you scared of me?

Sergey: (laughs) Nah, I'm not at that point yet.

Nastya: Thank God! So I can argue and defend my point of view simply by showing, "Here are the facts." You give me your facts, and we'll analyze them somehow. But to a lot of people, it feels like I'm steamrolling them. Though I'm like, "Guys, I haven't even started yet!" (laughs) And that's it, right away they...

Sergey: They already feel pressured, right? You haven't even done anything yet, but they already feel it.

Nastya: Yeah, they feel pressured, it happens to people.

Sergey: Unbelievable!

Nastya: Even my family tells me... Like when my mom and I go to a store, for instance. I mean, I can talk to sales reps just fine, but I don't really enjoy it. My mom is a super outgoing person, and she'll stand off to the side and go, "Listen, they're afraid to even walk up to you or say an extra word!" And I tell her, "I'm not doing anything, I was just standing there looking around!"

Sergey: Wow, you can really feel that power coming off you!

Nastya: Well, I don't know. It doesn't feel that way to me—I actually consider myself to be a pretty soft person.

Sergey: Right, of course.

Nastya: At least that's how it seems to me. But a lot of people tell me I misjudge myself, who knows. In fact, that's mostly why I got interested in Socionics in the first place—because I want to understand myself better.

Sergey: Well, let me help you figure it out then. Have you been into Socionics for a long time?

Nastya: Well, I actually first came across it about 6 or 7 years ago.

Sergey: That's a good chunk of time.

Nastya: Yeah. Someone shared a test on a roleplay forum, actually. So I took it... It featured Gulenko's descriptions, and I got LSI. I read it and went, "Oh God, no way, that's not me! What is this? Nah, doesn't sound like me at all!" But people told me, "No really, I thought you were a LSI right away." I don't know how well that girl actually knew Socionics or anything, but it threw me off. I thought, "Nah, this is nonsense," and just brushed it off.

Sergey: Okay...

Nastya: Then I accidentally stumbled upon a description—maybe you've seen them, websites have those male and female descriptions for both types.

Sergey: Yeah.

Nastya: I used it purely as a baseline for character descriptions, because there are interesting notes on what you can build on when drafting someone's profile.

Sergey: Right.

Nastya: I don't follow them strictly, but I pick out certain elements. Sometimes... Well, again, in my current social circle everyone's into Socionics too, so they grasp the archetype I'm trying to convey. I'll tell them, "Okay, this character is roughly like this." And they're like, "Ah, got it, we see what you're going for." Stuff like that.

And little by little—reading articles, picking up recurring observations, slowly starting to unpack Model A itself. Eventually we drifted into Psychosophy. Of course, nobody really knows what they're doing—a million assumptions, a million...

Sergey: Sounds familiar, yeah.

Nastya: Right. So we study a bit here, a bit there, reading this, testing that. But then again, it's hard to test things when you're not together in person. Because in messages, we only describe ourselves as we see ourselves, which doesn't always match reality.

Take me, for example—I consider myself someone who isn't very emotionally expressive. But even now as I talk to you and listen to myself: I mean, I'm not speaking in a total monotone. So there. Argue with that!

Sergey: Constructivism means a person's emotional state is fairly stable. Whatever baseline they enter a conversation with, they stay on it; they don’t rapidly shift or switch gears. That’s precisely your case—a classic Constructivist.

Even though you’ve been running through different scenarios and recalling various stories, your emotional baseline has stayed flatline-consistent. That doesn’t mean you’re rigid: if we manage to turn things around and you start laughing, you’ll remain in that uplifted state for a prolonged stretch as well.

Nastya: Yeah, I agree. I don't have those moments where I'm having fun one second and feeling terrible five seconds later.

Sergey: It ties directly to the model: when ethics (Ethics of Relationships or Ethics of Emotions) sits in the left, rigid position, the functions turn inward onto oneself. The person ends up “spinning their wheels” emotionally—stable rather than volatile.

Moving on to communication style—what a person talks about. I can’t consider the ethical side here at all, so it’s definitely Logic. There are two types of Logicians: 'Cool' (introverted) or 'Business-like' (extraverted). Your stories are pure Business-like Logician: “I arrived, at first they didn’t see me, then we went here, there, everywhere, and started getting stuff done…” It’s all tasks, actions, processes—“What am I doing with this person?” Even the interaction with the guy who sent you something: you immediately found a project and got down to business.

That’s also why the romantic thread isn’t taking off. You’re inherently primed to converse in a task-oriented, matter-of-fact key.

Next is the Sensing vs. Intuition dichotomy—perception. A Sensing type has concrete, object-level perception: lots of specification and detail. In writing that’s unmistakable; anyone reading your text sees tons of nuances.

Nastya: Even when I write, a lot of people tell me, "You really love paying attention to details."

Sergey: Exactly! Because you pay attention to details in real life, too. Naturally, that comes out in your speech: how you detail things, how grounded you are. You have this very concrete, solid way of speaking. And of course, that translates to writing as well.

Nastya: Well, you know... sorry to interrupt. Writing was actually a tough time for me initially, to be honest. In school, for instance, teachers praised me for writing three-sentence conclusions when the max limit was five. Everyone else wrote half a page, while I managed in three sentences. I loved that. But writing an essay? That was absolute torture for me—there's no other way to put it!

And when they invited me to give it a try, I thought, "Well, let's take a risk and see." At first, it was three sentences, then five... Thanks to that—I'll admit, it was a huge plus—I started reading way more books, and my writing gradually picked up. And now I write whole pages!

So that's a massive leap in 7 years. Personally, I consider it a great, important achievement that I can write now and actually enjoy what I write—that's the main thing. So that's why there weren't any details at the beginning.

Sergey: Well, you know why? Because there's a dichotomy called "Process vs. Result."

A Result type tends to jump straight to conclusions: "Blah blah blah, let's skip to the end. What's the takeaway? What's the bottom line?" When there's a specific question, someone could start unraveling it from way off, or they could just bring it to a conclusion. You were simply condensing processes and drawing conclusions, wrapping things up. That's why it turned out like that.

And gradually, you taught yourself not to cut the process short so quickly. That's how it happened: first half a page, then a full page, then a page and a half. Meaning, you had to pull yourself away from your natural urge to chop the plot short and wrap it up immediately.

Nastya: I even do that when talking! People ask me a question, start this whole 5-hour saga about a problem... and I'm like: "Okay, let's cut to the chase. What's the point? What do you need from me?"

Sergey: Right, the bottom line. Result.

Nastya: Exactly!

Sergey: It's a common situation: a Result type can't stay immersed in a drawn-out process for long. When someone else is deep in the process, your attention starts drifting. You think, "Man, where is this even going? I need some reference points." For a Result type, those reference points are super important, as is the ability to...

Nastya: You're literally reading my mind!

Sergey: Yep. And it’s important to be able to jump out of the process. A 'Process' type starts way back—“Well, you know, back then, yadda yadda…”—and after a few minutes you start boiling over: “Okay, where are we going with this?” But for them it’s hard to leap out; they go, “Hold on, I need to keep going.”

So, we've got that cleared up. Next is the 'Asking' vs. 'Declaring' (Questim vs. Declatim) dichotomy.

You start quiet and need someone to plug you into a plotline. You don’t initiate; you wait for an external trigger: "Alright, plug me into some storyline, and then I'll talk and talk and talk." That’s Declatim: once an Asking partner throws topics and builds the bridges, you unpack thoroughly. At first I had to shake you up a bit, but then you took off on your own—even introducing topics yourself: “Wait, let me add this, and this is important too.” From that point I just listened.

So, you’re a Sensing, Logical, Extraverted type. On Rationality vs. Irrationality you’re Irrational: no rigidly preset script; you shift gears on the fly.

You’re also Foresighted—you’ve said more than once that preparation matters and you don’t jump blindly into unclear situations. Beginners often confuse Foresight with Rationality, but they’re different.

Rationality/Irrationality is about how the narrative unfolds. For a Rational, the narrative follows a linear path: tap-tap-tap, along a straight line. Like wearing blinkers... that might not sound super flattering, but yeah, like blinkers.

An Irrational unfolds storylines organically: while talking you go, “Oh, and this is interesting too,” and extra threads surface as you go. You didn’t plan them in advance; they just appear:"Yeah, I'll mention this, and I'll say that too."

Now, let's get back to why people perceive you as intimidating? Why are they so scared of you?

Your program function is Se (Volitional Sensing). The vibe others get from a lead-Se type is a sense of pressure—an energetic density that’s simply felt, even though internally you don’t view the person as a threat.

Nastya: You know, there was even an example... I remember my first year in college, on orientation day when they gathered us all together. I didn't know anyone there except one former classmate of mine—as it turned out, we ended up in the same program. And literally within... How long did we sit together? Half an hour. I barely said a word. Our advisor comes in and says, "Alright, pick a class representative." And you know, the whole group unanimously goes: "Her!" And I was just bewildered: why me all of a sudden?

Sergey: Yeah, exactly. That's how it goes. Now, what if we look at us as a tribe? On an unconscious level, a tribe distributes roles: who plays what part. And people in a group subconsciously sense who the leader is—basically, the primary administrator, the one in charge.

Your orientation toward activity is 'Manager,' and your stimulus is 'Status, Prestige, Power.' All of that is felt. You don't even have to speak out loud about it—people just pick up on it somehow. They automatically choose a commander-in-chief, and you end up being that person through no choice of your own. You don't even have to express the desire; they'll arrive at that conclusion as a collective decision.

Nastya: Well, I don't always end up in the leading role. In principle, I can yield that role to someone else quite calmly, and sometimes even happily.

Sergey: Right, sure.

Nastya: Like, take that friend of mine, my writing partner I told you about... In our tandem, he's actually the one taking the lead. For the most part, he was the one who initiated both the friendship and the game thread, and he mostly keeps it going. Even though I really enjoy talking to him, he's definitely the lead one here.

Sergey: Well, even here, you see... You approach it constructively—from the standpoint of division of duties, from a constructive perspective. But he might perceive the whole thing completely differently.

If he sets aside any egoistic motives, he might say, for instance, "Nastya is still my leader." It's just that not everyone is ready to admit that. That's another factor here...

Nastya: No, he admits it sometimes, though to be honest, he even says that I guide him in some ways. Good on him! Though honestly, I don't really get why all of a sudden. Because if you look purely at the facts...

Sergey: Right, you look purely at the facts.

Nastya: And factually speaking, he's the one taking the lead.

Sergey: Well, it's not about that. A leader isn't necessarily the person who just does everything, and so on. It's a slightly different story—it's about how a person is perceived. Your type is perceived as the one in charge.

And as for the word "comrade"... For some reason, the SLE type uses that word quite often. I mean, it's very much a Beta word—"comrade." Out of the whole Quadra, saying "my comrades" is definitely a SLE thing.

Nastya: Well, you know, I think that word... I don't know about SLEs specifically or who says it more often, but for me personally, that word carries weight—it means not just a friend, but someone I can rely on, someone with whom...

Sergey: Exactly, that's classic for your type. On one hand, it's tied to Aristocracy—meaning Collectivism: "my team," "my group," "responsibility," "having someone to rely on," "a strong shoulder to lean on," and all that. That's your whole Beta Quadra story.

Nastya: Yeah, probably. Though you know, I often notice: even if people are stronger than me (well, if I perceive them as stronger based on certain facts), for some reason I always have this feeling that I need to protect them. Automatically! Even when friends come over—that's it, I have to feed them, give them drinks, entertain them, basically look after them. I have to do it all! I just feel this sense of responsibility for these people.

Sergey: Yeah, right. Being the leader implies that you have people, your inner circle, and you bear responsibility for them.

Nastya: I wouldn't say it's an outright urge to coddle them or protect them in that sense, but specifically a sense of responsibility. For some reason, when I say that, a lot of people take offense—you know, along the lines of: "You treat us like a job!" But it doesn't feel like that. It's just, you know, like they're my own: I have to be responsible for them, protect them. People don't always see it from my point of view.

Sergey: Yeah. People are different, Nastya, and they perceive things differently.

Nastya: Even though I mean it as care, it's the responsibility part that adds seriousness to the feeling. It's like I want to say: "I feel responsible for you and I take you seriously." And they go: "Oh, so we're like a job to you..." Oh well.

Sergey: Well, a lot depends on who these people are, what their types are, and what the intertype relationships are like. So much hinges on that. You'll put one meaning into what you do—into your display of willpower—while the other person will assign a completely different meaning to it.

Your intent might be purely human: someone came over, so you feed them, essentially. But they perceive it like: "What, can't I take care of myself? Am I weak or something? Is that how you see me?" And they start overthinking based on that.

People often keep all of this inside. They draw conclusions about another person, bottle them up, and start looking for confirmation. And you know, there's a rule in psychology—in evolutionary psychology: whatever the thinker thinks, the prover will prove. People prove to themselves whatever they're thinking. If someone wants to prove to themselves that you treat them poorly, they'll find proof.

Nastya: Where there's a will, there's always a way.

Sergey: Exactly. Now, as for the romantic thread: guys sense strength in you—sheer strength of spirit—and it intimidates them. You know why they're intimidated? Because they can't trigger a playful dynamic with you. When they try to build a relationship with you and see you as a woman, their own sense of responsibility ramps up significantly. And they can't relate to you in a lighthearted, playful way.

I mean, there are girls... who are soft and easygoing. And it's easy with them because you engage with them in a playful manner. You don't load heavy, deep meaning into the communication right off the bat, so everything happens smoothly. But when a heavy weight of responsibility gets attached to how the other person is perceived from the start, things get a lot less simple.

Nastya: Could you explain that part to me a little? What you just said about "ramping up a sense of responsibility"—what do you mean by that?

Sergey: A person ramps it up in their own mind. Meaning, they don't see you as just some casual girl; they see very serious intentions. It's hard for them to perceive you in a playful way—like, "we're just having fun together, and that's it." That's kind of tough for them to grasp.

Nastya: I know... I always hear from a lot of guys I know: "We respect you." And I'm like: "Ah, thanks, I appreciate that!"

Sergey: Right. So of course, it all depends on whether you want to change the situation or not. You might be totally fine with it: "Well, okay, they respect me—good for them."

Nastya: You know, how can I put it... It's not just respect—they actually have romantic feelings for me too! It's just that many of them stay quiet for a really long time. And by the time they finally say something, a ton of time has already passed.

Sergey: Well, that sucks, yeah.

Nastya: I'm like: "Guys, you're telling me this now? We've been talking for 5 years!"—"Well, you know, back then... and even now..." Well, where were you all this time?

Sergey: I see. They were probably sending signals...

Nastya: Which I completely missed.

Sergey: Which you missed, yeah. While they assumed you picked up on them and just chose to ignore them. So they figured, "Okay, guess nothing's gonna happen between us."

Nastya: Yes! People often ask me: "Can't you feel it?" Feel what? I don't feel anything! What was I supposed to feel? Just tell me!

Sergey: Exactly, that's where the huge struggle lies. It's not for nothing that Vulnerable Relational Ethics is Vulnerable/PoLR. Anyone who wants to build a relationship with a SLE needs to say it in a normal, clear language that a SLE understands—straight up: "I like you. I like you as a woman. I want to build a relationship with you, I want to give it a shot, and I'm asking you out on a date."

Nastya: More directness, right?

Sergey: Yes, more directness.

Nastya: I love directness! But it seems like directness is a real struggle for a lot of people.

Sergey: It is a struggle, of course. Because, see how it goes: mostly, people whose volitional component is weak try to shift responsibility onto the other person or the situation—like, "they'll figure it out on their own."

Because what is that, really? Why can't someone just look you in the eye and say straight up what they're thinking? Because people have to answer for their words. So they try to, you know... wink an eye or something like that instead. And you're sitting there thinking, "Why are you winking at me like an idiot? Just say it like it is!"

Nastya: Exactly! That's the exact issue: people don't like being accountable for what they say. I really hate beating around the bush. If I say something—that's it, I'll always own up to whether I said it or not. But they start dodging and weaving...

And it's like... "Wait, did I just imagine that?" I have those moments too. Sometimes I might pick up on certain signs, but then immediately think, "Or was it just in my head?"

Sergey: Relational Ethics as a PoLR function in a SLE is naturally paranoid, yeah.

Nastya: I don't always guess right. "Look, just tell me directly so there are no questions!" And generally in a dialogue, I even try to say, "Guys, speak directly so I understand you correctly." Because this whole "I read their mood by how they stirred their tea with a spoon"—one thing today, another tomorrow... Nah, that's not my style. You just can't figure it out.

Sergey: Okay, Nastya, what other questions do you have for me?

Nastya: Questions... Well, you know, how do I build contact with people if my Relational Ethics is a PoLR function? What should I do with it—like, level it up or something?

Sergey: Well, look: if you keep acting the way you always have, you'll keep getting the same results. What you need to clarify for yourself is: do you actually like the guy (like, like him as a guy), or is he just some comrade, a buddy?

Nastya: Let's say I like him.

Sergey: Let's say you like him. Well, then you need to show that you like him somehow. And maybe even introduce that exact directness you expect from others. Honestly, just test the guy: tell him, "I like you," and see how he reacts. If he wimps out, he wimps out. It'll be clear right away that there's no point wasting time with him.

Of course, that carries the risk of relationships falling apart, but you can't gain anything here without taking losses.

Nastya: Well, that's pretty much how all my relationships fall apart anyway. Like I said, I often have these moments... I'm good to people, I make a lot of allowances for them—seriously, I try to...

Sergey: Here's another scenario, a lighter version, where you communicate with someone through questions. Like, you're sitting with a guy and you go, "Hey, what kind of girls do you like?"

Nastya: We talk like that all the time! We ask, "What kind of people do you like? What kind of girls do you like?"—all that stuff. We already do that.

Sergey: Okay, so you start gradually building on that angle. Meaning, he starts describing someone, and you realize it matches your type, for example...

Nastya: It always matches!

Sergey: It always matches. Well, then you can ask a direct question.

Nastya: "What if I...?"

Sergey: Yeah, exactly.

Nastya: Honestly, that's kind of tough for me, to be real.

Sergey: See how it goes? You're sitting there expecting them to take responsibility, but you don't want to take it yourself. Well, that's not right.

Nastya: It's just easier for me if the first step comes from the man. But waiting for it can be pretty tough sometimes.

Sergey: Or, let's say you continue to... seemingly leave the responsibility for that first step on him, but you frame it like this: you're talking, he answers you, and you go, "So, you still haven't told me that you like me?" Straight up, you know, in a slightly provocative way. Playing it off casually.

Nastya: Mm-hmm, got it. I'll give it a try.

Sergey: So, say he goes, "Well yeah, I do like you." And you go, "Then show me how much you like me!" And again, you wait. Meaning, you work through provocation. As a roleplayer, you should get this—provoking little by little.

Nastya: Yeah, true.

Sergey: So you say all this very openly and candidly, while at the same time not jumping anyone, but giving the guy room to orient himself and take that step.

Though, yeah—the strategy I'm describing still implies that you're doing all the heavy lifting. But if the guys aren't super decisive, they won't even notice! They'll still take all the credit, thinking they were the brave ones who managed to take responsibility and say it all.

Nastya: They're the heroes, right?

Sergey: Exactly, heroes! Everyone wants to feel like a hero. So give them that opportunity—let them feel that way, no big deal.

Nastya: I've been trying to teach myself that my whole life: letting someone else feel like the hero. So, I'm a SLE, then? Out of nowhere! Honestly, I never associated myself with SLE.

Sergey: Then who? Who did you associate yourself with?

Nastya: Well, I bounced between LSI and SLI. People even typed me as ESI a few times. Honestly, a lot of people perceive me as an introvert.

Sergey: Mm-hmm. Well, I know why. Because often—again, this is a very surface-level perception of extraversion—people think an extravert has to be an emotional person. That idea is stuck in a lot of people's heads: "extravert = emotional."

Whereas a Sensing Constructivist—someone who stands firmly on their own two feet—isn't an emotional person. You aren't an emotional person, so that's where the misidentification comes from.

Nastya: But extraverts are basically very open people, right?

Sergey: They vary! We have eight extraverted types, and they're completely different from each other.

Nastya: Can they be reserved and quite secretive too?

Sergey: Of course!

Nastya: I don't really like being out in public very often...

Sergey: Right. Like I told you, PoLR Relational Ethics doesn't just sit there quietly—it makes itself felt.

Nastya: Makes sense. So an introverted lifestyle like this is normal, right?

Sergey: Well, you see... There's a process of coming into your own: realizing your strength, realizing that you can influence things, that you can take people under your wing, and so forth.

It looks very different for different types. It's easier for an Intuitive type—it's simpler for them to start uncovering who they are. Because for them, coming into their own doesn't involve taking responsibility for the physical world, but rather creativity or something like that... basically areas that are a bit lighter.

On the other hand, take a SLE—lead Sensing (Se). Unlocking that... you know, you don't unlock it at 10 years old; you have to mature into it. So you mature and mature... I know SLEs well into their 50s, and they've told me that everyone's realization of their own strength happened at different times, but never in childhood or early youth—always in more mature years.

Nastya: You know, I'd almost call it regression in my case. For instance... how should I put it... as a kid, I was much more active in that regard, always stepping forward: I was the first to go introduce myself and talk to everyone in class, the first to organize people, or step up to speak for someone or defend them—stuff like that.

And then somehow all of that faded away, and I drifted away from people. Now I just try to stay under the radar: "Don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you. But if duty calls, I'll show up. Basically, I'm waiting in ambush."

Sergey: Well, it comes in waves. It’s not like a straight linear progression where the older you get, the faster you express yourself. There are a lot of factors at play here. At this point, we’re stepping outside of purely information metabolism and looking at how the type unfolds on the landscape—how it expresses itself in real life, what situations it faces, and so on.

Plus, your hobbies and interests definitely pull you inward because they require a certain focus on the thought process, internal projections, and things like that. All of that introverts you.

Nastya: Yeah, I guess it’s been like that since childhood for me. My main hobby was going to music school for piano. That’s also pretty introverted, I suppose.

What else? I studied English—went to classes for that. Actually, I recently started attending a group again to learn it... But honestly, going out into public can be tough for me sometimes, and I don't really like being surrounded by people for long periods. Is that also a sign of my PoLR ethics?

Sergey: On one hand, it’s a manifestation of PoLR ethics, but on the other hand, it’s just the phase you’re in right now.

Nastya: Ah, I see. So it could change later, and then...

Sergey: It depends heavily on the environment you're in. Knowing that you're in your hometown and there isn't really a scene or an active social circle around... well, that awareness is right there. Who are you going to open up for? To open up, you need a platform for it.

Nastya: So, basically, it’ll come out if I’m out there mixing... Say, if I move to where my kind of people are and start getting out there—that's when it'll happen...

Sergey: Of course.

Source: S. Ionkin