ILI and the Girl of His Dreams (Interview Transcript)
Sergey I.: Here’s what I propose. I’ll try to recall what Stas was talking about last time. We’ll summarize it together. You give me feedback on whether I understood correctly. If not, clarify. Then we’ll move on from there to save time.
So initially you were drawn to “powerhouse” girls—temperamental, active, dynamic types. But at some point you realized that next to girls like that, you lose yourself. Your personality gets overshadowed; she shifts all the attention to herself. And that’s not cool.
You thought that with a girl like that it would be a “one plus one” situation—her strengths plus yours creating a synergistic effect, something bigger than each of you individually. But it turned out the opposite. There were mutual grievances. They’d bring you down, tell you you’re a nobody, that you don’t make money: “Who even are you? Get a real job, you’re just wandering around, totally useless,” and so on.
All your attempts to be a good boy, a proper citizen—working a job, bringing home money, keeping everything stable—didn’t succeed. Because deep down you’re just not that kind of person. All that “office” bullshit, working for “the man,” isn’t your path.
So you started searching for yourself. You thought, “Damn, something’s off. Either I’m picking the wrong people, or I’m doing the wrong thing altogether.” That search led you to a shift. You found something dark and hidden...
Stanislav M.: Dima… Quiet, don’t laugh.
Sergey I.: Is that Dima?
Stanislav M.: Yeah, Dima is laughing.
Sergey I.: At some point you realized that this dominant-submissive dynamic is something you actually like. You feel power, a rush, a surge of confidence when the girl is on the bottom—submissive, obeying you. It’s more of a psychological BDSM format. There is specific terminology for when it’s focused on psychology, right?
Stanislav M.: Yeah.
Sergey I.: But very few people understand it, so it needs explaining. There’s classic BDSM, where dominance and submission are physical: handcuffs, pinned down, tied up, spanking with whips, gagged, and so on.
Then there’s a much more powerful dynamic—psychological games. Where dominance and submission aren’t physical but psychological. Am I explaining this right?
Stanislav M.: Well, I don’t know what you mean by that.
Sergey I.: I mean the emphasis is mostly on psychology; control is primarily psychological.
Stanislav M.: I have that element too… You made a distinction here. I use both. Role-play behavior—where one submits and the other dominates—continues into regular everyday life. I try to carry that into normal daily life too.
Sergey I.: Exactly! I looked into this a bit, and there’s a huge difference. It always happens to me like this: I talk to someone who does something and end up finding out I actually know more about it than they do.
Anyway, there’s the BDSM format with a specific context: “Okay, now we have safe words,” every Saturday she comes over in a bunny costume, I stand there with a whip, and we play those games within that room, with agreed-upon rules. And then there’s when you live like that constantly—that’s a whole different level. Even people who are into it make a clear distinction. I just don’t remember all the terminology.
Stanislav M.: You’re digging really deep here. For me there aren’t really any strict rules; we don’t just “play on weekends.” In my relationships I try to build things so that I can spank her or something just because I felt like it, or because she messed up. And she’s cool with it because she enjoys it. I don’t do it as a punishment or like “Stas is taking the game too far.” It’s just the relationship style, the approach to communication.
Sergey I.: Well, there’s a framework with two main categories. What you’re describing is precisely the second group.
Stanislav M.: Yeah, alright, so we sorted out the terminology. Let’s move on.
Sergey I.: Okay. So you felt like a top and needed a submissive—in the traditional sense: a soft, submissive, sweet, real feminine girl. And with her you gain confidence.
Stanislav M.: Yes.
Sergey I.: Tell me: when did your social rise begin? From what point did your stable social growth start?
Stanislav M.: If we’re talking about stable cash, probably around December 2013.
Sergey I.: And what happened in December 2013?
Stanislav M.: Wait—no. Mental relief and inspiration came when I split up with Lena, my wife. That was probably in March or around then in 2013. I had a period where I tried all sorts of things and a lot didn’t work out, but at least I had a positive attitude, which wasn’t really there before. Dima can confirm that too.
And only when I went away… I remember Dima left on a business trip… when I got my first clients for stage hypnosis training—that was right around December 2013. I consider that the start of my professional rise. From that point on I was making more and more money every month. At the same time I also started dating Veronika.
Sergey I.: I don’t know who that is. Dima here obviously knows all about it. I don’t.
Dima: She was totally a feminine, delicate girl. The exact opposite of those dominant, vivid, bossy girls from before. Literally on the opposite extreme.
Stanislav M.: She couldn’t show her claws at all.
Sergey I.: Don’t you think you could have somehow turned the situation around with those bossy ones? Like, “submit” them?
Stanislav M.: No, no, no.
Sergey I.: Why?
Stanislav M.: “Can’t change a leopard’s spots,” you know… If nobody’s ever done that, what are the odds I’d be the first? First of all, she’s got established views, including on me. That had to be done at the beginning of the relationship. But when you’ve been with someone for 3 or 4 years…
Sergey I.: Yeah, at the start of a relationship, I agree.
Stanislav M.: Exactly. Like with Masha… I entered that relationship from that stance right from the beginning. Even when she resisted a bit here and there simply because she didn’t know how it would go or what she’d feel. I broke through that a bit, showed her everything would be fine. She relaxed and accepted the game. That’s all. With the previous ones it needed to be done right at the very beginning too.
But it was further complicated by the fact that back then I didn’t understand what I wanted. How could I reshape things with her? I knew what I didn’t want. We even went to a famous psychologist together. But what I did want—I didn’t know. The famous psychologist can confirm that happened.
Dima: Yes, it was just like that.
Stanislav M.: Well, he helped us get a divorce…
Dima: No, I helped you get a peaceful divorce. That’s a very important distinction. Because, man, things really reeked of burning rubber regularly and very strongly. In the end you two split up on pretty amicable terms.
Sergey I.: I’m going to speak somewhat generally now. There are these dominant women. In socionics they even have a name for them—“Aggressors.” People with strong willpower, with strong, commanding desires.
And every “aggressor,” mostly… unless someone broke her mindset, grows up in Russia with certain traditions and so on. She understands that a man should be strong, stronger than her. But being strong herself, she could attract a lion—and then she starts either ripping open the lion’s jaws or forcing them shut. It’s really hard for them to break that strong-willed nature inside themselves.
We’ve often noticed that these women suffer a lot. They think: “I need a strong man,” but then “Why aren’t you strong?” How can you be strong when she herself… it’s total nonsense. And it becomes doubly nonsense because things go completely downhill. The guy wants to be a strong man too, not submit to her. So it turns into a total shitshow. On one hand he can’t show weakness because she’s like, “Why are you… I want you to be a man, to be super tough,” and so on. Just a mess.
I have an acquaintance, a guy of your psychological type. He was drawn to women like that for a long time. Very persistently he tried to make something work with them. There were families, kids involved, and so on. He’s very wealthy. At first, with his first wife, his situation was very similar to what you’re describing with Lena. Total insanity.
Then he started rising. After all that… what’s most interesting is that these relationships with dominant ladies really activated him socially. Not during the relationship itself, but every breakup—bam, he’d have a huge leap upwards. So he started rising. Real serious money came in; he legitimately leveled up big time.
But things still weren’t clicking for him. Sure, he’s a big shot. He owns several country houses, a villa abroad, a private jet. How much higher can you go? He has connections with decision-makers you see on TV. But still, those strong-willed women were clashing with him and breaking things off like clockwork. He’d leave them some property or whatever and walk away. But with one of them… I was just in shock. They have kids together. And he’s constantly on the move, flying from one place to another, super mobile guy…
He started realizing that his woman was up to something weird. He hired a detective. Turns out she was going to all kinds of casinos and stuff. And she had a gigolo—a boy toy. A young guy she was supporting. He was pleasing her and so on. I don’t even know why I’m telling this… just this kind of crazy stuff.
Anyway, this format is really complicated… these so-called “victims and aggressors.” Those little girls and little boys—they write a lot of stories like that. In socionics we have these types. People who write stories. They imagine things. They really like writing stories about how things “really” are: how she’s all dominant, and he’s crawling on his knees, lying there, kissing her feet and whatever.
But in reality it’s a super tough situation. It doesn’t matter how much money a guy makes or how big of a deal he is socially. It’s more about whether he’s tough with her or not.
Meaning, it’s constant necessary suppression. A constant power struggle. Not every guy wants to constantly fight her. At some point you think: “Well, I love her, I want what’s best for her. I don’t want to fight with her. Why not compromise?” And that’s it. You yield once, twice, three times—and suddenly you’re the bottom. You can’t get out of there anymore. That’s the whole deal. It’s a pretty vicious situation. Total mess, honestly.
Are the guys to blame for this? Partly, yeah. Are the girls themselves to blame? Well… I won’t judge them.
Anyway, moving on. Dima, do you want to add anything? Or did you fall asleep?
Dima: Well… it all adds up. Everything we just discussed is pretty much how it was and how it is. Nothing much to add, really.
Sergey I.: The situation turns out to be very complicated. There’s a big difficulty in these relationships when the Aggressor isn’t the man, but the woman is the Aggressor and the man is the Victim. It gets really hard.
Mind you… maybe Questims manage to cope with it somehow, though even then I think it’s tough. A male IEI also finds it pretty tough. Pretty rough. Now EIE, I feel like he’s in the best position out of all four. Oh wait—LIE too, I think. So the extraverts. But an introverted one—it’s really tough for him.
Dima: I’d like to emphasize that Stas found the optimal option for himself. As I see it—the option that personally suits him in every way. Am I right?
Stanislav M.: Yeah. I just decided: why try to re-educate someone when you can just find someone who’s already a fit?
Dima: Yeah. But still, tell us a bit in a nutshell about that person you found.
Stanislav M.: Basically, what I was looking for is what I found. I found a girl with a distinct feminine role position. Meaning at every single moment she knows she’s a girl. And therefore she’s number two. The guy is the one who should make decisions, lead the way, do things. There are some difficulties when sometimes I want some initiative from her, but it’s hard to get that from her.
It rarely happens. But that’s a trade-off for the fact that I’m always the one in the driver’s seat in the relationship. And I get much more attention and care from her. She’s a soft, gentle person. She reacts very emotionally to any expression, really. To good things—and to bad things she reacts emotionally too. But those are just two sides of the same coin. When she feels good, she reacts really well; when she feels bad, she reacts badly. Nothing you can do about it.
I like that she accepts my position both in the relationship and in sex. And to her it feels natural. It’s not something imposed from the outside. I like that she’s also a creative person and is developing in that direction. I like that I don’t get instructions from her about what I should do, who I should be, or how things should be between us. None of that comes from her. She just talks about what she’d like, in principle.
Which is what a girl is supposed to say, really. Like, “I dream of this or that.” Okay, cool, I make a note of it. And when the time comes, I do it. Rather than “give me this, give me that right now.” There was a lot of that with Lena. She was always impatient. With Masha… Masha is calm. She says something, like what she wants—I make a mental note. When the opportunity comes, I deliver it. It’s not like I rush off to bend over backwards.
Dima: Okay. I’d also add: Masha gives really high-quality feedback in the sense that she doesn’t talk about you, she talks about herself. Meaning she says, “this makes me feel uncomfortable,” or “I really like this.” She shares her impressions rather than telling you whether you’re doing things right or wrong. She doesn’t make it personal.
Stanislav M.: Yeah. That’s really important. She doesn’t say “you messed up” or did something wrong. That’s very rare, only when I actually mess up, but that happens rarely.
Sergey I.: Well, either way, I think listeners will wonder what socionics type we’re talking about. I’m 99% sure nobody will guess a damn thing. So we need to spell it out.
Anyway, the situation is this: since Masha is a Diplomat, she knows how to say things without hurting or offending anyone. That’s a classic Diplomat trait—knowing how to frame communication so you don’t mess things up. Plus, she’s not just a Diplomat; she’s also Adaptable. Meaning she adjusts. The very nature of adaptable types is adjusting, adapting. She reads people well. Her perception and senses are very well developed.
And emotions, too. You’d think you’d be overwhelmed with her emotions, but emotion is emotion. Lena’s emotions were Linear-Assertive, very intense, concentrated. But with Masha, her emotional work is more about working with your emotional field than her own. So it’s flexible, creative… very mobile… flexibility in the emotional realm.
Plus, regarding the relationship, it’s a Superego relationship. This is a relationship of mutual admiration. Meaning you admire her, and she admires you. In every type there’s this social block, right? It’s called Superego. And when it turns out to be identical between two people—in the sense that your Superego is her Ego, and her Superego is your Ego. Put simply, without the jargon: a relationship of mutual admiration. Is that clear?
Stanislav M.: Agreed. I agree with that.
Sergey I.: To be honest, it’s a great relationship. And for social realization too. Because both spur each other on.
Stanislav M.: That’s exactly what I was looking for—so that I could respect her and admire her. And so that she would do that too, because I draw a lot of energy from it. And in my creative sphere, without this influx of energy I turn into some kind of vegetable that sits a lot at the computer.
Sergey I.: I want to add that in Socionics there is a huge leaning toward dual relations. But there are certain nuances. I’m going to run a training on intertype relationships because I’m tired of all these silly things people say. The thing is, initially all of this was framed through the eyes of an ILE type. And all the relationship models built there—like dual relations and so on—were built within the ILE’s semantics.
But if we switch the perspective to another person, a completely different picture starts to emerge. Activation between two extraverts is one thing; between two introverts, it’s another. There are so many nuances. Dual relations are often described as comfort, relaxation, and all that. But dual relations with a SEE—what kind of comfort or relaxation is there? Have you ever seen a “relaxed” SEE? That calls for a completely different scenario altogether. And people stall and mess up terribly here, even though it seems like basic stuff. First of all, you look at the specific person. Taking a SEE and talking about him is one thing, but talking about a LII is a completely different story.
Dima: Yes. And I’d like to ask Stas a question. Stas, you and Masha have been dating for about a year and a half now, right? Or maybe even two?
Stanislav M.: A year in November.
Dima: Ah, okay. Tell us about the dynamics of your relationship. When you first met—she was a certain way, you were a certain way. Maybe you had some difficulties. And then gradually everything shifted. Tell us how it was and how it changed.
Stanislav M.: Our relationship started on a very positive note from the very beginning. Without any real resistance or rough patches. We had maybe two or three months where there wasn’t even an adjustment phase. Just pure mutual admiration. She was constantly amazed at how awesome she felt around me and all that.
Then at some point… I remember it was either during a heavy work period, like a week-long training, or something like that. For two weeks after we had been talking pretty frequently, we communicated very little.
During that time it felt to me like she developed this feeling of a lack of attention from me. Like she didn’t feel my love. We had a conflict about that in the winter. But we sorted it out. We talked, explained what each of us wanted, and things went smoothly from there.
Our relationship developed pretty steadily too, without major conflicts. Probably in May, after our trip to Saint Petersburg, I started seriously thinking about proposing to her. But then we entered another adjustment phase.
I realized that I’m in this for the long haul with her. She’s a serious person to me. But for some reason I wasn’t feeling the same level of seriousness from her side. Even though she said she wasn’t against marriage, kids, and things like that.
Sergey I.: Yeah, makes sense.
Stanislav M.: But it felt like I was rushing things. Or putting pressure on her. I was already talking about her moving in with me and stuff like that. So we hit another value-based conflict. It turned out I was rushing the relationship while she was slowing things down a bit. I think we had another fight over something random, but high on emotions. Again… her mood swings usually align with her cycle.
Dima: I’ll tell you what that fight was about. It was because she met up with her friends from college, and they had a bit too much fun, had a few drinks, I think even…
Stanislav M.: Let me tell it from here. Yeah. She had just a little bit to drink. I got super angry about it. Well, hurt, really. Because I don’t allow… she used to smoke, and I consider all that unacceptable in a relationship with me.
Especially since I viewed her through the lens of the future mother of my child. That was my filter—a serious, long-term perspective. So I couldn’t accept it. But she had this sort of casual, girlish attitude: “What’s the big deal? We were just hanging out with the girls.” She kind of apologized, but that conflict dragged on for a few days. We seemed to make up, everything was fine. But then, when I sent her home, she left earlier than me. Later I also headed downtown for something I had to do. And I saw her at the bus stop—smoking. Instantly I had this overwhelming feeling of betrayal. We had just resolved everything—and then she throws me under the bus like that. I completely lost my mind over it. I even called Dima because I felt like I was losing my marbles over the whole thing.
Dima: We then put those marbles back in place.
Stanislav M.: Yeah. Again she was apologizing for a long time… Well, she isn’t great at apologizing either. That was one of those periods where she basically had to be taught how to apologize.
But anyway, later on I messed up somehow—either I said something or did something. Basically we almost broke up again over her emotions.
Dima: You told her that her actions strongly affect your attitude toward her. And that completely baffled her. Like, how could something like that affect a relationship—specifically, affect how valuable she feels to you.
Stanislav M.: Yes. Basically she felt like I didn’t actually love her and all that. We had a really serious conflict—the most serious in our entire relationship.
And it felt to me like since then she kind of understood what I want from her. I explained myself, told her what I need in a relationship, and that was it. Ever since then, at least, I felt that something shifted in her attitude. And we haven’t had any serious conflicts like that since.
So after some time, like a month or a month and a half, once I got used to it, I thought: “Okay, everything’s fine.” And I proposed to her. Based on the fact that I realized the trend was heading in the right direction.
And that’s it. Now I’ve been on a business trip for a few months. She came to visit me for a week. So for now we’re in a distance relationship. But I basically proposed and then left for my trip.
Sergey I.: Well, there’s a thing about that. Girls from this… basically there are these quadras in socionics. What values and beliefs a person holds, and so on. Alpha is a “judicious” quadra. And where does judiciousness show up? Regarding proposals and stuff… Alpha types really value freedom. She has to come to that decision on her own. When people start pressuring her like, “Come on, let me put a ring on it,” that’s a total constraint. For an Alpha, that’s just unbearable. It goes completely against her values.
Stanislav M.: Yes, I noticed that about Masha. And her role behavior is interesting. On one hand, you can’t push her, but on the other hand, in a relationship she’s a follower—submissive, so to speak. It’s quite an unusual combination.
Sergey I.: Now, regarding that “seriousness”: there’s a specific trait in socionics for that too, a perception filter. There are “merry” types and “serious” types. Merry types view life like a game where at any moment you can replay things, get a second chance, and so on. But you belong to the category of serious types. Life is real. It calls for real actions, real steps. A serious guy shows that, like, “You are truly dear and valuable to me, which is why I’m proposing to you,” and so on. And so there’s another clash of values—a really interesting one.
And about her being so tied to her menstrual cycle: her leading function—which is bigger than herself—is Experiential Sensing (Si). Because of that, she’s so insanely sensitive in that regard, it’s crazy. Some girls aren’t particularly sensitive, but these types are extremely sensitive. They literally become different people, so to speak.
And there’s another very interesting point here. That type is called SEI—a Sensory-Ethical Introvert. They are called “a dual of all duals.” Their adaptive nature is so powerful that they can adapt…
Stanislav M.: Wait, she’s a SEI?
Dima: Yeah, yeah, we established she’s a SEI.
Stanislav M.: And who am I?
Sergey I. (laughing): ILI
Stanislav M. (laughing): I forgot. I used to be typed as something else, that's why I get confused.
Sergey I.: Yeah, understandable, that happens.
Dima: Well, shall we wrap up? We’ve been talking for about 45 minutes now.
Sergey I.: Yeah, let’s do it.
Dima: We looked at a very interesting union between an ILI and a SEI today. Heard a really fascinating journey from Stas. It’s a pity we didn’t record the first part—what you talked through, Sergey, when you were explaining it. That was really interesting. But overall, the main picture is clear. It’s awesome that this is such a vivid example of a person managing to figure out what he wants out of life and actually making it happen—materializing his intention. It’s just a great example.
Sergey I.: And from my side, I’ll add that the story people so desperately want… that they’re waiting for, like the classic SEE and ILI story… it very rarely actually works out.
Stanislav M.: Wait, is Lena a SEE?
Dima: She’s definitely a sensing type, definitely an ethical type, and definitely an extravert. But as to who—ESE or SEE—I won’t judge.
Stanislav M.: I see.
Sergey I.: Anyway, look, there’s this trend, right? We look at various couples, various unions, and so on. And if it doesn’t click, it doesn’t click. It’s not for nothing that representatives of your type—both men and women—often say that their so-called “Dual” is something that, at a certain point, just makes them sick. Like, total inadequacy.
And often… if we’re talking about SEEs… to touch on it briefly, I have a lot of acquaintances among guys of that type. They don’t choose ILIs for themselves either. They tend to choose IEIs, SEIs...
SEI is a universal type, because they are super-diplomats. They can find common ground with anyone. And they’re very loyal, very Emotive. They don’t get stuck in just one rigid stance. There’s great flexibility in switching. So in that regard, it’s a very valuable, forgiving type.
What else did I want to add? Ah, the fact that we touched on this whole gender thing. When the man is the Victim type, but he doesn’t particularly want to be victimized. I don’t even know what would have to happen for him to want that. ILI girls are very sensitive too, so they won’t necessarily tolerate that either.
Stanislav M.: They guard their boundaries, so to speak.
Sergey I.: Yeah. They have very, very clear boundaries in that regard. Pushing your opinion on them is virtually impossible. It’s a Self-Sufficient type. They don’t fall for outside agendas at all. If she arrives at something on her own, she arrives at it; if she doesn’t, she doesn’t.
And one more thing: happiness can lie in wait for us in completely different kinds of relationships. It really depends heavily on whether a person actually understands what they want, right? And whether they find what they’re looking for. Very few people actually understand what they want. Very few people actually sit down and make lists.
Source: S. Ionkin