In the social environment, an “In-type” boss and a “Yang-type” boss are, as they say in Odessa, two very different things. They behave differently, should be understood differently, and expect entirely different types of behavior from their subordinates. On the other hand, even a clearly In-type boss will at times behave in an overtly Yang manner, and as a subordinate, you must recognize this shift and respond complementarily. Conversely, a Yang-type boss will at times enter an In state, and by noticing such transitions, you can build a much more effective relationship with him.
A Yang-type boss is a classic example—he is brimming with ideas and has plans which he implements among his subordinates. He places significantly less importance on the execution of these plans, reports, or the direct influence of subordinates on himself. Sometimes it seems he doesn’t notice them at all. However, this is misleading. He is quite sensitive to how he is perceived and how successfully he transmits his enthusiasm and ideas to his employees, whether during private meetings or public speeches. Among his shortcomings is inconsistency—he often jumps into new projects, completely forgetting to check on the progress of previous orders, which now seem outdated and unimportant to him. Reports from subordinates, in any case, appear dull to him. His preferred form of communication is the order, assignment, or directive.
An In-type boss behaves in many ways oppositely. He focuses maximum attention on listening to his subordinates. He cares whether they show initiative and strongly dislikes it when a subordinate, failing in a task, blames the assignment itself as impossible—shifting responsibility for failure onto the boss. A Yang-type boss, when necessary, readily takes on such responsibility. The In-type boss tends to ask whether you like the idea, whether you’re willing to take it on, and whether you have specific thoughts about how to implement his assignment. The In-type boss places primary importance on feedback from subordinates, regardless of its form. He pays attention to his employees’ facial expressions, the overall atmosphere in his lab, workshop, or enterprise. He will not spare effort in creating or modifying this atmosphere. He will spend considerable time on conflicts and contradictions if they arise, attempting to resolve them not through direct pressure but through negotiations or indirect maneuvers. His preferred method is the hint, indirect suggestion, or placing a subordinate in a position where they can independently show initiative and later take responsibility for it. When expressing dissatisfaction, an In-type boss typically does so in general terms or in some other indirect way, avoiding direct criticism. He might say, for example: “Look how poorly things turned out,” “I’m not entirely satisfied,” or “Next time, please try not to repeat the mistakes made this time.” An even stronger In nuance appears when the boss, discussing a subordinate’s fault, uses the pronoun “we”: “We made a mistake,” “We were wrong”—even though it’s clear the boss himself had nothing to do with it. A naive subordinate might be misled by such phrasing and tone, but with experience, one learns that behind this seemingly polite and democratic demeanor, nothing good is to be expected, and the bills will have to be paid no less than with a boss exhibiting overt Yang manners.
Questions for the reader: Do you tend to command your relatives or children? Do you prefer indirect suggestions? Are you inclined toward direct praise? In which modality would you react if your child brought home a failing grade? In which modality does your boss usually operate? Does this modality change in situations he perceives as exceptionally responsible? Which archetype (In or Yang) helps you more when you are in a leadership role? Does anything prevent you from using either in extreme situations when orders must be given? Do you fear giving a direct command? What is this fear connected to? Do you believe indirect suggestions never achieve their goal?
A subordinate governed by the Yang archetype always has an opinion and never misses a chance to express it to their boss. When working, they must clearly formulate a plan of action and implement it on some material. If this material is unavailable or the plan is not formed, such a person becomes disoriented, loses initiative, and doesn’t know what to do. In such cases, they go to their boss and demand precise, clear instructions in a manner that may seem unpleasant to the boss—persistent, insistent, and overly specific. It’s entirely possible that this is indeed the case, and the subordinate should ideally form their own work plan. But if they lack self-confidence, doing so will be emotionally very difficult. At the same time, without a clear plan, a well-developed program, and a clear idea of exactly what they should do, working becomes hard. The subject of their activity becomes blurred, and they completely lose energy and enthusiasm.
When working with such a subordinate, a boss often needs to understand that complementary behavior would be “Yang to Yang”—that is, the boss must provide a certain program, a certain quantum of energy, which the subordinate will receive and further implement in their work. In other words, by clearly expressing a Yang principle, the subordinate may be calling upon the boss’s In archetype, especially if they expect real guidance and actual energetic and informational support from their boss. After receiving this, upon returning to their workplace, they will activate their Yang archetype and work in their natural style. If the Yang archetype in the subordinate is poorly developed, receiving a Yang impulse from the boss will be difficult, and this transfer usually occurs through direct aggression, insults, quarrels, scandals—unpleasant behavioral styles, but otherwise, they don’t understand.
In behavior, the boss most often makes a positive impression. This subordinate behaves quietly, watches the boss’s every word, and visibly absorbs and adapts his ideas, thoughts, and instructions. However, the question is how these orders will be executed afterward. The In-type employee tends toward internal activity involving the organization or reorganization of an existing closed system. They can build relationships within the team, handle order intake and distribution, but placing them in a clearly active position requiring direct management of others would be unwise.
Questions for the reader: Do you enjoy showing initiative at work, or do you prefer a strictly defined set of duties? If your boss gives you a direct instruction or order, do you immediately feel inclined to respond, or do you pause—perhaps for days or even weeks? Do you like arguing with your boss? Putting him in his place? Explaining to him who he is and what your role in the team is? Can you describe in detail your boss’s office, his clothing, gestures, and facial expressions during your last meeting with him?
Within a peer group, the In archetype inclines a person toward internal attention within the collective. They are attentive to atmosphere, capable of influencing it (more indirectly than directly), and involved in integrating new members. At the same time, they accept the group’s programs and life circumstances as givens and are not inclined to fundamentally oppose them. The Yang archetype often turns a person’s attention outward—for example, they will gladly plan group trips and expend much energy finding new members and expanding the group in certain ways. They often don’t consider the consequences of such expansion, instinctively feeling that others in the group with a stronger In emphasis will handle it.
On a tourist trip, participants with strong Yang energy chart the route, negotiate with locals, and give commands to depart or stop. Members guided by the In archetype cook porridge, handle feeding, and set up camp. Conflicts most often arise from Yang-type group members, while peace and reconciliation come from the In.
Self-expression within the group occurs very differently, depending on the dominant archetype. A person guided by the In archetype may be the soul of the company; their favorite activity is taking a guitar and softly strumming or quietly singing songs in a non-intrusive way—those who want to listen do, those who don’t, don’t. If self-expression follows the Yang style, then taking a guitar, the person aims to attract the entire group’s attention, not just sing a song, but make a certain impression—perhaps inspiring the group to action, often related to the outside world. Like a trumpeter sounding the attack or departure signal. The retreat signal sounds in the In modality.
Questions for the reader: What do you value more among friends: a pleasant atmosphere and relaxation, or self-expression and implementing your own ideas? How often do you feel the need to intervene in group life and radically change it, directing it in a different direction? Do you agree, when with friends, with the English proverb “No news is good news”? Which method seems more effective to you in communicating with friends—praise or criticism? How do you criticize them: directly or indirectly?
Other factors create such powerful influences that the main structures of the family egregore, the primary energies it possesses, and the core processes occurring within it are determined. Any family becomes highly ritualized. Ritual, by its nature, is also an In phenomenon, as it is extremely stable. There is an In modality present—never directly stated but always felt—so further discussion concerns the sub-modality chosen by the family as a whole and its individual members.
The prevailing mood in a Yang-type family is conquering the world. Perhaps the parents are engaged in this conquest, or perhaps the children are oriented toward it, but in any case, the potential accumulated within the family must be realized through its interaction with the external world. Sometimes the family’s goal is the career of the husband or wife, so its main celebration is the father’s promotion, signing a favorable contract, meeting powerful or influential people, establishing useful connections.
In an In-type family, on the contrary, primary attention is given to the internal family environment. For example, such families pay great attention to children’s upbringing and education, but unlike Yang-type families, education here is conducted with long-term plans and does not expect immediate benefit. In In-type families, there are either strong tendencies to smooth over, soften, and conceal various conflicts, or conflicts become highly ritualized—confined within strict frameworks and repeated almost identically without variation. For example, when the husband is dissatisfied with his wife, he delivers ritual accusations at a certain time and with a specific intonation, to which she responds with ritualized actions (bursting into tears, breaking dishes, etc.), but at the end of the quarrel, peace is restored—though it will be disrupted by the next scene, following the same ritual and occurring at a well-known time to all participants.
In a Yang-type family, there is usually a leader who plans new intrigues and strives to implement their policy in family life, unashamed of possible conflicts and sometimes even consciously seeking them. Such conflicts often involve neighbors, acquaintances, and broad social circles, who are invited to resolve the family situation, help with words or deeds, legally or financially.
Conversely, in an In-type family, such external interference is extremely rare and negatively perceived by its members (more precisely, by the family egregore). The typical stance here is: “We’ll sort it out ourselves.” In very rare cases, such a family needs external influence, and even then, the ground must be carefully prepared, and the influence strictly measured. For example, a Yang-type family might typically resolve disputes in court—both financial and emotional. For an In-type family, if it reaches a dead-end situation it cannot resolve alone, the typical response is inviting a respected relative, perhaps from another city, and presenting the family problem to them—to hear their opinion, and if it proves authoritative for all family members, to begin the process of resolving relations based on it. At the same time, no one expects the respected relative to solve the entire knot of problems; their task is to suggest a possible direction for resolution, and the rest the In-type family will take upon itself.
In a Yang-type family, standard arguments and children’s disobedience are common. In an In-type family, children most often do not object but meekly accept adults’ remarks and instructions. The question is how much they actually follow them, but at least the appearance of submission and agreement is usually maintained.
Questions for the reader: How do you understand the biblical phrase “Let the wife fear her husband”? Try to determine the modality of your answer. Do you believe there should be a leader in the family whose instructions others must follow? Do you believe self-organization is the natural and best way of life for practically any family? Do you think family members, while implementing family programs, should direct most of their activity inward or outward? What is more important for a family: internal peace and harmony, or social success for its members in the external social space? How would you react to the idea of taking a foster child into your family? Assess the nature of the difficulties your family would face afterward. Do they belong to the In or Yang modality? Do you believe the institution of family has exhausted itself and will radically change its form in the near future, or perhaps cease to exist altogether in the way we currently perceive and understand it?
A correct balance of the In and Yang archetypes in pair relationships is a crucial factor no couple can ignore. If this balance is sharply disrupted or if there is a lack of mutual understanding, the chances of building satisfactory relationships are zero. On the other hand, the types of In-Yang modality balance in different couples are extremely diverse. What matters is only that partners understand each other and behave in a way complementary to the pair egregore. This does not mean they must be complementary to each other: in some pair unions, interaction occurs as “Yang to Yang” or “In to In,” but this requires a special type of agreement, attention, and even a special type of karma for the pair.
A sign of a person’s In position in a pair is their attention to the partner—specifically, a special kind of attention where the partner’s words, thoughts, feelings, and positions are perceived as one’s own, as psychologists say, interiorized. The partner taking the In role sometimes has to significantly change themselves, break their habits, reconsider their worldview and ways of interacting with the world. This breaking can sometimes be beneficial, sometimes lead to serious distortion of their fate—but this becomes clear much later. Of course, the In position does not mean the person completely dissolves in their partner. Often, they give the partner only a small space in their soul and mind, but overall, the person in the In role outwardly appears to be trying—diligently listening and attempting to adapt to the behaviors and programs offered or imposed by their partner.
This does not necessarily mean the partner occupies a Yang position. They may also take an In position, and couples where both partners take In roles are not rare exceptions. In such cases, the Yang role may be played by the pair egregore—a certain intuitively sensed active principle that guides them in various situations and imposes certain programs. In harmonious pairs, these programs are not particularly discussed but accepted as given—something to adapt to, not something to adapt oneself to at one’s own personal expense.
However, a person’s Yang position does not necessarily mean they will impose an unpleasant program on their partner. In many friendly couples, roles are quite clearly divided: one partner takes the Yang role, the other the In role, but the Yang partner does not seek to live at the In partner’s expense. On the contrary, they take initiative to handle the most difficult and unpleasant aspects of the couple’s life themselves. “I’ll work, and you please rest”—this is the motto of such a pair.
Couples where both partners behave in the Yang modality are also not exceptions. More careful observation, however, shows that each partner, at certain moments—even fractions of a second—shifts into the In position, and it is precisely in that fraction of a second that conflict resolution occurs, which otherwise would continue endlessly in the pair. Without such moments of In acceptance, the couple would have no chance of existence. In this sense, In-In pairs can be very stable, while Yang-Yang pairs cannot exist, even if the partners’ activity is directed toward the pair egregore. The egregore will not accept such behavior and will subtly impose a stricter program on them than if they had directly received its signals by including the In modality within themselves.
In other words, the author wants to say that if both partners ignore the main plot, the core duties their fate has imposed on them as a single collective, nothing good will come of such coexistence, and the pair will quickly fall apart. Another matter is that people may perceive this plot not consciously but subconsciously, and follow it subconsciously, while their consciousness is occupied with entirely different things.
Generally, human interaction in pairs occurs on two levels: psychological and social, with opposite modalities. For example, if I make a statement to my partner using a consciously Yang modality, it means that subconsciously I will most likely attentively listen to their possible response and thus psychologically remain in an In position. Conversely, socially acting in an In role—accepting and adapting to the words and programs offered by my partner—I psychologically perceive this as a concession from my side, which will allow me to channel through the partner some of my own goals, tasks, and programs. Often, these tasks and programs are not fully conscious or only partially recognized, but if asked directly, the person will most likely agree with such an interpretation, considering it self-evident, though they usually don’t think about it.
For example, by allowing her husband certain freedoms on the side, a wife may psychologically expect him to develop a certain sense of guilt, as a result of which she will gain some freedom to exercise at her own discretion. And this “her own discretion” is quite specific, though possibly related to the opposite sex—e.g., she can plan her summer vacation independently.
Conversely, crude Yang behavior on the social level—such as pushing through one’s primitive will—often masks an In state of psychological insecurity and fear that the partner might detect it and begin manipulating the person like a puppet at their own discretion.
A very telling indicator in a pair is the partner responsible for the couple’s fate. Usually, this is the person under the In archetype. The one who stirs the pot typically does not bear responsibility for its quality—the responsibility lies with the one who finishes cooking and cleans up the mess, i.e., the partner behaving in the In modality. Simply observe who in the pair receives complaints, and you will immediately understand who takes on the In role. The logic of an outside observer says: how can this be? Responsibility should lie with the one showing initiative. But in life, it’s not so. Responsibility usually falls on the one who accepts the initiative and allows the project to be realized. “You agreed to marry me,” says the Yang husband to the In wife, “now endure it for life”—and she accepts, endures, and sometimes is even happy.
Questions for the reader: In pair communication, do you prefer speaking or listening? How significant are your partners’ words and actions toward you? How many of your acquaintances are psychologically easy or difficult for you? Do your acquaintances complain that you are difficult to communicate with? Do they accuse you of indifference, inability to adequately perceive another person, or correctly understand them? Do people often confide in you about their life troubles and ask for help solving problems? Do you want to guide your partners through life? Realize a special new program of action with each new person?
Imagine three couples: one sitting face-to-face, another sitting side by side looking in the same direction, the third sitting back-to-back. Which seems to you the most harmonious, organic, and pleasant? Think: in which of these three positions would you sit with each of your close acquaintances and relatives: a) for maximum personal benefit, b) for maximum benefit to the world, c) for maximum personal enjoyment? Are you inclined to learn from your partners? In a relationship, do you prefer taking something from your partner or transmitting your views, thoughts, energy, and emotions to them? Do you understand the term “pair” or “pair union” as having a certain subtle mystical meaning, or does this phrase have no meaningful sense for you beyond its nominal value?
There are situations where a person’s inclination toward the In or Yang archetypes manifests particularly vividly. One such situation is meeting someone new—let’s examine it more closely.
A person guided by the Yang archetype, at the moment of meeting, seeks to make an impression on the partner or surroundings. Looking directly at them, you can immediately tell. They become extraordinarily expressive. What they say, how they look, how they move and gesture—all is calculated to create a certain impression, and usually, you fall under it. When entering society, such a person practically cuts through it and positions themselves at the center, leaving society the clearly In role of accepting them into their ranks. They allow society to evaluate them but not to express that evaluation.
Conversely, under the In archetype, a person appears in society as ready to be evaluated. In reality, they are invisible; if they make any impression, it happens against their will. They enter like a black hole or empty space, into which it is extremely difficult to peer. About such people, it’s sometimes said: “In quiet waters, devils dwell.” Thus, the In entrance is the entrance of quiet waters. Nothing about this person catches the eye, nothing makes an impression. Yet, being near them, you immediately feel a desire to do something, sensing a subtle In aroma that tunes you to certain actions, certain interventions. With their entire appearance, the person seems to say: “I’m fine, I demand nothing; you can come to me and tell me about yourself, I’ll listen attentively.”
Presenting themselves in the In aspect, a person might indicate some need, but it must not sound too imperative, otherwise it will be perceived as Yang aggression. A helpless smile, admitting a slight hunger or desire for a strong drink—this is typical behavior of someone entering society under the In archetype.
If a person, appearing in society under the Yang archetype, immediately defines the program of their future actions, assuming others will comply, then under the In archetype, a person only unobtrusively suggests a certain course of action, usually directly related to themselves. The phrase: “My name is so-and-so, pay me no attention”—is stylistically In, yet highly effective. Saying this, a person sometimes attracts far more attention than by firmly declaring in Yang modality: “Now I’ll tell you something!” It’s quite possible that in the latter case, no one will actually listen, especially if society is preoccupied with its own problems.
In the In-type introduction, a person presents their potential—either negative (e.g., holes in their clothes) or positive (e.g., ability or skill to perform a certain action). Yet, the person in no way insists on a corresponding action and doesn’t even anticipate it. For example, if, when introducing themselves, they say: “My profession is horse breeder,” spoken in the In modality, this phrase does not imply continuation—specifically, that they will tomorrow invite everyone present to ride their horses. Moreover, if one of the guests interprets it exactly this way, appearing at the stable the next day, they might find themselves in a very awkward position.
Questions for the reader: In which modality do you usually appear in the presence of unfamiliar people? In which modality do you appear among acquaintances, at work, in your home? Do you believe etiquette rules require describing yourself upon meeting, or when meeting someone new, must you necessarily offer them something, otherwise they won’t take you seriously? How do you imagine the best way to please a stranger during a meeting? Evaluate your ideas from the perspective of the diadic archetype. Think: which of your acquaintances, in your opinion, best knows how to behave in society? Recall how they act when appearing before strangers, which modalities they use, in which modality society perceives them, and in which modality it reacts? Do you believe that if a person is full of content, they must inevitably reveal it upon first meeting, or conversely, do you believe a person should not voluntarily disclose their content but only show it under sufficiently intense attention from others? To which modality does the common belief “You’re met by your clothes” correspond? The same question regarding the idea “You’re seen off by your mind.”
Farewells can be done in different ways: you can part while arranging to meet tomorrow, or part forever, believing you are parting forever. In any case, the modalities a person uses in this situation are extremely important. Is farewell an action, or a situation merely to be experienced, over which a person has no control? If you lean toward the first answer, farewell is colored by the Yang archetype; if toward the second, by the In archetype.
If, when saying goodbye, you energetically shake their hand as if tearing invisible threads of communication that bound you for some time, farewell is colored by the Yang archetype for you. If you experience it inwardly, as if preparing for separation, but make no external moves to shorten the farewell period—similar to patiently waiting for the train that will take away your acquaintance or relative—then for you, farewell is painted in the In modality.
From the Yang perspective, separation is a process to be planned and regulated, overcoming possible resistance and pursuing a specific goal. From the In perspective, parting is a process—sometimes joyful, sometimes painful—but one must adapt to it, doing certain, often painful work to restructure oneself and transition to existence under new conditions, specifically, in the absence of the other person, society, and the situation as a whole, even an entire life.
How one should die is a question that arises before every person at certain moments in life, and depending on whether they understand it in the In or Yang modality, this question appears completely different. From the Yang viewpoint, before dying, one should finish earthly affairs and pass them to worthy successors—that is the main thing. From the In perspective, what matters most for the dying person is adapting to the radical change about to occur in their life or soul: separation from the familiar world. Now they must prepare to transition to another world or (for atheists) to exist as a handful of ashes in a crematorium urn or in the memory of grateful but forgetful descendants.
Questions for the reader: Are you able to say goodbye quickly, or does farewell often become a long and difficult task for you? Do you tend to keep your friends and acquaintances near you longer than necessary? How do you do this? Evaluate its modality. Do you have a tendency to prematurely break connections and relationships? Think: in which modality do your breakups with people occur? What do you tend to think about when leaving work in the evening: your unfinished work, or what will happen at home? Are you inclined to regulate the process of parting from a loved one? Or do you rely on their will, fate’s wisdom, or the natural course of events?
In and Yang humor are absolutely different in nature. It’s important to distinguish them and develop your sense of humor in the modality where it is weak within you; otherwise, you will poorly understand many people and situations and lose a significant part of your inherent charm.
In humor is often linked to situational overlaps—situations where the same scene appears completely different to different participants: “Now that’s something,” thought Stierlitz, seeing a brick fall from the roof and land right before his feet. “Now that’s two,” thought Mueller maliciously, throwing a second brick at his head. Leaving the safe house, Stierlitz saw two well-dressed women at the crossroads. “Whores,” thought Stierlitz. “Stierlitz,” thought the whores.
Yang humor is often linked to playing with inadequate controlling influence, the unpreparedness of the actor or matter for the planned and attempted influence. The inadequacy of the tools used, leading to the overall absurdity of the situation—though for the characters it is full of deep meaning—is typical Yang humor. Such primitive humor of a clown who clumsily trips on the toe of his excessively long shoes over a minimal obstacle, dizzyingly falls onto the carpet, and sprawls in the most absurd and unpredictable position, then jumps up searching for the cause of his fall and, not noticing a new obstacle, falls again.
“Headquarters allowed Stierlitz to spend the night with his wife, but under conditions of secrecy, he was not to know her name.”
Questions for the reader: What kind of sense of humor did your parents have? Which episodes caused laughter in your family? Do you enjoy laughing at others’ clumsiness? Do you find it funny when others completely fail to understand your point of view on what’s happening? Do you find opera funny? Do you strive to joke, or do you believe humor arises from the situation itself? How hard is it for you when people joke about you? When you find yourself in absurd situations? Do you strive in such situations to change the modality and actively do something?
Care is what constitutes the most important part of a person’s life—both the care of life or surroundings for him, and his care for others and situations. Care itself belongs to the In modality, yet within this modality, various sub-modalities are possible.
In care is unobtrusive. It is often unnoticed by the recipient, rarely elicits thanks, and if adequate, the recipient simply thrives, rolls in butter, and thinks it couldn’t be otherwise. Of course, In care can also be inadequate. Then the person unobtrusively offers something they believe is caring for you—something you don’t like and don’t accept—but doesn’t insist on their suggestions. For example, trying to entertain you, a host might offer certain topics for discussion, but seeing they don’t interest you, falls silent, placing a stack of magazines before you or handing you the TV remote. If nothing offered suits you, you’re free to choose your own activity.
Yang care differs radically from In care. Here, the person usually has a specific care program they purposefully implement. For example, they create an entertainment program involving a theater visit, zoo, sightseeing at local museums (ethnographic, literary, zoological), bar visit, boat ride, and concluding with a formal dinner. If such care doesn’t suit you in certain program points, changing it will be quite difficult. You might request replacing a certain point with something else, but that “something else” must also have been foreseen in the Yang care program in advance; otherwise, you step outside its boundaries, and nothing good will come of it.
Generally, In care is usually directed toward state, Yang care toward action. If a person starts asking about your mood, they are likely caring; if they inquire whether they can help you perform specific actions, they are guided by the Yang archetype.
Questions for the reader: What kind of care do you prefer: one that leaves you room to maneuver, or one that takes it away? Do you enjoy feeding a child with a spoon? Or do you prefer placing food on a plate and leaving the rest to them? Do you believe total care spoils a person? Are you more inclined to care for the future or the present?
It’s very important to understand in which modality complaints and grievances from others are expressed if you want to respond to them complementarily.
In complaints often sound abstractly, in general terms. The person describes their state in distressing terms, without defining its causes or possible ways out. Directly or indirectly, they say: “I feel bad,” “I’m sad,” “I’m offended,” “I’m upset.” Usually, the target of the offense—i.e., the person toward whom the complaint or grievance is directed—is not specified or at least not emphasized.
Conversely, Yang complaint is a hidden form of command, accusation, or action whose purpose is to obtain satisfaction. “You hurt me,” says this person, and you feel you must do something, otherwise consequences will be terrible. In the In modality, the same phrase sounds different: “I’m upset.” Although the effect on the interlocutor may differ greatly between In and Yang modalities, each person usually has preferred modalities in which they express complaints and grievances.
Often, strong discrepancies arise between the modality of the complaint’s meaning—what the person intends to express—and how they actually express it (on the social level). The difference in expression methods, as well as inadequate perception—when an In complaint is perceived in Yang modality and vice versa—is one of the main causes of quarrels, disagreements, and mutual misunderstanding between partners, especially in families.
For example, a wife intending to complain to her husband about her fatigue and expecting his support in response, primarily moral, might express her In-content complaint, without noticing, in Yang modality—e.g., “When will you finally start taking on at least some responsibilities?” The modality of this message is not complaint but rather accusation—clearly Yang. If the husband is in a bad mood and prone to bickering, he might respond synchronously: “And what about me? Don’t I spend enough energy at work?!”—which, of course, won’t satisfy his tired wife. If he responds complementarily—in In modality—peacefully noting: “As soon as I have the chance, I’ll do something right away, dear,”—again, this response likely won’t satisfy her, as she expects something entirely different, e.g., that the husband hug her and say: “I love you so much.” With such inadequately expressed complaints, success is unlikely.
The situation unfolds no better when a person expresses a concrete, active grievance in In modality. Instead of saying to their partner: “Stop deceiving me at every step,” they say: “You know, I’m deeply saddened by people’s false statements and the mismatch between their words and actions.” A synchronous response might be: “Me too”; a complementary response might be: “And what are you doing to avoid such situations?”—but of course, neither response will satisfy the person, and the cause is the sharp mismatch between the modality of their statement’s meaning and the immediate meaning of the words spoken.
Similar effects occur when modalities are distorted in perceiving others’ complaints, grievances, and requests. If they are expressed in Yang modality but the partner perceives them in In modality, serious distortions arise, evident from their response. In such cases, it’s better not to continue the conversation but to align modalities. For example, the wife says to her husband: “I’m in a bad mood today”—a typical In-modality complaint. The husband perceives it in Yang modality—as an accusation—something like: “You behaved badly today and ruined my mood.” He responds complementarily: “But I’m not guilty of anything!” The wife feels discomfort—she senses the falsity of the situation but either doesn’t realize it or, realizing it, doesn’t know how to find an adequate way out. She might try to smooth things over by saying: “You’re not guilty, dear,” or “I’m not accusing you of anything,”—but in any case, a large dark spot has formed in the dialogue, and it’s not easy to wipe it away.
Questions for the reader: In which modality do you usually feel and experience inner discomfort leading to complaints and grievances toward others? In which modality are you inclined to express these grievances? Is it hard for you to express them in another modality? Try listing your most typical complaints and grievances toward others and attempt to rephrase them in the opposite modality—first on paper, then in behavior. Observe how others’ reactions change. In which modality are you inclined to perceive others’ complaints? Specifically, complaints about your past behavior, your current behavior, or their own fate? Will you be able to detect certain patterns in your reactions? Upon hearing a complaint, are you inclined to empathize or offer your help? Do you consider complaints, which usually imply certain active responses from you? Do you consider such responses generally futile? Does presenting grievances to others amuse you? Do you enjoy when they respond to you substantively or enter a certain emotional state? Do you consider conscience an adequate substitute for action, and vice versa? When presenting grievances to people, what reaction do you expect from them? What modality does this reaction belong to? How well does your expected modality align with what you actually receive?
