Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 53

Thread: Attraction in Supervision relations and getting along reasonably well

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Attraction in Supervision relations and getting along reasonably well

    If your polr is your "supervisors" dominant function, why do you two get on reasonably well? There is hardly any pain for you.

  2. #2
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    One of my best friends is my supervisor, ISFj. Through Socionics, I realized that when she uses , it's not really a personal attack, and that she can't help it, and that she doesn't realize that she's doing it. Therefore, it doesn't really hit my PoLR, since I can recognize it for what it is.
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know if it's a coincidence or whatever, but none of the ISTps I kno/ew ever hit my PoLR that I can remember. The types most likely to do that, in my personal experience, are ISFps, ISTjs, ESFps and ESTps.

    I'm not sure how I came across to the INFp I knew before I discovered socionics.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I don't know if it's a coincidence or whatever, but none of the ISTps I kno/ew ever hit my PoLR that I can remember. The types most likely to do that, in my personal experience, are ISFps, ISTjs, ESFps and ESTps.

    Same here. The ISTps I know don't really give a damn about how other people are dressed and stuff like that.

    ESFps are very bitchy about that, instead.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    EllaC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    160
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Supervision v dual?

    Socionic advocates a dial relationship as being ideal. But looking at my friends and family, I see it no where. Everyone I know is in supervision relationships. it seems that indeed there is one more powerful person in the relationship, perhaps parent and child. But I'm finding that the supervisor seems to love this relationship too, they need it quite a bit too. If I swapped people around and put them into dual relations, I find it unlikely that they would work, too different; whereas the supervisor offers a common ground. Thoughts?
    ENTp... love it

    3w2

  6. #6
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think your definitions of supervision and duality are way off, or your typings of those people aren't right.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  7. #7
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EllaC View Post
    Socionic advocates a dial relationship as being ideal. But looking at my friends and family, I see it no where. Everyone I know is in supervision relationships. it seems that indeed there is one more powerful person in the relationship, perhaps parent and child. But I'm finding that the supervisor seems to love this relationship too, they need it quite a bit too. If I swapped people around and put them into dual relations, I find it unlikely that they would work, too different; whereas the supervisor offers a common ground. Thoughts?
    *sigh* supervision can work for awhile. And it can be okay between parent and child (worker and boss) But when you try to get close such as in a marriage, over time the leading function of the supervisor grates on the supervisee (hits the polr), causing them to eventually retaliate, which is then painful for the supervisor. But this can take years to manifest. Of course you can love each other! It just takes a lot of energy to deal with one another the further along the relationship goes. You start to realize that you can't count on the other person, (even though they may be objectively "trustworthy") because they don't share your psychological values and that you see life in very different ways. Sometimes too different to make staying together worth your while.

    I've been married to my supervisee for 16 years and this is how it's played out for us. I also know other supervisory marriages and they go the same. Many of the couples stay together anyway but it's very draining and disappointing, depending on what your view of marriage is. What ends up happening is that the supervisor gets tired of the retaliation of the supervisee and ends up finding happiness in friendships and other interests outside the marriage. Both partners begin to feel the need to escape even while still trying to stay together. That's no way to live!

    Supervisory relationships can be good at first. One's leading function is the same as the other's creative, which can be enjoyable. It's only over time that things go south.

    Finding it "unlikely that a dual relationship would work" is naive, especially if you've never experienced a dual relationship. That's all I'll say on that topic.

  8. #8
    EllaC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    160
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry, wasn't amazingly clear on my above post (wrote it on my phone).

    I'm interested in your account, Redbaron, and pray that this will not be the case for those that I know.

    Perhaps I didn't quite make it clear: dual relationships seem harder to get into I have found? Supervisor-Supervisee relations, well I've found there is something you can relate to, something, that I've found, for example, 'ahhh perhaps now I am understood'. A dual relationship (of any kind), has seemed to be wonderful, tho lacking that 'ahh I get you...', but I don't think that the S-S relationship is better - perhaps, to begin with, and throughout easier? Hmm, I don't know?
    ENTp... love it

    3w2

  9. #9
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EllaC View Post
    Socionic advocates a dial relationship as being ideal. But looking at my friends and family, I see it no where. Everyone I know is in supervision relationships.
    It makes a big difference if the supervisor is rational or irrational. 0100 (ENTp - INFj for example) is the relation David Keirsey recommends, not 0010 which is also called supervision in socionics.

    Are your friends in 0100 or 0010 relations?

  10. #10
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EllaC View Post

    dual relationships seem harder to get into I have found?
    yes.

    but they are way better then supervision.

  11. #11
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EllaC View Post
    Perhaps I didn't quite make it clear: dual relationships seem harder to get into I have found?
    yes, they're way more difficult to get into initially. I agree with that for sure. It's easy to overlook your dual and even when you don't, you might not see his/her value at first since you appear so different.

    Supervisor-Supervisee relations, well I've found there is something you can relate to, something, that I've found, for example, 'ahhh perhaps now I am understood'. A dual relationship (of any kind), has seemed to be wonderful, tho lacking that 'ahh I get you...', but I don't think that the S-S relationship is better - perhaps, to begin with, and throughout easier? Hmm, I don't know?
    I think initially this is the case, yeah. but over time, other things happen in the supervisory relationship and it's not healthy.

  12. #12
    EllaC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    160
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    It makes a big difference if the supervisor is rational or irrational. 0100 (ENTp - INFj for example) is the relation David Keirsey recommends, not 0010 which is also called supervision in socionics.

    Are your friends in 0100 or 0010 relations?
    Interesting as yes they're all like ESTJ ISFP, ESTP, ISFJ, INFJ ENTP...

    that maybe explains something.

    And I agree dual relations are very good...
    ENTp... love it

    3w2

  13. #13
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    It makes a big difference if the supervisor is rational or irrational. 0100 (ENTp - INFj for example) is the relation David Keirsey recommends, not 0010 which is also called supervision in socionics.

    Are your friends in 0100 or 0010 relations?
    You did NOT just try to cross the Keirsey Temperament Sorter with Socionics. That's akin to using the Law of Universal Gravitation to explain wealth distribution in the Third World; it looks fine from a distance, but it's utterly flimsy methodology. That, and we must address the fact that Keirsey was working with entirely different types and type descriptions when he made his chart of "ideal" relationships. Merely because both typologies thought it would be a good idea to copy MBTI and occasionally use a 4-letter code to express their type, it does NOT mean their matrices of 16 types correlate.

    That, and this is the "General Discussion - Model A" forum, not "Alternative Socionics Theories" or "Other personality typologies." Keirsey simply wasn't writing about Model A, and it would be intellectually dishonest to read his works as if he were.

  14. #14
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah supervisors seem to get together. IMO when people reach adulthood they're emotionally dead and incapable of forming meaningful relationships, usually. So they end up with a superficial relationship like supervisor.
    INTp

  15. #15
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat360 View Post
    yeah supervisors seem to get together. IMO when people reach adulthood they're emotionally dead and incapable of forming meaningful relationships, usually. So they end up with a superficial relationship like supervisor.
    that's the perfect descriptor for a supervisory relation.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    that's the perfect descriptor for a supervisory relation.
    lol

  17. #17
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    that's the perfect descriptor for a supervisory relation.
    That's also true for benefit relations.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    That's also true for benefit relations.
    Or mirror.

  19. #19
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    over time the leading function of the supervisor grates on the supervisee (hits the polr), causing them to eventually retaliate, which is then painful for the supervisor
    Or the supervisor just gets tired of the supervisee.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  20. #20
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewZ View Post
    That, and we must address the fact that Keirsey was working with entirely different types and type descriptions when he made his chart of "ideal" relationships. Merely because both typologies thought it would be a good idea to copy MBTI and occasionally use a 4-letter code to express their type, it does NOT mean their matrices of 16 types correlate.
    I disagree. KTS and socionics try to describe exactly the same phenomenon, using exactly the same 4 dichotomies as foundation. If Augusta and Keirsey were asked to type 100 persons they would certainly type some people differently. But even socionists like Sergei Ganin and Rick DeLong often disagree. Do you really think Keirsey would have a significantly lower correlation? I doubt it...

  21. #21
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    Or mirror.
    I agree

  22. #22
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    I disagree. KTS and socionics try to describe exactly the same phenomenon, using exactly the same 4 dichotomies as foundation. If Augusta and Keirsey were asked to type 100 persons they would certainly type some people differently. But even socionists like Sergei Ganin and Rick DeLong often disagree. Do you really think Keirsey would have a significantly lower correlation? I doubt it...
    There are still some that swear upon being INTJ/INTp or INTP/INTj or the like, but I'm confident that if they reexamine the descriptions on something as clear as personalitypage, they will discover what MBTI type they really were. Socionics is not necessarily a phenomenon that was Made Up ; It could easily have been a phenomenon that was Discovered.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  23. #23
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EllaC View Post
    Socionic advocates a dial relationship as being ideal. But looking at my friends and family, I see it no where. Everyone I know is in supervision relationships. it seems that indeed there is one more powerful person in the relationship, perhaps parent and child. But I'm finding that the supervisor seems to love this relationship too, they need it quite a bit too. If I swapped people around and put them into dual relations, I find it unlikely that they would work, too different; whereas the supervisor offers a common ground. Thoughts?
    You are right and this is why I have a lot of Supervisory relations with SEE in my life and Benefit, activity, and ESE/Illusionary. Duals just have to learn to accept each other, listen to each other, do as they are told to do intheir area of strength and expertise, and have lots of physical fun.

  24. #24
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Sigh.... Look into how duality works and try to find examples of this mechanism in action, then note how the outward characteristics of the relationship are derived from this, and you'll understand the nature of duality.

    It's kind of like this effortless thing where your both inspiring each other in a way.

    It's not always about romance, its about psychological compatibility. The source of strength in the bond of dual relationships isn't likeness.... both people's temparment and club are different, very different... it's not a relationship in which you feel the same, it's one in which the others differences are respected because they strangely work through you to inspire you being you and that in turn does the same back to them... so its psychologically symbiotic.

    Imho, that doesn't make duality better than any other relationship... but it does have this effortless symbiotic nature. Two different pieces fit seamlessly together without any effort.

  25. #25
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    I disagree. KTS and socionics try to describe exactly the same phenomenon, using exactly the same 4 dichotomies as foundation. If Augusta and Keirsey were asked to type 100 persons they would certainly type some people differently. But even socionists like Sergei Ganin and Rick DeLong often disagree. Do you really think Keirsey would have a significantly lower correlation? I doubt it...
    Yes, he would have a significantly lower correlation. Ignoring the obvious fact that Keirsey didn't start his work with the four Jungian dichotomies but instead constructed his own and later correlated his types with MBTI using a DIFFERENT set of dichotomies, his typings do, in fact, differ greatly with mainstream Socionics. To illustrate this point, I shall quote Keirsey's website on his list of famous "Masterminds (INTJ)," which allegedly correlates with LII:
    Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Ulysses S. Grant, Frideriche Nietzsche, Niels Bohr, Peter the Great, Stephen Hawking, John Maynard Keynes, Lise Meitner, Ayn Rand and Sir Isaac Newton are examples of Rational Masterminds.
    (source: http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=ke...5&c=mastermind)

    If that's not enough, let's try the "Composer (ISFP)," supposedly correlating with SEI:
    Bob Dylan, Jackie Kennedy Onassis, Cher, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Mel Brooks, Steven Spielberg, and Neil Simon are examples of a Composer Artisans.
    (source: http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=ke...b=4&c=Composer)

    "Inspector (ISTJ)," supposedly LSI:
    Queen Elizabeth II, Harry S. Truman, Warren Buffet, Queen Victoria, James K. Polk, and J.D. Rockefeller are examples of Inspector Guardians.
    (source: http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=ke...=2&c=inspector)

    Need I go on?

  26. #26
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewZ View Post
    Ignoring the obvious fact that Keirsey didn't start his work with the four Jungian dichotomies but instead constructed his own and later correlated his types with MBTI using a DIFFERENT set of dichotomies, his typings do, in fact, differ greatly with mainstream Socionics.
    If Keirsey and Augusta typed people they both know in person there would certainly be a very strong correlation. Comparing the typings of celebrities doesn't make much sense to me...

  27. #27
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    If Keirsey and Augusta typed people they both know in person there would certainly be a very strong correlation. Comparing the typings of celebrities doesn't make much sense to me...
    I'm comparing typings of famous celebrities because that's the best information we have. Speculating about people they both knew in person is pure speculation. As far as celebrities go, they both had the same amount of information about available about these people, and yet typed them differently. While, strictly speaking, based on the dissonance in their celebrity typings alone, it is possible that there could be a strong correlation between how they would type people they know in person, Occam's razor and sheer practicality force us to reject this possibility as the most reasonable interpretation. The evidence that KTS and Socionics are the same typology is extremely weak. The fact that both systems devised a four-letter dichotomy system as an afterthought to their matrices is merely bad nomenclature. (and, of course, it's a lowercase j/p for a reason) You can call it Uranium all you want, but all the U238 in the world isn't going to make a sustainable fission bomb.

  28. #28
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewZ View Post
    While, strictly speaking, based on the dissonance in their celebrity typings alone, it is possible that there could be a strong correlation between how they would type people they know in person, Occam's razor and sheer practicality force us to reject this possibility as the most reasonable interpretation.
    To be honest, Occam's razor and practicality are two things I really hate...


    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewZ View Post
    The fact that both systems devised a four-letter dichotomy system as an afterthought to their matrices is merely bad nomenclature.
    I don't think so...

    1.) What do you think why Keirsey started to use this MBTI notation? Just because he was aware of the fact that MBTI and KTS try to describe exactly the same phenomenon. Why should there be different type names then?


    2.) What do you think why Ganin introduced socionics with MBTI-like 4-letter code? Just because he was aware of the fact that MBTI and socionics try to describe exactly the same phenomenon. Why should there be different type names then?

  29. #29
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's weird. I see countless dual couples among my friends, actually I basically don't know anyone that doesn't at least have an activity boyfriend / girlfriend (I know personally 7 dual couples). Anyway, in supervision pairs, excepting every functional analysis, J / P (or rationality / irrationality, as you wish) is the biggest source of conflict, in my experience. I would say it's sufficiently good for friendship, though, especially if there's a semi-dual which mediates between supervisor and supervisee (I'm thinking about my own type, where INFj is the activity partner of my supervisor, yet also my semi-dual, so highly compatible with both).
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  30. #30
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post

    I've been married to my supervisee for 16 years and this is how it's played out for us..
    Are you still married? How are things going? I was together with a LSE girl for 1 year when I was younger. Never been attracted to anyone as much as to her. There is something devilish about supervision, they get under your skin and alter you, that's my experience with LSE. It happened today when I was talking to an LSE. I always try to prove something, be like her etc.

    A relative of mine (LSI) was married to ILE for decades. She got severe depression, that took a long time to cure. Now they are divorced since many years. She seems happier than ever. Of course there can be other reasons, but I can't help to think that supervision might have been a factor.

    Still, I often find LSE women to be very attractive.

    EDIT: Descripions of supervision relations, and discovering that my supervisor is LSE, was one of the things that made me realize that Socionics is to be taken seriously. I've seen it so much in real life, and it's amazing that this theory can describe it.

  31. #31
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I will PM you on that...

  32. #32
    ladyinred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default attraction between supervisors

    seems like people are often attracted in supervision, especially supervisees are attracted to their supervisors. is this the case for others here, too, or is it just random observations on my part?

    and myabe if its true then acting like ones own benefactor, dual's supervisor, is a good way to attract a dual :wink:

  33. #33
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems to be a pattern.

    Supervision and benefit rings are characterized by mostly one-directional information flow. Your supervisor's ego is evaluatory information for you, one you care about. Supervisee's ego, on the other hand, is situational to supervisor, they don't feel strongly about this type of information. This gives the supervisor an obvious advantage, as they're less affected by the supervisee. Kind of asymmetrical priority-option situation.

    Any side-effect like attraction is entirely dependent on the participants though - an arrogant or impatient supervisor might set supervisee against themselves, or at least put them off. It's by no means impossible for supervisee to actively criticize or fight their supervisor; they still react strongly to them, positively or negatively, but this tends to have little effect on said supervisor.

  34. #34
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    It seems to be a pattern.

    Supervision and benefit rings are characterized by mostly one-directional information flow. Your supervisor's ego is evaluatory information for you, one you care about. Supervisee's ego, on the other hand, is situational to supervisor, they don't feel strongly about this type of information. This gives the supervisor an obvious advantage, as they're less affected by the supervisee. Kind of asymmetrical priority-option situation.

    Any side-effect like attraction is entirely dependent on the participants though - an arrogant or impatient supervisor might set supervisee against themselves, or at least put them off. It's by no means impossible for supervisee to actively criticize or fight their supervisor; they still react strongly to them, positively or negatively, but this tends to have little effect on said supervisor.
    supervisee uses their creative function to attack the supervisor's role function. these can be quite unpleasant and retaliatory for the supervisor.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  35. #35
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your supervisor's ego is evaluatory information for you, one you care about. Supervisee's ego, on the other hand, is situational to supervisor, they don't feel strongly about this type of information.
    I think you have this backwards. The supervisee doesn't care what the supervisor is saying, it's just new/foreign information period. The rhythmic flow between conversations is off. But yes you are right when you say:

    This gives the supervisor an obvious advantage, as they're less affected by the supervisee.
    Yes, exactly. But I think the reason why is the other way around. The supervisor has the upper hand because they care where the supervisee doesn't. But I think we're overcomplicating it some. It's mostly a "I"m better than you" feel because the supervisor has the supervisee's main weakness, as their strength -- as well as the supervisee's main strength, as their own strength! And the weaknesses the supervisor has, are functions you tend to really not care about, making backfiring against them all the more difficult. You don't often hear an infp making 'Si-ish' criticisms to people, for example.

  36. #36
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    If your supervisor is driving you crazy just remember:

    It's just a psychological mind game. They will always innately have the upper hand with you in the psychological realm. But that's just one dimension. Anybody feels enough pain if you run them over with a TRUCK.

  37. #37
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with this thread. I also state that it's not hard to be mistaken for one's benefactor.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  38. #38
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyinred View Post
    seems like people are often attracted in supervision, especially supervisees are attracted to their supervisors. is this the case for others here, too, or is it just random observations on my part?
    Definitely seems to be the case. I know SO MANY supervision couples it's ridiculous. It might even be the most common relationship after dual. From what I've heard the Russians think the "better" relationships are more common, but IMO it's really the extro/intro combination that makes a relationship tick. Hence Dual, Supervision, Mirror, and even Conflict are common but Activation, Identity, Benefit, etc. are not.

    and myabe if its true then acting like ones own benefactor, dual's supervisor, is a good way to attract a dual :wink:
    ಠ_ಠ

    Or just, like, act like yourself.

  39. #39
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    It might even be the most common relationship after dual.
    From my experience, beneficiary is the second-most common.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  40. #40
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,359
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    SEE's fascinate me to say the least, I feel rather at aw when I see what they're capable of like they're a pretty, sparkly, thing that both draws me in and confuses me simultaneously. But to answer your question, I do find some SEE men rather enduring from afar.
    My relationships have leaned more on the superficial-amiable side of contact thus far, so I can't say I relate to, and really understand, feeling the burn of inferiority from Supervision on my part

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze View Post
    supervisee uses their creative function to attack the supervisor's role function. these can be quite unpleasant and retaliatory for the supervisor.
    I don't remember if I've been made to feel uncomfortable by Ti hits from ILE's, from what I recall I just become defensive or needy of Te in those situations, like asking a lot of questions as to where and whom they got their information from

    The only time I really get threatened by ILE's is when they use their role which kind of mimics SLE to me briefly
    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •