I was wondering mainly how people feel about their supervisees, which I know is a really general question, and has probably already been covered. But what I was mostly wondering is if it would actually be typical to not go the way of somehow despising your supervisee because their PoLR is your lead function and they ignore all of your input, but instead valuing them because you agree that their lead function is terribly important (just not quite as important as they seem to treat it as, but close enough), and then feel protective of them regarding their "weakness" (your leading IME) and able to accept that it just isn't a strength and they don't value it (and that's okay) because you do feel "aligned" with them in a subtle sense regarding your creative function. And then perhaps the people who not only disregard your leading function but don't share any quadra values with you end up becoming the greater "annoyance" when you have to be in close quarters with them because you can find no common ground whatsoever, where as with your supervisee you at least know you can rely on them to address and cover half of your quadra values... so then why feel that different about them than you would of your business relation, just with the exception that they suck at and devalue your leading IME even more than your business partner who at least can sort of address it as a great pain in the ass in their existance. (though of course the temperament clash would apply with the supervisee)
(forgive the free use of IME/function as though they're interchangeable and the same thing... hopefully you know what I mean)
I think that I've been thinking it would make more sense to feel protective of the supervisee (and then become the "benevolent leader" who tries to bestow their wisdom upon the supervisee, something that the supervisee may find endlessly annoying). But I realize this all depends on context, and I have not given one.