Accounting for Rational/Irrational type interactions in Benefit and Supervison Relations

[CheGuevara]

In my opinion it is an obvious mistake on every Socionics website I know that they do not distinguish between "Supervision j>p" and "Supervision p>j" respectively "Benefit j>p" and "Benefit p>j".

I know a lot of beneficiaries (IEE) and supervisees (SLI) and normally get along with them very well. With benefactors (IEI) and supervisors (SLE) it is much more complicated.

I assume that j>p - relations are generally much better than p>j - relations. The reason might be that Alpha and Delta members get better along with each other than Alpha and Beta members.

The question is: why does no Socionics website distinguish between j>p and p>j???

[Blaze]

che. being the object of supervision is much much worse than supervising. for everybody. i don't think this has much to do with p on j or j on p.

and, i'm not sure that alphas always get along better with deltas than with betas. i think alpha rationals get along better with deltas; alpha irrationals get along better with beta.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah the supervisor doesn't really realize how much of an annoying bug he's being most of the time. It's just so natural. But if you watch yourself you really start to see how you do it, but again it's so natural it's hard to stop. Even when you really make a conscious effort to stop supervising your supervisee, it just kinda happens.

Remember they are asymmetrical relationships. They're not based on a mutual loathing, the supervisor is very fond of the supervisee, but the supervisee cannot stand the supervisor.

[Azeroffs]

and, i'm not sure that alphas always get along better with deltas than with betas. i think alpha rationals get along better with deltas; alpha irrationals get along better with beta.

I was thinking about this.. I think that you'll find the types on the right side of your functional stacking are better than those on the left side. For example, ILE will get along better with STs than with NFs. Beta STs don't touch ILE's PoLR like delta NFs do. Delta STs provide ILE's dual seeking unlike beta NFs who bore ILE with Ni.

[CheGuevara]

che. being the object of supervision is much much worse than supervising. for everybody. i don't think this has much to do with p on j or j on p.

Yeah, that's how it is described. But I got the impression that even my supervisee gets along better with me than my supervisor does...

and, i'm not sure that alphas always get along better with deltas than with betas. i think alpha rationals get along better with deltas; alpha irrationals get along better with beta.

No, I don't think so. There is Gulenko's article about eqifinal groups on wikisocion. The "groups of social progress" are no quadras, of course, but people of such a group should get along well.

Remember they are asymmetrical relationships. They're not based on a mutual loathing, the supervisor is very fond of the supervisee, but the supervisee cannot stand the supervisor.

I did't have romantic relations with supervisees so far. I just had some friends of this type and saw an LII-IEE relation work quite well. You certainly know that this 0100-relation is the one Keirsey recommends. I am INTJ/INTj, always got along very well with ENFPs/ENFps and saw some relationships and friendships of this type. On the other hand, I never saw any INTj-ESTp relationships or friendships. Therefore I am of the opinion that Keirsey isn't completely wrong and that you have to distinguish between "supervision j>p" which can be a very good relation and "supervision p>j" which hardly ever seems to work.

[Jarno]

The question is: why does no Socionics website distinguish between j>p and p>j???

because only function order is top priority.

[1981slater]

I
The question is: why does no Socionics website distinguish between j>p and p>j???

j>p supervision

"Be rational, asshole!"

p>j supervision

"Be irrational, asshole!"

[CheGuevara]

because only function order is top priority.

That's the main problem of socionics.us. Rick de Long thinks that functional analysis is everything. He doesn't offer useful type descriptions because "just analyse the functions". He thinks j>p = p>j because "just analyse the functions".
I still think this approach is the main reason for all the misconceptions and mistyping on this forum.
You can't type people only by functional analysis! The more important point is comparing type descriptions!
You can't say LII>IEE = SLE>LII. That' ridiculous. These relations are completely different although they are both called "supervision"!

[Blaze]

I was thinking about this.. I think that you'll find the types on the right side of your functional stacking are better than those on the left side. For example, ILE will get along better with STs than with NFs. Beta STs don't touch ILE's PoLR like delta NFs do. Delta STs provide ILE's dual seeking unlike beta NFs who bore ILE with Ni.

except the beta NF's have the Fe. in beta, i get along well enough with SLE. IEI and i get along famously (my man is infpman, a great relationship, really). i get along ok with EIE and LSE, about as well as with SLE. SLI and i see things the same way, but do things very very differently and it's a source of conflict and misunderstanding. i really like LSI's...but they don't like me, so i try to keep the distance, so i don't vibe them too much. but overall, there's much more there for me in beta rather than delta, since beta is much more exciting and novel. they interest me more. delta does not interest me in the least, probably mainly due to their Fi way of doing things, which runs through the whole quadra. not to mention the EII supervision which i find revolting.

ij've noticed the opposite effect with alpha rationals. my daughter, age 12, is an esfj and she loves my delta grandparents, esp my dad who is EII. he's her illusionary and she loves spending time with him. with my mom, who is LSE, it's kinda like ok for her, but it's my dad and my sister in law, who's also EII that she loves.

my other daughter, an entp, age 7, feels totally picked on by my dad. i've seen it in action. she feels completely misunderstood and as though she is blamed and a bad girl. she came home from a vacation with them last summer and it took me about 2 hours to get her calmed down and feeling right again. it was funny though, i could totally see how she felt, but my esfj daughter would say to the entp: you're taking it the wrong way, he wasn't saying that. but i could totally see why the 7 year old would take it the way she did.

now, on the other hand, my guy is esfj's supervisor...and you can see this playing out. he gets a little frustrated with her "too much Fe" "wasting too much time" and "not being tough enough" kinda stuff. my ex's wife is also an infp. so, entp feels very comfortable with my ex (SLE), his wife (IEI) and me (ILE) and my man (IEI). but for esfj she connects best with me, and secondarily SLE.

i also have the idea that betas are more receptive to ILE ideas than one would theoretically believe. they take good ideas and run with them. whereas delta sees ILE ideas as subversive of their sense of order and values. i guess it must be the Ti spin on ILE's Ne ideas that does this. i usually think Ni is pretty interesting and i think that beta thinks Ne is interesting, at least in conversation. when it comes to what to do there's some frustration with Ne vs Ni. i think beta overcomes it though, through sheer force of Se. :-)

i just think that the quadra from which you receive the superviison is going to be much more uncomfortable than the quadra in which you deliver some supervision. ergo, beta irrationals will tend toward alpha, while beta rationals will tend toward gamma etc etc etc.

just my 2 cents though. maybe others see it differently.

[CheGuevara]

i get along well enough with SLE.

Look-a-like. That's one of the good relations in my opinion. I also get along well with EIIs. Socionics.com says the same...

i get along ok with EIE and LSE

Benefit. Not bad, of course. I know a lot of SLIs.

SLI and i see things the same way, but do things very very differently and it's a source of conflict and misunderstanding.

Semi-duality. I also have a lot of conflicts with my EIE-mother or the EIE-owner of this forum.

i really like LSI's...but they don't like me, so i try to keep the distance, so i don't vibe them too much.

Supervision p>j. I really don't like SLEs so I think j-supervisees hardly ever like their p-supervisors. It may only work if the supervisor is in a superior position (boss, grandfather or something). Then the supervisee might accept the fact that the supervisor has the right to supervise him.

IEI and i get along famously (my man is infpman, a great relationship, really).

Sounds strange. Illusionary should be one of the worst relations according to socionics.com. I don't know any persons in a good relationship of that type...

delta does not interest me in the least, probably mainly due to their Fi way of doing things, which runs through the whole quadra. not to mention the EII supervision which i find revolting.

Sounds strange. I know an ILE and an EII who are good friends. According to personalitypage.com ENTP-INFJ is the best relation besides ENTP-INTJ.

You are certainly ENTP. Do you think your husband is INFP or INFJ on personalitypage.com?
To be honest, I think you might mix up IEI and EII. You certainly have a good understanding of Socionics theory but I suspect there is a bias concerning IEI/EII...

[Trevor]

I know a lot of beneficiaries (IEE) and supervisees (SLI) and normally get along with them very well.

It's because you supervise and benefactorize them.

With benefactors (IEI) and supervisors (SLE) it is much more complicated.

It's because they supervise and benefactorize you.

duh

[krieger]

I agree with the central premise of this thread. I have definitely had similar suspicions.

I know a lot of beneficiaries (IEE) and supervisees (SLI) and normally get along with them very well. With benefactors (IEI) and supervisors (SLE) it is much more complicated.

My experiences have been the same.

[CheGuevara]

my daughter, age 12, is an esfj and she loves my delta grandparents, esp my dad who is EII. he's her illusionary and she loves spending time with him.

Would you please consider the possibility that you might have an EII/IEI-bias? ESE-EII really doesn't work in my opinion. It is conceivable that your father is IEI so he would be the supervisor of your daughter. Relations of supervision work very well if the supervisor is in a superior position which is obviously the case here.

my other daughter, an entp, age 7, feels totally picked on by my dad. i've seen it in action. she feels completely misunderstood and as though she is blamed and a bad girl.

You see it as a relation of supervision? I don't think so. I'm almost sure you consequently mix up supervison and illusion. Please don't be shocked but... yes... I'm pretty sure now....

To me it seems obvious:
Your conception of "illusionary" is my conception of "supervision" and vice versa.
Your conception of "EII" is my conception of "IEI" and vice versa.

The only question is: Who is right?

Would you please check
- if your husband really has a lot of beta friends and your father really has a lot of delta friends
- if you conception of supervision and illusionary relations are consistent with the descriptions on socionics.com

[Blaze]

i am right. you are wrong. end.

[CheGuevara]

i am right. you are wrong. end.

You can't be serious. If you are serious I have to question your self-typing.

I'd really like to discuss that because I want to make sure I am not the one who is wrong.

Do you think your husband is an MBTI-INTJ or an MBTI-INTP?

[Blaze]

Would you please consider the possibility that you might have an EII/IEI-bias? ESE-EII really doesn't work in my opinion. It is conceivable that your father is IEI so he would be the supervisor of your daughter. Relations of supervision work very well if the supervisor is in a superior position which is obviously the case here.

relations of supervision can look conformal for a time, but they inevitably deteriorate despite the connection between the supervisee's leading function and the supervisor's creative function. when the supervisor is in a contextually superior position in addition to his or her natural psychological superiority the supervision is magnified by a large degree. an example is having to be supervised at work by your socionics supervisor. you literally cannot do anything right.

you are not understanding socionics correctly and i suspect you have been influenced by MBTI esp when you reference personality page.

at the wiki, you can read up on the issue of j/p switch which essentially summarizes that MBTI "p" introverts are socionics "j" introverts and vice versa.

i speak on supervision having interacted with socionics supervisors and supervisees IRL. i am getting older, which means there's a lot of practical experience for me to draw on and in a wide variety of contexts.

You see it as a relation of supervision? I don't think so. I'm almost sure you consequently mix up supervison and illusion. Please don't be shocked but... yes... I'm pretty sure now....

i don't see how you are in a position to know the types of the people i am referring to.


Would you please check
- if your husband really has a lot of beta friends and your father really has a lot of delta friends
- if you conception of supervision and illusionary relations are consistent with the descriptions on socionics.com

i don't have to check since i am quite familiar with the site that you mention, which many here consider to be biased and at best an introduction to socionics. if you had read more carefully you would have noted that i do not have a husband....i have a partner who lives with me, who is familiar with socionics, self types as an infp, and concurs with my typing of my daughters.

you might trying reading more about how people experience supervision, in addition to the textbook descriptions that abound. how people experience any relation, however, depends completely on the accuracy of their self typing and their typing of their partner. in other words, better to have the types of the people involved correct than to try first to type the relation.

regarding illusionary, look toward the wiki. filatova, moveover, discusses illusionary relations as one of the best. and, what i've seen of my daughter and her grandfather further supports that position.

in short, it's important to add IRL experiences to an academic understanding of socionics, coupled with several years of discussion with people who are also well versed in it.

HTH.

[CheGuevara]

i suspect you have been influenced by MBTI esp when you reference personality page.

Yes, of course. personalitypage is a very good website. I think you shouldn't ignore MBTI completely.

at the wiki, you can read up on the issue of j/p switch which essentially summarizes that MBTI "p" introverts are socionics "j" introverts and vice versa.

Oh my god! You really believe that?!

In my opinion the j/p-switch is complete bullshit. If you compare the descriptions on personalitypage.com and socionics.com you will realize that the j/p-switch is just a stupid invention by stupid people who didn't read all the 16 MBTI descriptions and all the 16 socionics descriptions carefully. Everyone who compares all the descriptions should realize that a j/p-switch is ridiculous.

I started a thread concerning wrong self-typings because people rely on functional analysis instead of type descriptions. I started this thread to state the fact that p>j-supervision is in no way the same as j>p-supervision although a stupid functional analysis looks like that. The j/p-switch is the third major problem which is based on functional analysis instead of type descriptions.

1.) You can't type people correctly just by functional analysis.
2.) You can't describe relations correctly just by functional analysis.
3.) You can't convert MBTI -> Socionics just by functional analysis that would imply a j/p-switch.

i don't see how you are in a position to know the types of the people i am referring to.

I am not in such a position, of course. But it seems obvious that your conception of an illusionary relation is my conception of a relation of supervision and vice versa. So your conception of an INFj must be my conception of an INFp and vice versa. If I would know your partner and your father I would probably type your partner INFj and your father INFp. That's the most likely explanation for the fact that we have completely different conceptions of illusionary relations and relations of supervisons. Especially beacause you believe in the j/p-switch I strongly disagree with.
No offence meant.:redface:

i don't have to check since i am quite familiar with the site that you mention, which many here consider to be biased and at best an introduction to socionics.

socionics.us is much more biased and misguiding in my opinion. I just wanted to state the fact that "illusionary" is described as one of the worst relations and I don't know any people who have a good "illusionary" relation.

It obviously depends on the question: j/p-switch or no j/p-switch?

As you type your man INFp and your father INFj you think of illusionary as a very good relation and of supervision as a very bad relation. I think of supervision as a very good relation and of illusionary as a very bad relation which is consistant with the description.

my man is infpman, a great relationship, really
[...]
if you had read more carefully you would have noted that i do not have a husband....i have a partner who lives with me, who is familiar with socionics, self types as an infp, and concurs with my typing of my daughters.

I always read carefully but sometimes get in trouble with the English language. I thought "my man" would mean the same as "my husband". But please don't think I don't know nothing about socionics just because I sometimes misunderstand English expressions...

regarding illusionary, look toward the wiki. filatova, moveover, discusses illusionary relations as one of the best. and, what i've seen of my daughter and her grandfather further supports that position.

The question is: Why is a very good realation called "illusionary". Doesn't make sense to me. The illusion is that your dual's look-a-like is your illusionary partner. So you can easily mix them up and get an illusion instead of a dualization.

[Blaze]

the j-p switch has pretty good face validity. i've seen a lot of people come to 16t who typed MBTI intj then eventually self typed socionically as intp. and other introverted types have switched back and forth too. so, i go by what i see here.

honestly i don't know what to tell you about illusionary and supervision. i don't think we are ever going to agree. but as you can see from what many say on the forum....being the supervisee sucks. and being the supervisor dealing with supervisee retalitation sucks, too. so you can either wedge open your mind or you can continue to think that you already know everything.

it may be that i experience illusionary differently than other people, i don't know. perhaps i have been permanently beta-ized by my SLE ex husband. or permanently anti-deltatized by my family. i won't say illusionary is a conflict-free relation. you do tend to get into misunderstandings about how to do things and when to do things and at times, what to do. so it's not perfect and it's not like a dual, but overall still a pretty good relation since you meet on the level of rationality/irrationality, creative & hidden agenda, and introversion/extroversion.

*shrugs*

[redbaron]

yeah I gotta back Blaze here. I think illusionary is better than supervision, if only due to the temperament compatibility. don't underestimate that!

[CheGuevara]

the j-p switch has pretty good face validity. i've seen a lot of people come to 16t who typed MBTI intj then eventually self typed socionically as intp. and other introverted types have switched back and forth too. so, i go by what i see here.

In my opinion the main reason is the inaccuracy of MBTI-tests. The second reason is that people don't use subtypes. There are Ni-INFjs who use very often and there are Fi-INFps who use very often. I'm actually an Ni-INTj who uses very often. That's why some people here question my self-typing and say that I must be INFp or INTp because of my strong . These people really should learn more about subtypes!

honestly i don't know what to tell you about illusionary and supervision. i don't think we are ever going to agree. but as you can see from what many say on the forum....being the supervisee sucks. and being the supervisor dealing with supervisee retalitation sucks, too. so you can either wedge open your mind or you can continue to think that you already know everything.

Do you question my self-typing?

INTjs are the most open-minded people of all types (besides ENTps). I believe in no way that I know everything. That's the reason why I want to discuss this aspect with you.

Are you familiar with subtype theory? What subtype do you think you are? What subtypes are your partner and your father?

it may be that i experience illusionary differently than other people, i don't know. perhaps i have been permanently beta-ized by my SLE ex husband. or permanently anti-deltatized by my family.

I think it's no surprise that you like SLEs because look-a-like can be a very good relation. But I don't think you can become anti-delta because you had problems with your parents or that you can become pro-beta because you had friends of the beta quadra. That's not how it works.

I'd be really interested in
- the number of beta- and gamma-friends your partner has
- the number of beta- and gamma-friends your father has

Maybe - just maybe, of course - you think of your father as INFj because your mother is ESTj so it would fit. But there are some conflict relations that work because of subtypes. As your father and your partner are probably very different you had no other choice than typing your partner INFp. But isn't there a small possibility that it might be the other way round?

Please don't think of me as a know-it-all. I just want to discuss about it to understand if I have a wrong conception of supervision and illusion. But I don't think I have...