Benefit relations reinterpreted

[krieger]

There is an area of life in which the two partners share their values, but the attitude of the two persons towards this area of life is different. For one thing, the two have opposite talents, thus making the two capable of complementing eachother. For another thing, however, the height of their standards is mismatched:

The benefactor is perfectionistic towards this area of life. S/he believes there is a very small number of correct answers to the questions s/he poses him/herself about the issues relevant to this area of life.

The beneficiary, on the other hand, is laconical about these same issues and is quickly satisfied with any results he gets in regard to them. His/her standards for correctness are lower.

The result is that the benefactor feels that the beneficiary, although clearly giving input that is useful to the benefactor's pursuits, is incapable of taking his/her concerns seriously. S/he feels that the beneficiary is clowning around and not making enough of a focussed effort to understand what s/he needs. Meanwhile, the height of the quality of the input that the beneficiary receives from the benefactor is entirely lost on them and the beneficiary is only left disappointed by the lacking frequency at which the input is sent their way.

In the other area of life, the beneficiary is perfectionistically slaving away in a way that looks pointless to the benefactor because the benefactor knows a way to get results in that same area of life that takes them much less effort.

Anyone recognize this?

[tcaudilllg]

There is an area of life in which the two partners share their values, but the attitude of the two persons towards this area of life is different. For one thing, the two have opposite talents, thus making the two capable of complementing eachother. For another thing, however, the height of their standards is mismatched:

The benefactor is perfectionistic towards this area of life. S/he believes there is a very small number of correct answers to the questions s/he poses him/herself about the issues relevant to this area of life.

The beneficiary, on the other hand, is laconical about these same issues and is quickly satisfied with any results he gets in regard to them. His/her standards for correctness are lower.

The result is that the benefactor feels that the beneficiary, although clearly giving input that is useful to the benefactor's pursuits, is incapable of taking his/her concerns seriously. S/he feels that the beneficiary is clowning around and not making enough of a focussed effort to understand what s/he needs. Meanwhile, the height of the quality of the input that the beneficiary receives from the benefactor is entirely lost on them and the beneficiary is only left disappointed by the lacking frequency at which the input is sent their way.

In the other area of life, the beneficiary is perfectionistically slaving away in a way that looks pointless to the benefactor because the benefactor knows a way to get results in that same area of life that takes them much less effort.

Anyone recognize this?

It's consistent with Model B, so I approve.

Now if you want people outside of socionics to believe you, you might want to explain this thesis in terms of each of its 16 incarnations.

[Brilliand]

Sounds good to me. Finally an explanation of why the HA can be dissatisfied with "too much" input!

[krieger]

The most important thing, I believe, is the fact that beneficiaries tend not to have as high an opinion of their benefactors as the conventional theories claim. The height of the quality of the benefector's input is lost on them and they are only grated by the lacking frequency at which the input is sent their way.

[tcaudilllg]

IEI NiFe tends to feel threatening to me. I tend to resist thinking of "choices" of nations and countries... instead I try to break it down into individual choices which just happen to coincide sometimes.

[krieger]

My own grandmother is an INFp. It took me a very long time to figure out what type she was because I though that I would have to get along better with an Fe type than with her. The way I currently see things, the only function that she shared my values in, was the one that she uses in a way that doesn't match my quality needs. Hence her "Fe" just doesn't deliver. It tries too hard and isn't responsive. My relation will all INFps is like this. The conventional theories just explain the relation the wrong way as far as I'm concerned.

[xerx]

There is an area of life in which the two partners share their values, but the attitude of the two persons towards this area of life is different. For one thing, the two have opposite talents, thus making the two capable of complementing eachother. For another thing, however, the height of their standards is mismatched:

The benefactor is perfectionistic towards this area of life. S/he believes there is a very small number of correct answers to the questions s/he poses him/herself about the issues relevant to this area of life.

The beneficiary, on the other hand, is laconical about these same issues and is quickly satisfied with any results he gets in regard to them. His/her standards for correctness are lower.

The result is that the benefactor feels that the beneficiary, although clearly giving input that is useful to the benefactor's pursuits, is incapable of taking his/her concerns seriously. S/he feels that the beneficiary is clowning around and not making enough of a focussed effort to understand what s/he needs. Meanwhile, the height of the quality of the input that the beneficiary receives from the benefactor is entirely lost on them and the beneficiary is only left disappointed by the lacking frequency at which the input is sent their way.

In the other area of life, the beneficiary is perfectionistically slaving away in a way that looks pointless to the benefactor because the benefactor knows a way to get results in that same area of life that takes them much less effort.

Anyone recognize this?

Good stuff.

Which Model A functions do you correlate this to? (If any)

[Brilliand]

Good stuff.

Which Model A functions do you correlate this to? (If any)

As is standard for descriptions of Benefit, this description revolves around the shared axis - for you and your Benefactor the LSE, that's your , your , his and his . All four are relevant. Specifically, this describes how your relates to his (more than he needs, but too low-quality to be useful), and how his relates to your (who cares about the high quality, there's not enough of it for you).

[nilv]

The most important thing, I believe, is the fact that beneficiaries tend not to have as high an opinion of their benefactors as the conventional theories claim. The height of the quality of the benefector's input is lost on them and they are only grated by the lacking frequency at which the input is sent their way.

I agree with this. In fact, I think some relations of benefit can even be "backwards" in the sense that the benefactor appears over invested in the relationship. The benefactor might try harder and harder to correct or "reform" the beneficiary while the latter can become detached, dismissive, and resentful, seeming to hold more power in the relationship. Consequently, it might be hard to recognize this relationship, as it takes different forms depending on the specific types and individuals involved.

[Kittykat]

Oh wow. This is very dead-on. I agree that the descriptions of relations of benefit aren't always exactly accurate; I think what you have written is a better description.

[bobbybeam]

There is an area of life in which the two partners share their values, but the attitude of the two persons towards this area of life is different. For one thing, the two have opposite talents, thus making the two capable of complementing eachother. For another thing, however, the height of their standards is mismatched:

The benefactor is perfectionistic towards this area of life. S/he believes there is a very small number of correct answers to the questions s/he poses him/herself about the issues relevant to this area of life.

The beneficiary, on the other hand, is laconical about these same issues and is quickly satisfied with any results he gets in regard to them. His/her standards for correctness are lower.

The result is that the benefactor feels that the beneficiary, although clearly giving input that is useful to the benefactor's pursuits, is incapable of taking his/her concerns seriously. S/he feels that the beneficiary is clowning around and not making enough of a focussed effort to understand what s/he needs. Meanwhile, the height of the quality of the input that the beneficiary receives from the benefactor is entirely lost on them and the beneficiary is only left disappointed by the lacking frequency at which the input is sent their way.

In the other area of life, the beneficiary is perfectionistically slaving away in a way that looks pointless to the benefactor because the benefactor knows a way to get results in that same area of life that takes them much less effort.

Anyone recognize this?

If you don't mind, could you please explain this with IEE and LIE or LIE and SLE? I am trying to understand, but I need two types to focus on so that I can better break down what you are saying.

[krieger]

If you don't mind, could you please explain this with IEE and LIE ...?

I could try, but it'll be difficult for me because I don't know the relation from a first person perspective.

As an ENFp, you want someone that carefully takes the time to gather information on a topic that concerns you. Someone that really does his best to understand your problem indepthly without involving subjectivity or fantasies in the investigation. This is the description of Creating Te.

An ENTj does something... that is not quite like this. An ENTj likes to gather technical information, yes, but doesn't like piecing the information together the way an IxTp type likes to. ENTjs just focus on the oppurtunities that the information provides. So whatever the ENTj finds will be a little bit useful to your problem... but the ENTj never goes all the way. This is what I mean by "clowning about". The ENTj doesn't take your problem as seriously as you would like them to.


Here is an example from my own life: my ISTp father occasionally helps me select clothing. This is a very Si ish topic. Now my father basically likes something about every piece of clothing that he sees. Myself, on the other hand, I approach clothing with extreme perfectionism: when I walk into a shop, I look for the coat this is just right for me. He, on the other hand, suggests a million coats to me that all seem a little bit good to him. I keep giving him reasons why the coats are not "just right", but it's as if he can't take in this information the way I want him to. The idea of a coat this is "just right" doesn't seem to hold weight with him they way it does with me.

[bobbybeam]

I could try, but it'll be difficult for me because I don't know the relation from a first person perspective.

As an ENFp, you want someone that carefully takes the time to gather information on a topic that concerns you. Someone that really does his best to understand your problem indepthly without involving subjectivity or fantasies in the investigation. This is the description of Creating Te.

An ENTj does something... that is not quite like this. An ENTj likes to gather technical information, yes, but doesn't like piecing the information together the way an IxTp type likes to. ENTjs just focus on the oppurtunities that the information provides. So whatever the ENTj finds will be a little bit useful to your problem... but the ENTj never goes all the way. This is what I mean by "clowning about". The ENTj doesn't take your problem as seriously as you would like them to.


Here is an example from my own life: my ISTp father occasionally helps me select clothing. This is a very Si ish topic. Now my father basically likes something about every piece of clothing that he sees. Myself, on the other hand, I approach clothing with extreme perfectionism: when I walk into a shop, I look for the coat this is just right for me. He, on the other hand, suggests a million coats to me that all seem a little bit good to him. I keep giving him reasons why the coats are not "just right", but it's as if he can't take in this information the way I want him to. The idea of a coat this is "just right" doesn't seem to hold weight with him they way it does with me.

I see. So he doesn't go "all balls out" (excuse the term) to help me w/ my issue. He is lacking the long detailed/ deep approach that I need in order to solve my problem. So it is on the borderline of helping, but doesn't get the job done which leaves me w/out.. almost like a teaser?

I liked that you used your own personal experience for an example, thanks

[krieger]

almost like a teaser?

well from what I understand, a "teaser" is someone in a superior position to you, someone capable of making you feel intrigued with them that doesn't deliver on whatever implicit promise they send out. That's not what this is. The ENTj would look boring and useless to you. Like someone that "tries" but just doesn't have the stuff. It's a pretty negative judgment.

[bobbybeam]

oh, i see now. the beneficiary does not hold power over the benefactor, he just can't fully provide what the benefactor needs. no "tease" just inadequate.

[Solidad]

Anyone recognize this?

Yes, wow!

thank you for that information!!

Here is my personal example:

I was beneficiary (INFJ subtype Ne) to my benefactor (INTP subtype Te) & there is a lot of relevance in your description to our relationship..

I was drawn to his straightforward strength(Te) & dark-yet-poignant irony(Ni)..while remaining a sweet, emotionally uncomplicated person.

He was drawn to my kindness, open emotions, being ideas-person, & silly/humorous attitude.... he liked that I had a "childlike quality" also met me during a time when I was pretty adventurous (over-compensating with Polr Se from environmental stress...post trauma) so that was perhaps intriguing to him - Also, I can just be more out-going at parties (especially when cocktails are involved -lol!-) & so I know I can appear superficially like a sassy extrovert sometimes.

Also, he said he liked that I was "different" from other people. We met in a town that did not many Ne or Ni dominant types around, so that (newness? intrigue?) might have have contributed to initial attraction.

We also had a shared interest in older german vehicles (we owned the same model) and motorcycles. Also, one of my favorite movies is "Brazil" so I guess we kind of initially bonded on those commonalities. I only saw them as coincidences, however... he seemed to interpret them as omens (Ni?).

We dated for awhile, have decided to stay friends, while drifting apart in the amount of verbal & physical contact -

No drama or anything...we just evolved into moving apart... &.. I DO see it (in light of socionics) as some natural progression....an eventual parting of benefit/beneficiary ways -

I enjoyed spending time with him, I felt physically safe with him in many ways, and did (and still do love & respect him)

but
Eventually we drifted...
he thought that, despite my being sweet & initially intriguing, that I was too scatter-brained (heavy Ne dominant w/bad Te usage???) & I wasn't integrating into his plans for how I should fit into his life (is this Ni?). I think that frustrated him...and if he showed anger (which was *rare* by the way)...it would make me sad/guilty feeeling (Fi) & I would just shrink away more (Se polr regarding conflict)... which he could not understand & would continue his frustration....and an endless loop..of the same.

I probably did not show enough appreciation his strong needs enough (Te efficiency? & Ni wholeness?...with a Se be-strong-&-suck-it-up kind of dual-seeking need) --and I AM very scatter-brained & can be gun-shy w/people IRL... so he was correct in noticing these things.

clowning around and not making enough of a focused effort to understand what s/he needs.

Yes, absolutmo!

He would think I was not serious enough with taking his advise (when for me I just didn't feel I was able to do what he needed) I think my attempts seemed half-assed or "clowning around"...although, he still knew that I meant well...& I knew the same about him.

In the other area of life, the beneficiary is perfectionistically slaving away in a way that looks pointless to the benefactor because the benefactor knows a way to get results in that same area of life that takes them much less effort.

yes, yes!

I was trying to re-build my life on multiple levels (I didn't talk to him about the day-to-day with how increadibly stressful & hard this was for me). But when I would tentatively broach the subject ...he had (in my mind) simplistic or not thorough enough (& therefore not useful) advise for me. Due to our type differences...for him, I guess it would have been easy. For me it was not.

I've been through a lot of personal trauma (which I discussed in a Delta thread) & so my core Fi has really been threatened & crushed in many ways -- the result is that I'm VERY afraid of people hurting me in the future & afraid of relationships. My Ti has now become a protection for me in life.

The ILI was sympathetic to a degree but also felt I was expending too much energy (Te efficiency) "worrying" & should move on or get over it or just go relax with Si.

Though, to be fair...I don't feel I should just lump that attitude solely on the shoulders of ILI ...as I get those kinds of similar recommendations (pressure?) from many Te-dominant & Se-dominant & Si-dominant types...or sometimes...even just from people who've never experienced surviving extreme trauma w/a result of some PTSD.

(specifically,....Si doesn't necessarily help EII [with already Si achilles heel] if EII core function of Fi has been *shredded* to bits... EII needs acceptance,protection, use of Ti to "make sense" of everything ...before healing happens...and then eventually..the luxury of Si)

So, maybe my specific situation is more complicated than just benefactor/beneficiary...but I still related to the majority of what you said!

Overall, though....Dang!

thanks for input labcoat!!

...at least for me this has been informative & helpful to me (for my Ne&Ti)

[Blaze]

nice job labcoat. the theory of the wrong dosages. benefit relations kind of similar to activity relations that way. makes a lot of sense. you are on to something about why these relations don't work as well on a close distance. (along similar lines, mirror relations are similar to relations of supervision; mirror is sort of like "supervision-lite, low fat version".)

i have noticed that relations of benefit work very well at work. this is because of the interaction between the benefactor's leading function and the beneficiary's 8th. although the beneficiary doesn't value their 8th function, they still are good at it and will access it. therefore, the beneficiary can "use" the information coming from the benefactor's leading function.

by contrast, the beneficiary's creative function is the benefactor's 7th function, so the benefactor is more dismissive of the beneficiary's tailor made specific efforts. this is what puts the benefactor in the more dominant position over the beneficiary.

despite the fact that the benefactor receives too high a dosage of the beneficiary's leading function, the benefactor, at work, will overlook this. they will acknowledge it intellectually, but since the beneficiary's leading is in the ballpark of their hidden agenda, they still will get some use from the beneficiary and so will see the beneficiary as an ally, especially since the beneficiary is able to use the data generated from the benefactor's leading function.

these relations, at work, are nearly impossible for someone else to break up or overcome. the benefactor, while intellectually acknowledging the limitations of the beneficiary, will neverless have a blind spot about the beneficiary and will resist any criticism of the beneficiary and block any outside efforts to undermine the beneficiary.

i've seen it even in myself: i've watched myself as a supervisor protect enfj's again and again at work. although i will listen to complaints about them, i won't take any action against them since my perception is that they support my agenda. i've also seen this between an IEE and LIE and an LIE and SLE.

actually, the ring of benefit is responsible for most of the work that gets done in organizations, and for most of the progress that is made.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Blaze]

well, supporting another's agenda is not the same as somebody interfering in another's work. but i do see what you are saying about the benefactor smiling....i think this is true, it's how they come across. i think it's because of the beneficiary's leading and how the beneficiary makes use of the information coming from the benefactor.

how does the beneficiary feel about the benefactor, though.

i guess the distance between benefit partners is perfect for work, but wrong for romantic.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Blaze]

looking at the whole thread we have a great explanation for how benefit relations develop on a close, romantic distance, AND for how they express themeselves at work. we understand these differences are a function of distance and context.

thanks for creating the thread labcoat...i've been contemplating benefit relations for awhile now.