IEI-LIE Supervision Relations (INFp and ENTj)

[Taknamay]

I have heard that Supervisor/Supervisee matches tend not to do well for long term relationships, but are there logical exceptions to this? I would like to observe specifically the relationship between the INFp and the ENTj. The usual problem I have seen is the the ENTj is too critical, and the INFp is too sensitive. But it seems to me that this can play in the relationship's favor.

I think the difference between INFp and ENTj provides a good complimentary pair. The ENTj is directive because of their desire for conquest, and the INFp is responsive because of their desire for the ENTj's favor.

It's not a balanced relationship, and I can understand that it could be draining... but it seems to me that if both sides can respect each others differences, couldn't it be fulfilling for both?

EDIT: Okay, first and foremost, after a few days now I know much more about the differences between Socionics and MBTI. This post was based on the premise that I was an INFp. Therefore, my understanding of what an INFp is like was skewed by my self-perception. I also have a better understand of what "supervision" is. It's not really "someone watching over you" so much as it is "revision," which would be "someone correcting your mistakes." For these reasons, there is really no reason to respond to this original post that started this thread.

In other words: While my original question may be unanswered, the question I was REALLY asking was answered. I mistyped myself.

[mfckr]

I've had compatible relationships w/ INFps before.

IME, it works out fine mentally and physically—the downside is it isn't emotionally sustainable. I'd found it difficult to personally connect in a way that's preferable to me, and I'm generally non-responsive to their guidance in a way that becomes unsatisfying for them.

[Taknamay]

I'm generally non-responsive to their guidance in a way that becomes unsatisfying for them.

Can you elaborate? I am afraid I will be having a hard time understanding without an example.

[mfckr]

.

[Taknamay]

Ah, I see. But I wouldn't give that sort of advice, since I'm socially awkward myself...

Is that unusual for INFp's?

[mfckr]

.

[Taknamay]

Okay, now I can understand how the incorrigibility would frustrate an INFp. So it's relevant to point out that the INFp would have to be able to tolerate the of the ENTj. If the INFp could control themselves not to force from the ENTj, would that leave the INFp unsatisfied? I mean, the idea that someone can get all of the responses they need out of a single relationship is foolish, regardless of pairing.

[mfckr]

.

[Taknamay]

Yes, I definitely see your point. The information you have given me may prove useful to me, and for that I thank you.

[sar]

I've actually thought this before. I fucking hate some ENTjs out there but one of my best friends last year was ENTj and I totally think it could work...definitely fell for her for a bit... I think subtypes might play a slight role...she was the cooler subtype...not the "I know it all and I'm awesome RAWR!" subtype......anyways, if you really think about it intertype relations are at least a bit subjective. Who's to say I don't prefer a relationship in which someone supervises me and takes care of me? but that's just me...and most likely someone on here will talk about how THERE ARE RULES IN SOCIONICS! Entj and Infp will NEVER WORK! ARGGG! I EAT BABIES! RAWR! ...

[Taknamay]

...if you really think about it intertype relations are at least a bit subjective. Who's to say I don't prefer a relationship in which someone supervises me and takes care of me?

Yes, this is essentially my point.

[Marie84]

Well for example, if I pull a social faux pas, they'll point it out to me, explain how I fucked up and that I should've done this or that instead.

That sounds more like

[Jonathan]

Can you elaborate? I am afraid I will be having a hard time understanding without an example.

Well for example, if I pull a social faux pas, they'll point it out to me, explain how I fucked up and that I should've done this or that instead.

Don't mean to interrupt here, but just curious on your thoughts: Don't ISFjs point out if one made a social faux pas? I thought that's pretty typical ISFj behavior to notice if someone violates an ethical norm in some way...

[mfckr]

.

[Marie84]

You just twist anything I say to fit your agenda of me being ESTp.

What did I twist? That's what you posted and it doesn't sound like Fe to me at all, but more like Fi and, in particular, what Fi bases tend to do that would tick off Fi PoLR's when they say or do something that's relationally offensive

If were talking about Fe dominants, I tend to see them as some of the least critical and thick-skinned people when it comes to things like this. Fe creatives on the other hand seem to have a talent for helping people with Fi without coming across as judgmental or uptight, and I can see how this would be helpful to SLE's and ILE's

and ftr, I do strongly believe you're an SLE but your approach to Socionics is vastly different from classical Socionics, so in your system you can very well be LIE and I won't debate you on that

introverted ethics White (introverted) ethics
..............
When this perceptual element is in the leading position, the individual possesses the innate ability to perceive and evaluate wishes/desires — both his own and others'. He always knows who wants what from whom. He is able to set his awareness of subjective reality and his wishes in opposition to those of others. He has the ability to mould and perfect both his own and others' wishes. He possesses both the ability to provide himself with necessary relationships with others and confidence in his capacity to influence other people. His correct perception of human needs allows him to avoid risky collisions when satisfying his own needs. This engenders the ability to manipulate people's attachments, and the ability and desire to influence people's ethical feelings and bring these feelings closer to societal ideals.

Don't mean to interrupt here, but just curious on your thoughts: Don't ISFjs point out if one made a social faux pas? I thought that's pretty typical ISFj behavior to notice if someone violates an ethical norm in some way...

While this wasn't directed at me...I'd say yes, and they do so very confidently and even cuttingly

[Korpsy Knievel]

Don't mean to interrupt here

^ Behold, faux pas avoidance. This is an open discussion just like all other public threads. So why do you act like you're begging permission to retrieve a coin accidentally dropped between two people who are fucking?

Don't ISFjs point out if one made a social faux pas? I thought that's pretty typical ISFj behavior to notice if someone violates an ethical norm in some way...

I find that it's a general ethical trait to remind the uncouth of their manners, not something tied to specific sociotypes. If anything, observation of this forum and its administration shows that it's Si-valuers (i.e. alphas and deltas) who are most invested in upholding propriety and decorum.

[mfckr]

.

[Suz]

Well for example, if I pull a social faux pas, they'll point it out to me, explain how I fucked up and that I should've done this or that instead.

That sounds more like

It's Fe if the social faux pas was about some keeping up of appearances or fitting/contributing to/not going against the pre-established emotional atmosphere.

It's Fi if the social faux pas was about saying/doing something inappropriate towards a friendship (in the sense of doing/saying something that makes you seem like you dont want to be friends) or making oneself look like a person with bad character.

in other words, it could be either one, depending on what the faux pas was.

[bionic]

I'm basing this off of a couple IEIs I know (or at least what type they could be). In terms of a friendship, I've found that I inadvertently had the upper hand and the ability to guide where/how the relationship would go. Personally, I don't like friendships this way. I'd rather it be mutual. I don't want to feel like I'm babysitting a friend. That's just... frustrating.

I've never had many issues with them. If I did, it was usually about them criticizing my lack of social awareness. After awhile, it gets tiring if there is no good reasoning behind them voicing it and they just do it to pick on me due to their own angst.

As for relationships? I almost had one with an IEI E6 who was much older than me. I found that I was the more dominant one in the "relationship". He tried many times to manipulate and try to gain control but I always reacted out of humor towards him. This frustrated him sometimes because I already understood his methods and could anticipate them with ease. He didn't like that I never reacted to his quips. The "relationship" basically ended because of his incessant manipulation and I believe he also felt emasculated by our dynamic. I'm not into tactics like that. I'd rather someone be direct and honest (without aggression) than to be manipulative or passive-aggressive.

[Nico1e]

...if you really think about it intertype relations are at least a bit subjective. Who's to say I don't prefer a relationship in which someone supervises me and takes care of me?

Yes, this is essentially my point.

I have to argue a bit about what the word 'supervision' means here. Some people use that word to mean that someone is watching over you and protecting you.

But the socionics relation called 'supervision' might have been 'lost in translation.' It was translated from Russian, and in the past, they called it 'Revision,' or something like that. They had difficulty deciding what word to call it. So whatever that relation is, it might not mean the same thing that 'supervision' suggests in your mind.

I've had some experiences with 'the bad kind' of supervision relationships. The situation is worst whenever somebody actually has power over you, like a boss at work. You have to obey what they tell you to do. However, because of the socionic functions, you are going to disagree strongly with a lot of the things they require you to do, and you will see what looks like these big, obvious weaknesses about them, or else they will seem like just a horribly cruel and insane person who's abusing you for no reason - it depends on whether your type is the 'top' or the 'bottom' of the socionic relation. But it's only like that if they have power over you.

If two people in a supervision relation are talking together in a place where nobody really has power over the other, then you can sort of ignore, or avoid, or not even notice at all, each other's weaknesses. You can talk about common interests and avoid any of the weaknesses. I have a couple real-world relations with ESEs, my supervisor, and we are almost always okay with each other, because they're not in a position where they command me to do things that I disagree with. Instead we just talk to each other like normal people. But we wouldn't get along if we lived in the same house together.

I also know a suspected LIE in real life, and he is in the upper level management at the place where I work, so I have to obey the rules that he makes. And it turns out that yes, this does indeed cause conflicts, and whenever I notice something that bothers me, it does in fact fit the theory that my base function, Si, is complaining whenever he makes decisions that value other things above Si.

I remember some bad experiences with ESEs in the past, in my childhood - they were the kids in school who would mock me and make fun of the things I was saying. They had this ability to imitate my tone of voice in a way that made me look really pathetic. And so I tense up if I walk past a group of people who are all laughing loudly - I get this feeling that they're laughing at me, even though I know they're not. When I was a child, I had no way to avoid these people - we were stuck in school together.

It depends on how close you get to the person, and how much power they have over you, or you over them. It also depends on other factors, such as whether these people are healthy or unhealthy, whether they are mature or immature, whether they're drunk (or whatever) or on any kind of drugs that make them more impulsive so that they blurt out hurtful things, etc.

But anyway, 'supervision' might not mean the same thing in your mind, as it means in the socionic relation. Maybe they will someday choose a different word to describe that relation.

[FDG]

From my perspective it's absolutely impossible. I've tried to date 2 INFps, which IMHO seemed to be attracted to me. They played hard to get to the highest degree, never replying to sms-s or e-mails or generally attempts at initiating. Plus, they'd randomly cancel planned activities 5 minutes before their execution, something that really pissed me off. I truly don't think it was a matter of physical or psychological incomptability, since I later met them one-on-one in a casual setting and we had a very good chemistry (and believe me I have shitty chemistry with most women). So...no.

 

Also Marie84 you're embarassing. Please kill yourself.

Don't mean to interrupt here, but just curious on your thoughts: Don't ISFjs point out if one made a social faux pas? I thought that's pretty typical ISFj behavior to notice if someone violates an ethical norm in some way...

Of course. But they also like their ENTj to be that way, otherwise they wouldn't have anything to complain about. Not that INFps are truly different in that regard, really.

[mfckr]

.

[Taknamay]

Okay, thank you Nico1e. Your explanation was very helpful to my understanding of what supervision means in context.

[mfckr]

.

[bionic]

That's interesting, because on some translations of Russian sources, they're called 'relations of audit' instead of 'relations of supervision'. The word 'audit' obviously bears quite a bit different connotation than 'supervision'.

It'd be funny/ridiculous if the intertype has been conceptualized wrongly on here all this time, on account of one measly translation blur.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=34106

Like what Golden posted here?

[mfckr]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=34106

Like what Golden posted here?

Haha. I did a search count for 'audit' and it found 100+ instances, and only 1 instance of 'supervis'.

Audit may be the better word after all.

[Trevor]

hmm...i wonder who came up with "supervision" first

[Exodus]

That sounds more like

It's Fe if the social faux pas was about some keeping up of appearances or fitting/contributing to/not going against the pre-established emotional atmosphere.

It's Fi if the social faux pas was about saying/doing something inappropriate towards a friendship (in the sense of doing/saying something that makes you seem like you dont want to be friends) or making oneself look like a person with bad character.

in other words, it could be either one, depending on what the faux pas was.

I wholeheartedly agree that BOTH Fe and Fi can point out faux pas, but your Fe description sounds terribly biased. is about faux pas that have to do with saying things at an inappropriate time or place, or expressing them in a socially ineffective way, rather than things that are considered offensive or morally inappropriate. An example would be suddenly blurting out something about food when people are talking about current events, or interrupting someone. It's about modes of expression as well as emotional atmosphere.

[Trevor]

I've identified only one such relationship. It lasted few days. I wonder why.

[bionic]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=34106

Like what Golden posted here?

Haha. I did a search count for 'audit' and it found 100+ instances, and only 1 instance of 'supervis'.

Audit may be the better word after all.

Yes, I think so. Plus, in matter of definition, it fits better. It seems to imply a relationship that is constantly evaluated. Oh, the coincidence!

[Taknamay]

I think for my original proposition, the romance styles makes more sense.

Aggressor/Victim
Caretaker/Infantile

[mfckr]

.

[Exodus]

I wholeheartedly agree that BOTH Fe and Fi can point out faux pas, but your Fe description sounds terribly biased. is about faux pas that have to do with saying things at an inappropriate time or place, or expressing them in a socially ineffective way, rather than things that are considered offensive or morally inappropriate.

That's effectively what she just said.

It's not, because it's not about "emotions" (far too specific). "Keeping up appearances" is actually not too far off, but it portrays rather negatively; I'm trying to provide a more balanced view, just as I would try to do for .

[bionic]

I think for my original proposition, the romance styles makes more sense.

Aggressor/Victim
Caretaker/Infantile

Sorry to get off topic but.....

I really like your turtle.

It reminds me of this:

[bionic]

That's effectively what she just said.

It's not, because it's not about "emotions" (far too specific). "Keeping up appearances" is actually not too far off, but it portrays rather negatively; I'm trying to provide a more balanced view, just as I would try to do for .

She said "emotional atmosphere", not "emotions". There is an obvious difference.

The definitions provided here are 'balanced' and WA's description relates well to them.

http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

[Taknamay]

I think for my original proposition, the romance styles makes more sense.

Aggressor/Victim
Caretaker/Infantile

Sorry to get off topic but.....

I really like your turtle.

It reminds me of this:

I am glad you like my turtle. And thanks for the video. It was... nice.

[FDG]

All IxFx types are quite tolerant of ethical mistakes and assholishness in their partner, as long as it's not directed at them, of course. Otherwise how could they be duals of ExTx? They couldn't.

[Korpsy Knievel]

All IxFx types are quite tolerant of ethical mistakes and assholishness in their partner, as long as it's not directed at them, of course. Otherwise how could they be duals of ExTx? They couldn't.

SCIENCE!

[Taknamay]

Hmm. Now that I understand that I am INFj, my attraction to the ENTj description makes much more sense now. ENTj is my Semi-Dual.

[717495]

I find the attempt at mixing with here by Marie as a reflection of her ties to a purely theoretical construct in her head that has nothing to do with reality. When has she ever (as ashton says about INFps) attempted to help correct or aid along anyone's behavior in light of social situations on here? Even Alpha NTs do this, from their detached calculating struts. All she's done like the rest of the s is display her personal feelings towards remarks without any objective concern.

So is not any different whether it's judging right from wrong, but rather a difference between the practical, objective judgment of versus the reflective, personal judgment of , to say it effortlessly.

@ Taknamay, probably sounding redundant, but it may help some to read some of Jung's Fe/Fi if you have not to understand the difference between ENTjs and INFps, or similarities and differences between any type. I find the 'feeling' perspective of relations the most enlightening, it is usually what I notice first and foremost, and figured you would if you're dominant. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm