Supervision as Premature Duality
This topic is based partly in personal experience, and is a short hypothesis on the underlying dynamic that occurred in that relationship. I don't mean to imply that the idea stated here is highly substantiated, but is merely food for thought and a post intended at igniting some Socionics-related discussion on the board. If I don't make quite as much sense as I should, feel free to ask me to clarify and to question me for more detail.
Supervision has often been considered to be a very painful relationship classically, even moreso than conflict because the supervisor can exert more pressure on one's weak functions than one can place on his. I, however, have come to understand supervision as a damaging premature entelechy, supposing that duality results in a full and wholistic display of oneself. The fundamental idea is that a supervisor causes one to exhibit behavior one would only see in someone who is very dualized, and This behavior does not result from an internal strength derived from a dual relationship, but a mask imposed by the supervisor externally. (This stems from the idea that one derives a well if lasting strength from a dual.) Once one is engaged in the mask imposed on himself by a supervisor, he finds that life often seems grand, as if he's in the summer of his life - - and This often happens very quickly. But because this behavior is really very superficial, it requires a massive amount of energy to maintain on the part of the supervisee, which in the end causes a crash and burn experience, because this behavior does not come from one's own nature, but is imposed. One acts constantly as if one should act rather than as he is. In a dual relationship, one preserves his fundamental identity and over time becomes seasoned by his dual to occasionally take trips into dual territory. When this however is occasioned by a supervisor, a person is shocked into a completely opposite character in contrast to his nature: for instance, an ILI becoming compulsively social after interacting with an EIE. Other people can see this behavior for what it is, as shallow and trivial, but it often feels like the font of life itself for the one engaged. This usually results in neurosis, as the energy to maintain this mask fails, and the supervisee returns to himself after breaking away from the supervisor or developing a tolerance to the supervisors method of imposition or primary function. When the supervisee finally comes away from the experience, which might be years later, he often feels cheated, deluded, and bitter. This thing that seemed so great and amazing so quickly ended in catastrophe for only one party. And it took so long to figure it out and put his life back on track. Now he's right back where he's started, none the richer for all the effort spent.
In the case of duality, one's dual is often a connoisseur of certain traits that he might like to see in his dual, but even if those are never displayed, he still finds his dual to be a worthwhile and valuable person. As such, duality promotes an experience in which one can grow without being forced to, or go simply remain as one is and still be considered. Supervision demands in the most tempting way possible the premature growth that one only finds in those who have been growing for a very long time.
This might bring up the objection that one's dual doesn't value at all the dominant function of his supervisor. I agree with this statement; there is really no contradiction here. In the above example, where the EIE demands Fe from the ILI, an ESFp would ask for Fi. Both of these are F, but simply from another perspective. The extroverted counterpart is wild, forward, objective, and quick, while the latter is a bit more nuanced and receptive. The difference in life can often be very subtle but very important.
I hope this helps and doesn't sound too much like an indirect biography of myself, or that I'm trying to warp a theory based on personal experience. I ask that those who read this consider the ideas in themselves. I most likely am not 100% right, but I do believe there's something there.
It depends on individual people (or type?) . My EIE sis dated a ILI and he wouldn't even bother to adopt a "mask" because of the POLR. She would engage in systematic and serious criticism (partly out of personal pleasure or sadism ... we're talking about EIE) and he'd be bothered , but unresponsive. He did react very well to her stronger Se. Actually my guess is that's why he wanted to stick with her. His Se was very weak ...lack of duality (plus dating) experience and probably Ni subtype. But I agree, I've also known cases where Supervision could result in what you're saying.
The result I mentioned originally doesn't happen in every case of supervision. Part of it relates to the intent of the supervisor and character. You'll find some relationships that take a tenor of tutelage or caring sometimes. It really just depends. Also, many of these varieties are transitory depending on the person. Just because they are nice one day doesn't nab they'll be that way the next.
Originally Posted by AshSun
And there are also differences about how ILIs act around others. Some are very friendly while others are rather aloof and serious. I've known some ILIs who, based on their demeanor, were very good at repelling people just by being in a room. This came from how they displayed emotion or lack thereof. The people I'm thinking about in particular seemed rather distasteful just because they weren't smiling and had disdainful expressions on their own faces. Some ILIs are very anti-people. I don't understand how they would get along with anyone, including esfps.
I have been in an intense relationship ('friendship') with my supervisee for years. I wouldn't say he adopted a mask in public, but he did make some attepmts to live up to my advice that seemed unnatural to me - when he had a problem and I would try to help him (and that was usually the case and the dynamics of the relationship), he would aftwerwards try to do the things I advised him to do but it seemed kind of flat and also as if he wasn't entirely sure if it works or how to do it, but still doing it in a way that seemed mechanic to me.
We had a lot of intense discussions about life, relationships and our relationship in particular. In some ways I agree with the fact that it kind of resembled duality - but it was because of shared base/creative function. It seemed as if he was the only and best person to discuss things related to that and in this department it was probably better than anyone I've met and also setting a standard for other relationships. But at the same time I knew that it was never gonna be enough for me and no matter what he does I won't be able to appraciate him adequately for some reason :/ which made me feel quite bad but at the same time the 'power' spoiled me a lot (it was before I knew anything about socionics).
Actually it was me who perceived it all as very unfair, with him not complaining about anything apart from very very few times when he criticised me. I was feeling responsible for the relationship in all aspects knowing that he generally won't stand up for himself when he should - sometimes it seemed as if I had to drag him behind me with him being compliant but quite heavy at the same time ^.^. when we disussed this kind of issues (which we did quite openly) he would say he was ok with everything, denying that there was any problem. Once he commented that the things that I was telling him when we discussed our relationship's potential appeared to him as some secret truth hidden on a pedestal that is out of his range, that he is trying very hard to reach it and understand but he just can't see it although he makes a lot of effort to do so. :/ at the same time it seemed to him that this truth is kinda wrong ^.^, but he said he couldn't understand why.
anyway, I think at close distance it can be a VERY intense relaionship, bringing a lot of positive things but ultimately damaging for both, also the supervisor.
Tags for this Thread