The goal of supervision…

[lavos]

I think different subtypes makes it bit different.

Subtype identity or supervisor N(/D) and supervisee C(/H) can be pretty bad combination. If those things are damped down for the inverse or subtype duality it might become much easier. From total suppression to bit uncomfortable co-operation.

Based on my observations: D with D tends to be bad. N with N is ok. C and C, and H and H are good.

D with C tends to be a bit draining for the C, but they can make a good team. D and H fight constantly. N and C is very bad (for both), but C's can pseudo-mimic D's and lead N's temporarily. N's with H's seems similar to D's with C's (but I haven't observed this one enough yet).

[lemontrees]

I see it as the supervisor saying, regardless of how competent you are (at your base function), you value the wrong things in life.

W/ LSE/EII v SEI/ILE I think there's a message of, "Yes that works but can't you look at the humanistic aspect of it? We can't value what works, we have to value what's...[something I can't understand]" LSE/EII don't actually value longterm efficiency (from my POV, ILE is better at that), they are focused on their Fi-y interactions and ideals.

This is how I think the "social progress ring" manifests. And while I do not enjoy Fi, I can see the strengths of this mindset. In turn, LSE/EII get critiqued by ILI/SEE... The supervisors see the supervisees' focus on their base function as indulgent.