The goal of supervision…

[Hope]

Is there any true goal in the relation of supervision? for example, like helping or supporting supervises?

I've the impression often that insightful communication is hard in supervision relation, because when the supervisor uses his lead function to communicate with the supervised s/he often push back, even when there is information shared from supervisor to supervise the second often discard it quickly (unvalued function) and chose to ignore or get disproportionate reactions because it's painful (PoLR).

I wonder if there is a real goal in the supervision relation or it simply doesn't matter/mean anything, more than one having something the other lacks and have problem with etc.

Also, I'd like to hear about LIEs (or others types) experiences about their Si PoLR and their supervision from SLI, and no, I dont think in LIE/SLI is related to teaching them to cleaning up their room or getting them nice sheets, thats bs. Ime, its more like having a different attitude probably more suitable to certain situations than the normal preset of the supervisee in plenty of situations of normal life (but I'm especially interested at work and relation to ppl or the way of understanding others and relating to the environment, the way of providing solutions etc)

Some thoughts about the topic would be nice.

[falsehope]

Whatever there's true goal or not is somewhat philosophical question. The other question would be "does supervising relationships work as described?" Well, sometimes they do and sometimes they dont. Depends on many factors.
I for one I ignore all of EII advice because it doesn't fit into my overall style of living and I find it too hard to incorporate it into my life. For me, it's just annoying and pointless PoLR hitting.
On the other end EII ignores all reasonable logic and does whatever she thinks best, later to regret logical mistakes.

[Tallmo]

All IRs strive to actually establish the dynamic in the real couple.

The goal of supervision is to make the supervisor the master and the supervisee the slave. The supervisee has to stop opposing and follow the supervisor at least partially. Then they can have good chemistry although the supervisee will always feel in a lower position.

Whether one actually should do it depends on the situation. Sometimes i will adapt totally to an LSE and sometimes oppose them. It depend who and what we are doing.

[Adam Strange]

I’d like to comment more here on my four or five supervision relationships when I have more time, but for now all I’ll say is that I always felt operationally stronger than my SLI ex-wife, but felt that she was a superior human being. It kind of balanced, in the sense that I always respected her opinions and she never told me what to do. She got what she wanted by personally demonstrating Si, like making home improvements or finding health care providers, and I got what I wanted by just doing it. (Just doing it for small things, but always getting buy-in for bigger things.)
I think the relationship was characterized by a fair amount of passive-assertion, since we both had our own realms of competence and we abdicated control to the other person in these areas. Where our wants overlapped or clashed, we tried to assess how important the want was to the other person. Things almost always worked out because of this.

In fact, the collaboration was so good that I was very surprised at how poorly Supervision relationships were rated in Socionics. Our success might owe a lot to our maturity and intelligence, TBH. We also both came from dysfunctional families and were both the oldest siblings, so we had seen how things go wrong and were determined to work hard on doing better.

*EDIT*
This doesn’t actually answer any of the OP’s questions, but I’m using this forum primarily for therapy, so....
But she raises some good questions, to which I will give a better, more pertinent response later.

[Bertrand]

I think of supervision as a fast track unilateral transmission of information, whereas benefit is the same but energy

the goal is hard to say since that implies a teleology, but you could say the evolutionary advantage is that it links the quadra. its essentially high speed communication between bordering quadra, while each quadra nevertheless maintains their own values (which is why it has to be uncomfortable and transgressive by definition)

[The Reality Denialist]

I view it as suppressive help at worst. If supervisor lets it go it will be easier. Sometimes the problem is not major one. However the thing is that supervisor can be tyrannical without realizing it. The help is often not welcomed and it can be even stressful to receive. However they can provide some some help. If the supervisee is compliant he/she can help out supervisor with his/her problem. Supervisor help might be too indirect when supervisee would need some sort of direct helping hand. When supervisee helps supervisor it tends to just happen without preparation but it can be still good help nevertheless.


I posted one example in Shout box from the movie One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest where the main theme is supervision between ESI and SLE. In it ESI nurse pretty much neutralizes SLE criminal by using her power in the institution.

[Sol]

Is there any true goal in the relation of supervision? for example, like helping or supporting supervises?

The help in the form of direct controlling and fixing their issues.
Support not in the sense of a friendship. Besides partly other values, the rivisor has one same weak function which relates to the lack of suggestive function support - all this limits the possibility for complete friendly influence.

> I've the impression often that insightful communication is hard in supervision relation, because when the supervisor uses his lead function to communicate with the supervised s/he often push back, even when there is information shared from supervisor to supervise the second often discard it quickly (unvalued function) and chose to ignore or get disproportionate reactions to it's painful (PoLR).

Besides operative control based on the fear and authority, subrevisie gets the possibility to accept and understand the information later. People process superego help with a higher distrust and a resistance, but process anyway.

To help the information was accepted easier it can be said in the softer form and closer to values of subrevisie. This needs a tuning to a subrevisie like to a kid, loved kid, - then you better understand what wants your opponent and how better to talk with him. Duals also see and try to fix polr issues, as have that function as strong. Besides they rise trust to themselves by general sympathy, they explain the issues in the more acceptable way, often indirectly through valued functions.

Also people in lesser nervous state easier accept the external help, especially for weak nonvalued functions. It's better to talk politely, friendly and quietly with them about what to improve. Even when during the irrational resistance they behave incorrectly with you, as such they unconsciously provoke you to help themselves to reject what you say. That incorrect resistance shows the existence of inner fight in them, the inner doubts, you are getting the influence on them and they are scared, as it's their vulnerable region.

The example. LSE sees EII has no enough energy or the will to do something (weak S), tires too much. Istead of direct pressing "it's your duty, be responsible" (Ti Se), LSE may take something on himself or spread on others (as dual is percieved as the friend and partly as "loved kid"), he may to explain why something is needed to do to improve the motivation, how to do the work with lesser needed efforts, may give advices how to improve a physical state so EII had more resources to do that. LSE will try to care by own ego functions. LSE will avoid to shout regularly "just do that" and develop the ways to punish for bad working.
Can SEE do same? To do T part with same quality is hard for them, though some they can anyway - partly themselves and after a consulting with other people. Also they may to reduce direct Se press, try to give similar Si care.

> Also, I'd like to hear about LIEs (or others types) experiences about their Si PoLR and their supervision from SLI

My LIE uncle has good income, but may to wear for the work not good - in cheap sporty look as finds this comfortable and does not care how he looks, especially taking into account his not the last post. I'm not SLI, but being LSE notice the issue. If I'd said him what I think - he'd felt insulted and became angry. SEE would point politely with their firm cute smiling (Fi) that he can allow himself better, more expensive (Se) clothes, mb would help to choose more costy but comfortable good quality suit, boots, etc.
Where SLI, having not good F, would want to notice alike "your clothes could be better. you look like a poor student". Similar to what I thought among the first.

[Adam Strange]

^Lol. I wear suits at work (my favorite brand is Canali), but at home I wear what is comfortable and what can be damaged without regret if I suddenly decide to repair my car. My SLI son says I dress like a homeless person. Sometimes I forget what I’m wearing and go out in public like that. It’s true that I mostly don’t care how I look.

My LSE mother used to give me clothes that she found I-don’t-know-where and I’d wear them and my son would say That’s an improvement, Dad, but I couldn’t tell the difference. A coat is a coat.

The only exception is business suits, shoes, etc. Those are Capitalist Tools.

[Rebelondeck]

Supervisors usually have perceptions of superiority brought about by their own blindness to specific strengths of the supervisee. I consider this a sort of one-way relationship where supervisee-to-supervisor is normal but the other way is not totally. The relationships with opposite-flow are when beneficiaries devalue some of their own ways and sometimes attempt those of benefactors, which for them feel unnatural and are usually unsuitable to their way of processing. These are conditions of weakness - not goals, and they make relationships hard to sustain.......
a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

Supervisors usually have perceptions of superiority brought about by their own blindness to specific strengths of the supervisee. I consider this a sort of one-way relationship where supervisee-to-supervisor is normal but the other way is not totally. The relationships with opposite-flow are when beneficiaries devalue some of their own ways and sometimes attempt those of benefactors, which for them feel unnatural and are usually unsuitable to their way of processing. These are conditions of weakness - not goals, and they make relationships hard to sustain.......
a.k.a. I/O

This is very true.

When my LSI GF and my SLI ex-wife talked with each other one day (kind of by accident), the LSI later told me that she thought that it was very apparent that my ex-wife thought she was “better” than me. I at first denied it, but the LSI was probably right.

[The Reality Denialist]

One fictional example of SLI-LIE relation is probably from Better Call Saul: Saul Goodman (LIE) and Kim Wexler (SLI).

[Bertrand]

This is very true.

When my LSI GF and my SLI ex-wife talked with each other one day (kind of by accident), the LSI later told me that she thought that it was very apparent that my ex-wife thought she was “better” than me. I at first denied it, but the LSI was probably right.

I dunno that seems like the easy to digest but dumb take away, the supervisor can teach you, but if you leave it at "she only thinks she's better" (implying there's no substance to any of it), you only cheat yourself ultimately

I say try and learn to love your supervisor and take from them what you can. that said, speaking up and being honest about simply not wanting their help at that point and time can go a long way. that way you admit there's something there, but concede you're not ready, meaning you haven't totally rejected helpful information. if you choose to believe whatever helps you do the opposite of whatever is advised you're working against your own psychic needs. better to delay than totally deny. your supervisor is a person too, and realizes not everyone wants what theyre offering all the time, if for no other reason the shoe is on the other foot for them sometimes too

[Hope]

This is very true.

When my LSI GF and my SLI ex-wife talked with each other one day (kind of by accident), the LSI later told me that she thought that it was very apparent that my ex-wife thought she was “better” than me. I at first denied it, but the LSI was probably right.

Betas, especially tend to think that I think that I'm better than others, but thats rarely true (sometimes its even the opposite or just that I feel uncomfortable in x situations etc). I think its more like a projection of Se (someone has to be better than x, and not simply different) and my Fe PoLR.

[Tigerfadder]

It suppose to be somewhat forced information.

[Hope]

One fictional example of SLI-LIE relation is probably from Better Call Saul: Saul Goodman (LIE) and Kim Wexler (SLI).

yes it seems like it. She looks like SLI.

[FDG]

I only know very Te SLIs, and I usually meet them in the context of sports, I rarely meet them in a work setting.

They have an understanding of Te domains coupled with Si that I simply never cared about. How specific materials interact with your body, how often you should drink for optimal peformance, ways to adjust your wheels to have a softer effect on your back...this allows them to obtain something with an effort to result ratio that i´d never be able to reach.
They´re also much more relaxed about business than me, that´s something they share with ILIs though, and the constant grumbling from ILIs can be worse than the direct advice of a SLI in many ways.

[Bertrand]

Id bet money those SLIs are LSIs and you're seeing Ti + demonstrative Si

[FDG]

Id bet money those SLIs are LSIs and you're seeing Ti + demonstrative Si

I don´t think so, the LSIs I know are quite different, more rigid and pushy, IJ-Se is quite noticeable.

[Bertrand]

something tells me our definitions of rigid and pushy are different

[FDG]

something tells me our definitions of rigid and pushy are different

idk man they also don´t have a moustache so...

[lavos]

I don't have much experience with supervision ITR (at least as the supervisee -- I have some more as supervisor), but one thing I noticed this one time is that SLI criticized me for my role (or maybe DS, not sure -- as per model B it makes more sense to be DS since it's their PoLR) and my demonstrative. If your supervisor is "good", you don't have much to be worried about, but is he/she is a "bad" supervisor, they can pester you constantly. As per model B, they have 4D on your 2D HA (in this LIE-SLI example, SLI has 4D -Si/+Se base which puts "pressure" on LIE +Se/-Si HA). I agree with what bertrand said that supervision is meant to be a fast information exchange between neighboring quadras. I also think that how it actually plays out depends on the subtypes involved.

[Bertrand]

idk man they also don´t have a moustache so...

sorry, my point is that seen through the prism of "mirage" i.e.: increasing comfort and laziness, its hard to reconcile "pushy." this is I think the core problem in socionics where everyone treats themselves as the integral when using language, especially value laden or subjective perceptual language. one must make an additional step of incorperating the holographic nature of the psyche; so by all this I mean "pushy" is not universal and one's man pushy is another man's pleasantly helpful and the pleasant and helpful is positively valenced more in accord with mirage, hence as soon as you characterize the split between LSI and SLI as pushy from the perspective of LIE it says something more than a standalone and universal adjective, as if we all know and agree about what you're talking about. from the point of view of LIE they will feel more pressure coming off of SLI, regardless of their reputation for "silky smooth" 4d Si, which is in of itself I think perhaps the most misunderstood function

objective images can be helpful here, although not entirely dispositive. i would say SLI is more old beat up 1980s yet smooth running and comfy truck (could easily be a total piece of shit, but one one has come to love), with LSI being a more riced-out or muscled up, bucket seated, racing wheeled, type status conveyor. obviously these are exaggerations but they're directional trends

[FDG]

sorry, my point is that seen through the prism of "mirage" i.e.: increasing comfort and laziness, its hard to reconcile "pushy." this is I think the core problem in socionics where everyone treats themselves as the integral when using language, especially value laden or subjective perceptual language. one must make an additional step of incorperating the holographic nature of the psyche; so by all this I mean "pushy" is not universal and one's man pushy is another man's pleasantly helpful and the pleasant and helpful is positively valenced more in accord with mirage, hence as soon as you characterize the split between LSI and SLI as pushy from the perspective of LIE it says something more than a standalone and universal adjective, as if we know what you're talking about

TLDR, express your ideas more concisely please.

I have LSI friends, they are more pushy than SLI friends.

Pushy has no positive or negative value connotations in my mind.

[Bertrand]

I think you have it backwards because you treat yourself as the integral of socionics without realizing it, and most people do. this is so widespread I think people think its supposed to be done this way, but it leads to a bunch of agreed upon stereotypes which are just illusory linguistic constructions without meaning or real import for ITR. its precisely how people can know everything about socionics and have learned nothing, because it never reaches that crucial threshold of enlightenment which is that socionics is a hologram

[silke]

I wanted to make a post about this one day since I found an alternative interpretation of both supervision and benefit on Gulenko's old forum. Unfortunately the forum went down and I didn't archive the post, but from memory: basically supervision is energy and information exchange between the Supervisee and Supervisor. So it's not one-sided that Supervisor contributes valuable info and Supervisee just sits there and listens. Supervisee passes on an energy packet to the Supervisor.

It is because of this that Supervisee feels drained after spending time with the Supervisor.

It is also because of this that even though Supervisors may deem Supervisees to be kind of clueless they still want to spend time together.

Similar thing happens in benefit but it's slightly different in that it's the Benefactor that passes on the energy impulse to the Beneficiary, while Beneficiary carries information that is relevant to Benefactor's HA. So it's info-energy trade between the neighboring quadra.

I'll try to draft a more detailed post to immortalize this alternative take. I like it bc it offered the closest explanation to my own experiences than anything else I've seen. Without that energy bit it doesn't make complete sense.

[Bertrand]

yeah if your supervisor is an asshole its because you feed him. something to keep in mind when considering trying to get free. a lot of the usual techniques exacerbate it, which is precisely the nature of asymmetric relations. it requires heightened self awareness and control to really disarm the dynamic rather than accelerate it. a lot of times it requires non traditional methods like if you're SLI being supervised by ESE, you can't rely on super ego to guide you in relations at that distance, since they're too good at it, rather you need to do something somewhat uncharacteristic for SLI, which puts one in a position to choose between two evils. either be around this person who drains you or engage in some means to get away that likewise drains you. its almost like until you develop those aspects you can't get free, which maybe is the point, and precisely their source of leverage over you. so the main thing is don't be mad at supervisor realize it originates in you just as much

[Delilah]

yeah if your supervisor is an asshole its because you feed him

lol are you being sarcastic? I can't tell over the nets. I thought her post about energy exchange was interesting, if true and all

[Bertrand]

sorry my point was in reference to silke's excellent point that there's an energetic incentive for your supervisor to supervise you, so in a lot of ways its nothing personal, and it should be empowering to know that since the incentive is originating in the supervisee that implies a path out from under supervision if one can get control over oneself and stop incentivizing the dynamic. which sounds like its out of spite, but its really nothing more than to say the solution is to develop oneself, which is what one should hopefully be engaged in anyway. like so many things uncomfortable ITRs are directly linked to our own level of development. sort of how conflict need not cause actual conflict, supervision need not be a destiny of actual domination, its just a term describing a dynamic of relating that tends to act like a slip knot and I think this is where gulenko talks about how to disarm a lot of these asymetric or other misunderstandings the trick is to relax etc

in other words, that one has a hand in one's own domination should be a hopeful message since it means you have it within your power to control

[silke]

on a random side note, all those stories about ''energy vampires" that get posted on woo and psychic websites could very well be about socionics supervisors

[wasp]

when it comes to asymmetric relations, I'm usually reminded of the interactions between parent and child where the parent tries to give the child what they deem to be "relevant" advice, but they grew up in different time periods, so maybe some of the parent's advice is no longer relevant, or maybe the parent is female whereas the child is male, which renders some of the parent's advice irrelevant but for different reasons, or maybe, just maybe, the child actually does know better in certain cases! some kids are obliging, some kids are rebellious, but most kids are somewhere in between, so they'll all react differently to the advice they're given, but most kids end up doing their own thing anyway since they implicitly understand that they're the ones who have to live with the consequences of their actions, so that's kind of how I assume supervisees might interpret the dynamic. they may occasionally see the value in receiving advice from someone who is "further ahead" than them in certain areas of life, but eventually most kids are gonna wanna move out, whereas if you look at it from the parent's perspective, then they'll eventually learn to respect their child's boundaries after they move out, but that may not always stop them from meddling every now and then. I guess the ultimate goal is well-intentioned nagging, which you can choose to follow or ignore.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

The goal is to simply make you a better, more well-rounded person. It reminds me of the saying 'the road to hell is paved in good intentions' etc.

While its true that being a bully and/or victim is like two sides of the same coin type of thing- sometimes sadistic assholes are just that: sadistic assholes. Feed them or not, they bite anyway. It can be especially rough if the supervisor is a cruel asshole in addition to also being your supervisor lol.

It requires them being nicer to you, as well as you toughening up. Or vice-versa, if you are the supervisor. (wise words my IEE cousin said once) I still shake my head at some of the naive things my ESE mom still thinks and does; but despite that she is still one of the strongest people I know and has amazing heart and resiliency. And has been there for me when nobody else has.

[Exodus]

on a random side note, all those stories about ''energy vampires" that get posted on woo and psychic websites could very well be about socionics supervisors

Or just bad (socionic) relationships. Nothing about that is specific to supervision.

[lavos]

I wanted to make a post about this one day since I found an alternative interpretation of both supervision and benefit on Gulenko's old forum. Unfortunately the forum went down and I didn't archive the post, but from memory: basically supervision is energy and information exchange between the Supervisee and Supervisor. So it's not one-sided that Supervisor contributes valuable info and Supervisee just sits there and listens. Supervisee passes on an energy packet to the Supervisor.

It is because of this that Supervisee feels drained after spending time with the Supervisor.

It is also because of this that even though Supervisors may deem Supervisees to be kind of clueless they still want to spend time together.

Similar thing happens in benefit but it's slightly different in that it's the Benefactor that passes on the energy impulse to the Beneficiary, while Beneficiary carries information that is relevant to Benefactor's HA. So it's info-energy trade between the neighboring quadra.

I'll try to draft a more detailed post to immortalize this alternative take. I like it bc it offered the closest explanation to my own experiences than anything else I've seen. Without that energy bit it doesn't make complete sense.

This is different from the classical interpretation. The normal version says that supervision is information exchange, and benefit is energy exchange. Have you observed if this interpretation is closer to reality?

[FDG]

Anyway, more broadly, the goal of supervision is social progress (quadra progress) along the same process-result (evolution-involution) chain.
Supervision-benefit rings are the impulses required to pass on the duties of each result-or-process dual-couple to the next result-or-process dual couple in the quadra progressing circle.

Enough Ni for today, back to ebay auctions.

[WVBRY]

Anyway, more broadly, the goal of supervision is social progress (quadra progress) along the same process-result (evolution-involution) chain.
Supervision-benefit rings are the impulses required to pass on the duties of each result-or-process dual-couple to the next result-or-process dual couple in the quadra progressing circle.

Enough Ni for today, back to ebay auctions.

I might have to tax your Ni just a bit more today.

You mean that the dual pair that is in a superior position to the dual pair they supervise/benefit passes on its duties to the dual pair in the inferior position, or other way around? For example, does LIE/ESI pass on its duties to SLE/IEI or does SLE/IEI pass on some kind of information to LIE/ESI?

[Bertrand]

"duties" within your meaning across quadra I think can be cognized as the involutionary/evolutionary dyads across the socion

[ooo]

I've always viewed supervision as if someone in the position of "supervisor" was hyper-controlling every move of the "supervised". I don't think it's a one-sided exchange of energy, rather a somewhat superior control from the supervisor of what the supervised can't deal with, so that it makes the supervisor feel like they can dictate on it from their better control of said element. This can make the supervised feel controlled and over-looked, but I wouldn't say they're being used/drained. Perhaps the contrary could work, it's the supervised to require help over those Polr elements which the supervisor naturally provides. This can make the supervised feel weaker, as those elements are a burden to him. Nevertheless the supervisor provides help with them, although supervised might not like this help at all.

[silke]

This is different from the classical interpretation. The normal version says that supervision is information exchange, and benefit is energy exchange. Have you observed if this interpretation is closer to reality?

Yes, it's an alternative take that sounds like it more closely corresponds with what happens in these relations and why there is incentive for the supervisor to stick around. The classical descriptions are still rather coarse and don't explain how things work in asymmetrical relations to full extent, so there have been efforts to re-design them to figure out what is going on. It's still an area of research and development, not something that's fully set in stone.

Gulenko also had this concept of a "working triad" that I feel somehow ties into this description. I'll try to recreate it later.

[Moonbeaux Rainfox]

Yeah I know.. I know… It’s all already there but I wanna go through this, to get a point across…

What we have: Socionics deals with IE.
Supervision rings run through the 4 quadras.
Supervisor and Supervisee are linked by the same Base - Creative IE.
One types PolR is another types Base IE.
Supervision alternative branding is Audit.

The Supervisor audits the information flow coming from his supervisee (one types Base -> another types creative) into the next quadra. So from information to application is one point.

What’s the goal/why is it needed/what is the practical purpose of this:

Another point is one types PolR is also the other types Base. Supervision should strengthen the information flow throughout the quadras. Supervisor should look from the POV of his Base IE for possble weak points and discard 'dead weight' so to speak. Shake it up, then look at what stands, what needs improvement this (also of course coming from a kinda 'static' structural POV re. Model A).

Therefore good supervision in the grand view of information flow, would cause a picking up, processing and improvement of information flow. ‘Good’ supervision - information flows, perfecting of things (this also on an individual progress level). So problematic is then of course when information does not get picked up. It might not be processed and audited through the next quadra -> the information flow stagnates somewhere. Things don’t progress/don't improve then.

This is all of course just looking at Base-Creative, PolR - Base interaction. The keeping the thumb on somebody else, ‘power-play’ well … das ist ne ganz andere Baustelle.

[The Reality Denialist]

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.