Benefit relations as "teaching" the suggestive functions

[akuney]

Here is a way I've come to view benefit relations.


Benefactor says: You can't just do (my leading function) without (my creative function)


Beneficiary hears: (My demonstrative function) won't work unless I develop (my suggestive function)


In that way, the benefactor is the most likely person to help you gain a basic level of competence with your suggestive function (as opposed to your dual, who'd just take it over themselves).


A brief explanation of the 16 benefit relations:


ILE to EIE:
No one will take your ideas seriously unless they are consistent and coherent.


EIE to SEE:
You will not have the right emotional effect on people unless your actions are prudent and timely.


SEE to LSE:
You will not gain any power without tact.


LSE to ILE:
Your initiatives will fail unless you work through the details.


ESE to IEE:
You will not have the right emotional effect on people unless your lifestyle is more rooted.


IEE to LIE:
No one will take your ideas seriously unless you express them tactfully and politically.


LIE to SLE:
Your initiatives will fail unless your actions are prudent and timely.


SLE to ESE:
You will not gain any power without coherence or consistency.


SEI to LSI:
You won't be able to keep your world stable unless you can express and read emotions.


LSI to ILI:
Your life will not have the structure you want unless you fight for it.


ILI to EII:
You will not get the narrative you want without objectivity and practical skills.


EII to SEI:
Your relationships will falter unless you look at them from a different angle.


LII to SLI:
Your life will not have the structure you want unless you look at it from a different angle.


SLI to ESI:
You won't be able to keep your world stable without objectivity and practical skills.


ESI to IEI:
Your relationships will falter unless you fight for them.


IEI to LII:
You will not get the narrative you want unless you can express and read emotions.

Thoughts?

[Exodus]

This seems predicated on the idea that the beneficiary cares about improving the demonstrative function...this is not typically the case IMO. The benefactor is able to impress them by using their suggestive function, however.

[myresearch]

maybe the benefactor sees it that way, I think the inner dialogue of beneficiary is different. I think benefit relations are more than improving or getting suggestive function. Benefactor uses beneficiary's role function much more better. They consciously use beneficiary's demonstrative function. They can feed beneficiary's suggestive function and they are much more good at it. They also use and value beneficiary's polr function. I think it is possible that beneficiary could be more open to accept benefactor's usage of his/her polr function since benefactor's suggestive is weak as beneficiary's polr and since both have shared valuing functions. Hence, I also think benefit relations are helpful about improving polr function.

For example, IEIs are both good at Fe and Fi. They are politically and tactfully express their emotions and they are good at reading other's emotions. So when they want to use Se and tell their reasons, I think, even this polite and emotive person who is well aware of the consequences of his/her actions sees Se necessary, maybe Se isn't destructive and pointless as much as I think, maybe Se is necessary. I don't have to find their usage of Se necessary, they inspire me to use more Se by valuing or using Se. About demonstrative function, when they use their leading function, it is like I gain some level of awareness on my demonstrative function. Of course during the relationship, I am impressed by their usage of my suggestive function.

[The Reality Denialist]

It is usually like: "That is how I roll but I don't make it so clear." Te part
This is when we are focused on a thing that serves interest of both parties.
Also there seems to be real focus on details. Si part which is great to have. So thanks. As for teaching? It just shows the patterns you might learn to attend towards.

[Sol]

LSE to ILE:
Your initiatives will fail unless you work through the details.

Si is more about body and perceptions comfort. Aesthetic taste, good meal, healthy behavior and health care, etc.

details of a work - closer to T. how to do something by concrete actions and needed resources
T-S types are related to practical cause they prefer to deal with concrete world, what is easier to imagine. not because detailed steps relate to S

[The Reality Denialist]

How a person reads and looks for stuff in environment is sensing (ears, eyes and all kinds of shit... even shit detection shit). Stimulation of sensory system. When it becomes more complex: aesthetic layout etc.
Our dear autistic LSI

[silke]

Here is a way I've come to view benefit relations.

Benefactor says: You can't just do (my leading function) without (my creative function)

Beneficiary hears: (My demonstrative function) won't work unless I develop (my suggestive function)

Thoughts?

IME, I'd reframe this as: "You can't do YOUR leading function well without giving more attention/consideration to your suggestive function." The benefactor becomes all too aware of the beneficiary's gap between their own leading and suggestive functions, which results in omissions/bloopers/blunders on their own base. Outside of this factor, however, there is also an implicit request for the beneficiary to "fill out" their demonstrative function. This happens because benefactor's alertness to beneficiary's lead-suggestive gap is based on their own leading function that is beneficiary's demonstrative. Thus, the overt request of the benefactor to the beneficiary is to give more attention to their suggestive in formulating beneficiary's own base, while their hidden request is to also consider and fill out their demonstrative.

On example of IEI->LII: "You [LII] cannot formulate accurate theories about people/government/society/psychology/religion, when you don't pay enough attention to people in the first place (because this signals of inexperience in the human/social spheres)." LII's Ti seems to become unhinged and swung out into some kind of hyperspace without obtaining and considering sufficient Fe feedback. However, this advice coming from LII's benefactor, the IEI, is also based in Ni which is a kind of an abstracted storage of IEI's own experience with people.

IEI to LII:
You will not get the narrative you want unless you can express and read emotions.

Expressing and reading emotions is part of it, but it's not part of the whole request. The whole request can be satisfied, if and only if, the beneficiary also pays attention to their demonstrative.

[Crink]

I think this relationship is mostly two people repeatedly requesting their dual seeking from one another, one person failing, and both people feeling weird about it.
ESE to IEE- yeah you're hilarious and a great part of this group, but you need to get on board with our rules (iee: no I don't)

IEE to LIE- yes we're very good friends and love each other, but the way you take care of me is *vaguely gestures* lacking. (Lie: I'm not weak)

[one]

That possible statement from benefactor is kinda funny bec you can easily attack them with: who said I want structure in the first place

[on a peaceful hiatus]

That possible statement from benefactor is kinda funny bec you can easily attack them with: who said I want structure in the first place

I make fun of my benefactors shit Si and Ne, and you are disappointed that I crush people's hearts with shit Fi. you also want that juicy, action packed Se but I ain't giving it to ya. what a joyful relationship that doesn't totally end up in contempt after a decade.

[one]

I make fun of my benefactors shit Si and Ne, and you are disappointed that I crush people's hearts with shit Fi. you also want that juicy, action packed Se but I ain't giving it to ya. what a joyful relationship that doesn't totally end up in contempt after a decade.

So you’re not considering IEIs for a relationship anymore? I thought you’re into IEI artsy ppl. Is that for friends only? Is it dual for you this time?

[on a peaceful hiatus]

So you’re not considering IEIs for a relationship anymore? I thought you’re into IEI artsy ppl. Is that for friends only? Is it dual for you this time?

Literally 80% of the people I interact with in Berlin are IEI, as I live in an artsy fartsy district. It's not like relationships are clearly defined most of the time. I mainly have sensing types as a safety net. I enjoy being with IEI's but the problem really is that both are introverted so it takes constant effort to break the silence.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

What you said makes sense logically and 'on paper', but when actually interacting with those types, I never believe other people are worth fighting for ((ESI and me are much more likely to bond over what we dislike in other people rather than them convincing me to fight for other ppl to save a relationship)) and I already think LIIs express their emotions in a way that works for them, and they are already good at reading other people's emotions to me, even better than I can or just as good. They just don't exaggerate or like to be as flashy/colorful as I do.

[persimmonism]

Benefactor says: You can't just do (my leading function) without (my creative function)


Beneficiary hears: (My demonstrative function) won't work unless I develop (my suggestive function)

I'm quite sure it's flipped, I don't think Beneficiary gives a fuck to develop the demonstrative as an ends in itself.

I was raised by Benefactor ESI and the message I got is that Se belongs with Fi. Not necessarily Ti. That's the thing: benefit teaches the other quadra's version of the suggestive...
This can be a harmful message if you have a relationship with your dual in which you were conditioned to pseudo-value their PoLR.

[Sol]

Benefactor says: You can't just do (my leading function) without (my creative function)
Beneficiary hears: (My demonstrative function) won't work unless I develop (my suggestive function)

A human with other type may teach others to methods and perceptions of his strong functions (mainly valued) as those would be taken separately. A combination of strong functions has no specifics itself, - it's just a variant of mixing.
Type's owner perceives that mix as _his_ preference and not that a other mixes are not possible. There are always examples of people with other types who have other preferences to understand this.
Also any of 4 functions (in both e/i variants) are equally important to achieve any practical task, including strongly related to a single function. To buy new car (Se property) is useful to gather data (Te) and to think (Ti), to feel (N) what model to choose and where to buy, to interact with seller and mb other people by social norms to do not hurt their feelings (F). It's a problem (strong accentuation of Jung type) when a human would be totally concentrated on 2 strong functions and only on valued ones, - it's not practically useful and not what normal human has. People just _more_ rely on strong and valued functions in decisions and evaluations.

Also needs to say, that supplementing profits have both in order IR and hence both have what to teach each other. Subordie has support for 4 (suggestive) function and orderer for his 3 function. For subordie this IR is more profitable as 4 function is weakest unlike 3rd, so orderer is perceived better by subordie than subordie by orderer. By common IR theory order IR is related to bad, but from theory side this can be an overesteemation, while IR descriptions are a hypothesis.