Supervisor's effect on supervisee's ideas

[snegledmaca]

In a mental excessive, well, letting my mind wander, I wondered just how exactly does the supervisor's grip on the supervise's balls manifest itself. And something occurred to me. I remembered about just how communism has butchered the ideas of karl marx. So that got me thinking, does our supervisor take our best "fruits" and completely destroys them? Like, it doesn't matter how great the theory that the LII makes, philosophy, physics, something, the SLE will find a way to "violate" it, like say build a weapon of mass destruction based on the LII-s ideas or some such thing. Also perhaps another example of this, an IEI makes MBTI and the LIE-s use it to determine hiring policies. Or an EII establishing a religion and SEE-s start carrying out religious discrimination, persecution, wars.

In essence, the main point being, on a makrosocionical scale does this thing manifest itself?

[Hitta]

In a mental excessive, well, letting my mind wander, I wondered just how exactly does the supervisor's grip on the supervise's balls manifest itself. And something occurred to me. I remembered about just how communism has butchered the ideas of karl marx. So that got me thinking, does our supervisor take our best "fruits" and completely destroys them? Like, it doesn't matter how great the theory that the LII makes, philosophy, physics, something, the SLE will find a way to "violate" it, like say build a weapon of mass destruction based on the LII-s ideas or some such thing. Also perhaps another example of this, an IEI makes MBTI and the LIE-s use it to determine hiring policies. Or an EII establishing a religion and SEE-s start carrying out religious discrimination, persecution, wars.

In essence, the main point being, on a makrosocionical scale does this thing manifest itself?

Well the supervisor will have the base function that the supervisee has as an agenda. Take the INTj ENFp relationship. The INTjs base function is -Ti/+Te and the ENFps hidden agenda is the same, -Ti/+Te. The INTj is able to help the ENFp manifest the function into the ego.

[Expat]

In a mental excessive, well, letting my mind wander, I wondered just how exactly does the supervisor's grip on the supervise's balls manifest itself. And something occurred to me. I remembered about just how communism has butchered the ideas of karl marx. So that got me thinking, does our supervisor take our best "fruits" and completely destroys them? Like, it doesn't matter how great the theory that the LII makes, philosophy, physics, something, the SLE will find a way to "violate" it, like say build a weapon of mass destruction based on the LII-s ideas or some such thing. Also perhaps another example of this, an IEI makes MBTI and the LIE-s use it to determine hiring policies. Or an EII establishing a religion and SEE-s start carrying out religious discrimination, persecution, wars.

In essence, the main point being, on a makrosocionical scale does this thing manifest itself?

I'm not sure how your examples play out. For instance, if Marx was ILE, his supervisor is EII, which weren't really involved in communism as a type.

But apart from that, what you are describing feels not very correctly, because the "implementing ideas" quadra is Beta, which would then be the one "destroying" the ideas of Alpha.

And how would that work for the SEI supervising the EIE, for instance?

[snegledmaca]

I'm not sure how your examples play out. For instance, if Marx was ILE, his supervisor is EII, which weren't really involved in communism as a type.

Hmm, perhaps this can be used as a method of determining people's types? Also, perhaps their types are irrelevant but there is more emphasis on informational manifestation of their work, for example, marx may have been ILE but his work was "LII" and thus abuseable by SLE-s.

But apart from that, what you are describing feels not very correctly, because the "implementing ideas" quadra is Beta, which would then be the one "destroying" the ideas of Alpha.

Not certain I understand you here fully. Could you elaborate.

And how would that work for the SEI supervising the EIE, for instance?

Hmmm, the EIE makes a organization to fight for a cause and the SEI-s (ab)uses it to gather people for parties, sex orgies or something?

[Expat]

Not certain I understand you here fully. Could you elaborate.

Well, one concept of socionics - not universally accepted - is that in terms of generation of ideas, it works like this:

- Alpha generates all sorts of ideas, but generating them is given priority over implementing them
- Beta picks specific ideas from amongst those, according to their own criteria, and their priority is to implement them
- Gamma shoots down, among those, the ideas that (according to their own criteria) are impractical, evil, or both
- Delta finally finds more inventive, productive and beneficial ways of using those ideas that "survived" the above process.

[Logos]

In a mental excessive, well, letting my mind wander, I wondered just how exactly does the supervisor's grip on the supervise's balls manifest itself. And something occurred to me. I remembered about just how communism has butchered the ideas of karl marx.

Marx did not advocate Marxism, he advocated Communism (hence Communist Manifesto and not the Marxist Manifesto). It would only be later that it would be labeled as Marxism as a means to distinguish it from other schools of Communist thought (Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc.). So to say that Communism somehow butchered the ideas of Karl Marx is just about like saying that Platonism butchered the ideas of Plato. And I am quite puzzled as to how an ILE could produce anything other than an ILE work. Why do you think that communism/Marxism is LII? Because it is a system?

So that got me thinking, does our supervisor take our best "fruits" and completely destroys them? Like, it doesn't matter how great the theory that the LII makes, philosophy, physics, something, the SLE will find a way to "violate" it, like say build a weapon of mass destruction based on the LII-s ideas or some such thing. Also perhaps another example of this, an IEI makes MBTI and the LIE-s use it to determine hiring policies. Or an EII establishing a religion and SEE-s start carrying out religious discrimination, persecution, wars.

In essence, the main point being, on a makrosocionical scale does this thing manifest itself?

In short, no. Could you imagine an SLE (or any sane type) willingly touching Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason to somehow destroy or subvert it? At most the SLE may just say, "After reading and following the premises set forth in A Critique of Pure Reason, I have come to the conclusion that Kant just needs to get laid."

Well, one concept of socionics - not universally accepted - is that in terms of generation of ideas, it works like this:

- Alpha generates all sorts of ideas, but generating them is given priority over implementing them
- Beta picks specific ideas from amongst those, according to their own criteria, and their priority is to implement them
- Gamma shoots down, among those, the ideas that (according to their own criteria) are impractical, evil, or both
- Delta finally finds more inventive, productive and beneficial ways of using those ideas that "survived" the above process.

The problem with that approach - and why it is not universally accepted - is that it produces an unrealistic assembly line image, while taking out the dynamic and chaotic interchange quadras as well as the contribution of all quadras being made in all four steps to their own quadra-specific purposes.

[snegledmaca]

Well, one concept of socionics - not universally accepted - is that in terms of generation of ideas, it works like this:

- Alpha generates all sorts of ideas, but generating them is given priority over implementing them
- Beta picks specific ideas from amongst those, according to their own criteria, and their priority is to implement them
- Gamma shoots down, among those, the ideas that (according to their own criteria) are impractical, evil, or both
- Delta finally finds more inventive, productive and beneficial ways of using those ideas that "survived" the above process.

I'm wondering whether ones supervisors naturally "abuse" ones great accomplishments. I don't see how this above would be against what I'm saying as the manner in which it is done could very well align with those assumptions.

[snegledmaca]

Marx did not advocate Marxism, he advocated Communism (hence Communist Manifesto and not the Marxist Manifesto). It would only be later that it would be labeled as Marxism as a means to distinguish it from other schools of Communist thought (Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc.). So to say that Communism somehow butchered the ideas of Karl Marx is just about like saying that Platonism butchered the ideas of Plato. And I am quite puzzled as to how an ILE could produce anything other than an ILE work. Why do you think that communism/Marxism is LII? Because it is a system?

Ahm... impressions? As in, not all of us consider trivial things in depth and prefer to skim over them with a general impression.

Also, I meant communism not as an idea but as the system that murdered, tortured and enslaved millions. I am actually surprised how you can consider it as *just* somebodies thoughts on a piece of paper and completely disregard this other part of it.

In short, no. Could you imagine an SLE (or any sane type) willingly touching Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason to somehow destroy or subvert it? At most the SLE may just say, "After reading and following the premises set forth in A Critique of Pure Reason, I have come to the conclusion that Kant just needs to get laid."

How narrow minded of you. As a matter of fact yes I can, I can imagine everybody abusing everything, and just because *you* can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not real. And my point not about a willing destruction but a natural, unnoticed action.

[anndelise]

I'm wondering whether ones supervisors naturally "abuse" ones great accomplishments. I don't see how it would be against what I'm saying as the manner in which it is done could very well align with those assumptions.

um, i'm not sure if what i'm about to write is along the lines of what you're asking about
(i don't understand the political/philosophical examples given, so i'm not sure if this will fit or not)

there are a couple of different ways that the supervisor/supervisee relationship can go
and i believe that it can be either of these ways within any "pair" and within any situation
(note: "pair" refers to any two people who are in a socionical supervisor/supervisee interaction)

* the supervisee is doing something,
-> the supervisor is aware of possible information that the supervisee is not aware of and/or is not keeping in mind,
-> the supervisor informs the supervisee of this information

* the supervisor is doing something,
-> the supervisee is aware of possible results/consequences that the supervisor is not aware of and/or is not keeping in mind,
-> the supervisee informs the supervisor of these possible results/consequences

note: the informing can be done in any manner, positive or negative, regardless of position

[Hitta]

if model A is correct why functionally would the supervisor supervisee relationship work?

[Logos]

Ahm... impressions? As in, not all of us consider trivial things in depth and prefer to skim over them with a general impression.

What does this have to do with anything?

Also, I meant communism not as an idea but as the system that murdered, tortured and enslaved millions.

How does the death toll of capitalist nations and system compare?

I am actually surprised how you can consider it as *just* somebodies thoughts on a piece of paper and completely disregard this other part of it.

Well 1) the Communist Manifesto is just Marx & Engels' thoughts on a piece of paper (pamphlets really); 2) "isms" don't do anything, people do; 3) I fail to see how I am necessarily disregarding anything in this matter as I am just correcting flaws that appear to be in your argument.

How narrow minded of you.

How condescending of you.

As a matter of fact yes I can, I can imagine everybody abusing everything,

Barney gives you two gold stars for your imagination. But it was something of an exaggeration on my part, hence the "or any sane type" in parentheses, and since you failed to see that, I'm taking your two gold stars away.

and just because *you* can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not real.

True, but the converse also holds true: just because you can imagine it does not mean that it is real (thank you Gaunilo and Immanuel Kant and boo! Anselm).

And my point not about a willing destruction but a natural, unnoticed action.

Well find an SLE who has destroyed A Critique of Pure Reason through a natural, unnoticed action and how they did it, and then we will talk.

[snegledmaca]

um, i'm not sure if what i'm about to write is along the lines of what you're asking about
(i don't understand the political/philosophical examples given, so i'm not sure if this will fit or not)

there are a couple of different ways that the supervisor/supervisee relationship can go
and i believe that it can be either of these ways within any "pair" and within any situation
(note: "pair" refers to any two people who are in a socionical supervisor/supervisee interaction)

* the supervisee is doing something,
-> the supervisor is aware of possible information that the supervisee is not aware of and/or is not keeping in mind,
-> the supervisor informs the supervisee of this information

* the supervisor is doing something,
-> the supervisee is aware of possible results/consequences that the supervisor is not aware of and/or is not keeping in mind,
-> the supervisee informs the supervisor of these possible results/consequences

note: the informing can be done in any manner, positive or negative, regardless of position

Well, I know that, that each posses an insight the otehr one does not, but my point is more along the lines, because the supervisor has the upper hand, when dealing with "fruits" of the supervise the supervisor will not notice it's "quality" and thus will not protect it from abuse which comes naturally and can be portrayed as "corrosion by stupidity through time". The imbeciles in the supervisor group involuntarily butcher the supervises efforts and the smart supervisors perceive the damage done as irrelevant, perhaps even "luckily the damage they did was contained to that insignificant thing they destroyed" and do nothing to protect it from further destruction or rebuild it.

[Hitta]

Because sometimes people believe in sacrifice?

Do what?

[anndelise]

Well, I know that, that each posses an insight the otehr one does not, but my point is more along the lines, because the supervisor has the upper hand, when dealing with "fruits" of the supervise the supervisor will not notice it's "quality" and thus will not protect it from abuse which comes naturally and can be portrayed as "corrosion by stupidity through time". The imbeciles in the supervisor group involuntarily butcher the supervises efforts and the smart supervisors perceive the damage done as irrelevant, perhaps even "luckily the damage they did was contained to that insignificant thing they destroyed" and do nothing to protect it from further destruction or rebuild it.

i don't believe that the supervisor has the upper hand in anything unless we're talking an actual business model and not the socionical model of supervisor/supervisee relationships, and if that's the case, i can't offer an insight on that topic,
*steps out of the way of the thread*

[snegledmaca]

Ahm... impressions? As in, not all of us consider trivial things in depth and prefer to skim over them with a general impression.

What does this have to do with anything?

Well you asked

Why do you think that communism/Marxism is LII? Because it is a system?

so I answered. Was it not obvious? It seemed obvious enough to me.

How does the death toll of capitalist nations and system compare?

God lord, irrelevant, that is not the topic here. That it happened was my point and that is enough of the relevant context.

Well 1) the Communist Manifesto is just Marx & Engels' thoughts on a piece of paper (pamphlets really); 2) "isms" don't do anything, people do; 3) I fail to see how I am necessarily disregarding anything in this matter as I am just correcting flaws that appear to be in your argument.

Argh, you're disregarding my whole point by focusing on irrelevant trivialities. That was not the manner in which I meant it, you are ascribing context that is not there and are working with it. The flaws you see are of your own creation.

How narrow minded of you.

How condescending of you.

Gah, did you or did you not write this?

At most the SLE may just say, "After reading and following the premises set forth in A Critique of Pure Reason, I have come to the conclusion that Kant just needs to get laid."

narrow minded is precisely it.

True, but the converse also holds true: just because you can imagine it does not mean that it is real (thank you Gaunilo and Immanuel Kant and boo! Anselm).

Well.... that's kinda the whole point of this thread, to check with otehr people on the validity of my assumption.

Well find an SLE who has destroyed A Critique of Pure Reason through a natural, unnoticed action and how they did it, and then we will talk.

I did not state that every single thing will be destroyed. I'm trying to discus a general pattern not individual sweeping occurrences.

[snegledmaca]

i don't believe that the supervisor has the upper hand in anything unless we're talking an actual business model and not the socionical model of supervisor/supervisee relationships

My experience has shown me that the supervisor most certainly has the upper hand (And quite an upper hand) in being able to do thing to the supervise to which they have no defense against, are utterly helpless. And I'm talking socionics here of course.

EDIT: Why do you "believe" otherwise?

[Logos]

Well you asked

so I answered. Was it not obvious? It seemed obvious enough to me.

I would hope that it would be obvious enough for yourself, but no it was not obvious enough for me. I like to have things spelled out for me and have people walk me by the hand through things.

God lord, irrelevant, that is not the topic here. That it happened was my point and that is enough of the relevant context.

You put it on the table of discussion when you wrote: "Also, I meant communism not as an idea but as the system that murdered, tortured and enslaved millions." Yes the deaths and the bad stuff happened, but when you just attribute this to the system of communism in such broad strokes it would make capitalism just as culpable. That is why I threw it out there, because you fail to be seeing that saying "Also, I meant communism not as an idea but as the system that murdered, tortured and enslaved millions" holds as much weight as saying "Also, I meant capitalism not as an idea but as the system that murdered, tortured and enslaved millions." I'm not trying to defend communism. I'm not slamming capitalism. I'm not denying the deaths or the bad stuff. I'm trying to defend historical accuracy of information! But when you say that it is the system itself that is doing the action as if it were a device designed for the said actions, then that shows a complete disregard for the political and historical complexities of the situations as well as the system itself.

Argh, you're disregarding my whole point by focusing on irrelevant trivialities.

And that's the problem, you don't have a whole point, just a wall of trivialities. I'm sorry for taking this out of context too, but those are the ropes of -idiocy.

That was not the manner in which I meant it, you are ascribing context that is not there and are working with it. The flaws you see are of your own creation.

I like to learn, and sometimes that requires that I be corrected in such matters as I can be a bit dense at times, so please point out the flaws of my own creation.

Gah, did you or did you not write this?

Yes.

Did you or did you not fail to see the self-depreciating humor in this?

At most the SLE may just say, "After reading and following the premises set forth in A Critique of Pure Reason, I have come to the conclusion that Kant just needs to get laid."

So it would seem that you likewise failed to see the context laden within the text. Should I perhaps dance some more around "or any sane type" as a means highlighting your failure in this regard?

I did not state that every single thing will be destroyed. I'm trying to discus a general pattern not individual sweeping occurrences.

Well have you found any patterns or generalities worth discussing?

[snegledmaca]

You put it on the table of discussion when you wrote: "Also, I meant communism not as an idea but as the system that murdered, tortured and enslaved millions." Yes the deaths and the bad stuff happened, but when you just attribute this to the system of communism in such broad strokes it would make capitalism just as culpable. That is why I threw it out there, because you fail to be seeing that saying "Also, I meant communism not as an idea but as the system that murdered, tortured and enslaved millions" holds as much weight as saying "Also, I meant capitalism not as an idea but as the system that murdered, tortured and enslaved millions." I'm not trying to defend communism. I'm not slamming capitalism. I'm not denying the deaths or the bad stuff. I'm trying to defend historical accuracy of information! But when you say that it is the system itself that is doing the action as if it were a device designed for the said actions, then that shows a complete disregard for the political and historical complexities of the situations as well as the system itself.

But I don't care about capitalism. My point was that it did something that could be considered "butchering of it's essence". And I'm referring to what happened, not the inherent potential of it. I don't care about that either.

And that's the problem, you don't have a whole point, just a wall of trivialities. I'm sorry for taking this out of context too, but those are the ropes of -idiocy.

Pfft... says you.

I like to learn, and sometimes that requires that I be corrected in such matters as I can be a bit dense at times, so please point out the flaws of my own creation.

That I'm incorrect. These stem form the fact that you have a different context and are attributing it to me, so I end up being wrong in this different context of yours. Those are my flaw of your own creation.

Did you or did you not fail to see the self-depreciating humor in this?
So it would seem that you likewise failed to see the context laden within the text. Should I perhaps dance some more around "or any sane type" as a means highlighting your failure in this regard?

Hmm, I guess I didn't find your humor funny.

Well have you found any patterns or generalities worth discussing?

I was hoping to get some through the discussion. Also that example about the EII and religions and wars and persecutions could be seen as a generality.

[anndelise]

i don't believe that the supervisor has the upper hand in anything unless we're talking an actual business model and not the socionical model of supervisor/supervisee relationships

My experience has shown me that the supervisor most certainly has the upper hand (And quite an upper hand) in being able to do thing to the supervise to which they have no defense against, are utterly helpless. And I'm talking socionics here of course.

EDIT: Why do you "believe" otherwise?

any person, regardless of type and position has the capacity to do things to another to which the other has no defense against, or are utterly helpless (even superman had his weaknesses which could have been used against him by ANYone who had access to it AND chose to use it)

does the supervisor have any kind of special weapon that noone else does?
all the supervisor has is an awareness of a type of information that the supervisee is relatively weak in, doesn't value, has difficulties with, etc etc etc
but it all comes down to type of information....not the action itself

CAN a supervisor abuse a supervisee's efforts/products? yes. but it's not a necessary thing, as the supervisor can also help the supervisee improve the effort/product

But the relationship can go both ways
socionically speaking, the supervisor has a bit more difficulty taking their initial effort/product to the next steps, they have to step into role mode, which is a weakness for them, but which is a relative strength for the supervisee. The supervisee also has the ability to take the effort/product even further by moving it into the supervisor's polr arena.
This ability of the supervisee can help and/or hinder the supervisor's efforts/product.

Either party can help/support the other.
Either party can hinder/block the other.
As such, either party can have the upper hand.
(whether one or both parties choose to use the 'upper hand' for evil depends on the people involved, not the inherent position)



My understanding of business models, is limited, so the following could be very wrong.
My understanding is that there are different types of management styles. Simplified would be Top Down vs ...uh...i don't know the term, lol...Bottom Up (i think). I'm pretty sure, though, that management styles have evolved since this, so I really don't know anything about the business aspects of supervisor/supervisee relationships. Nor do I know what styles socionics was initially referring to when they chose to reference the concepts of supervisor/supervisee. So I don't even want to try getting into here as I have nothing really to offer for this part.

[snegledmaca]

any person, regardless of type and position has the capacity to do things to another to which the other has no defense against, or are utterly helpless (even superman had his weaknesses which could have been used against him by ANYone who had access to it AND chose to use it)

does the supervisor have any kind of special weapon that noone else does?
all the supervisor has is an awareness of a type of information that the supervisee is relatively weak in, doesn't value, has difficulties with, etc etc etc
but it all comes down to type of information....not the action itself

CAN a supervisor abuse a supervisee's efforts/products? yes. but it's not a necessary thing, as the supervisor can also help the supervisee improve the effort/product

But the relationship can go both ways
socionically speaking, the supervisor has a bit more difficulty taking their initial effort/product to the next steps, they have to step into role mode, which is a weakness for them, but which is a relative strength for the supervisee. The supervisee also has the ability to take the effort/product even further by moving it into the supervisor's polr arena.
This ability of the supervisee can help and/or hinder the supervisor's efforts/product.

Either party can help/support the other.
Either party can hinder/block the other.
As such, either party can have the upper hand.
(whether one or both parties choose to use the 'upper hand' for evil depends on the people involved, not the inherent position)

Hmm, that may be true but I'm thinking there could a pattern of convergence where my method "prevails" over your possibilities. At the very least I think it should be considered as an interesting possibility for verification or disapproval through study.

[Logos]

But I don't care about capitalism. My point was that it did something that could be considered "butchering of it's essence". And I'm referring to what happened, not the inherent potential of it. I don't care about that either.

Then why did you not say, "Kind of like how communism was implemented in the first half of the 20th century subverted or butchered the essence of marxist ideology?"

That I'm incorrect. These stem form the fact that you have a different context and are attributing it to me, so I end up being wrong in this different context of yours. Those are my flaw of your own creation.

Well were my errors any greater than yours like how you put words into my mouth about me disregarding the atrocities committed in the name of communism and how I must just think of them as ideas written on paper?

Hmm, I guess I didn't find your humor funny.

We need to work on that.

I was hoping to get some through the discussion. Also that example about the EII and religions and wars and persecutions could be seen as a generality.

EII - Marcus Aurelius - fought battle campaigns and persecuted Christians. There you go. LII - Maximilien Robespierre - one of the architects of the French Revolution and Reign of Terror.

[snegledmaca]

Then why did you not say, "Kind of like how communism was implemented in the first half of the 20th century subverted or butchered the essence of marxist ideology?"

Ahahaha, this is so ironic, this kind of nitpicking is precisely the thing I'm good at. Yes, I should have phrased it in such a manner in order to avoid misinterpretation, you are completely correct.

Well were my errors any greater than yours like how you put words into my mouth about me disregarding the atrocities committed in the name of communism and how I must just think of them as ideas written on paper?

Whoa, hold on there, I did no such thing, just expressed my surprise at how you were looking at is as a concept. I found that odd. I have no idea on your stances, how you think, what your convictions are (Nor do I particularly care to be honest).

We need to work on that.

Actually, I found otehr jokes you made funny, just missed that one. I liked this one as well.

EII - Marcus Aurelius - fought battle campaigns and persecuted Christians. There you go. LII - Maximilien Robespierre - one of the architects of the French Revolution and Reign of Terror.

Individual contradictions do not disprove my claim. They just show that individual contradictions are possible. Which I know. And am not arguing.

[Logos]

Dahhh ta da da da da. Dahhh ta da da da da da da. Ta dah dah dah. It was all just one misunderstanding. Thread continues.

Individual contradictions do not disprove my claim. They just show that individual contradictions are possible. Which I know. And am not arguing.

Yes, they are individual claims, but the point being is that people are capable of seemingly defying their own ideology or stereotypes surrounding types.

[snegledmaca]

Dahhh ta da da da da. Dahhh ta da da da da da da. Ta dah dah dah. It was all just one misunderstanding.

Not really. It was more of a demonstration of difference of preferences, of placement of priorities on your and my part.

Yes, they are individual claims, but the point being is that people are capable of seemingly defying their own ideology or stereotypes surrounding types.

Well I know that.

[munenori2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkkmr
Because sometimes people believe in sacrifice?

Do what?

You know, sort of like how you believe your theories.

[Blaze]

been noticing some aspects of supervision lately, hopefully this is not too much of a tangent for this thread.

what i notice is that when the supervisor confides in the supervisee, the supervisee is unable to handle it and lashes out somewhat viciously at the supervisor by hitting their role function. i've noticed this happening between an LSI and ILE, and an ILE and EII. while this doesn't disable the supervisor by any means, it's uncomfortable enough.

the supervisee is not as powerful an influence over the supervisor as the supervisor is over the supervisee, but i deduced that the supervisee perhaps gets tired of polr hits from the supervisor and retalitates with their creative function which is stronger than the role function of the supervisor. weird.

but anyway, i think this is a supervision dynamic that we don't usually notice since we are focused on polr hits instead of role function hits. also, it could be that the conflict arises between the lead function of the supervisor and the creative function of the supervisee, and this creative function is the role function of the supervisor. or something like that. but the idea is that there's more to the asymmetry than the polr hits on the supervisee.