Is there chemistry in supervision relations?

[bolong]

Supervision partners often look like good friends. The reason for this is that in these relations both partners can sense their social value: the Supervisor as a "guardian angel", without whom the Supervisee will get into trouble, and the Supervisee as the object of attention.

Supervisee seeks out the approval of the supervisor. but in a group, the supervisor will also be drawn to the supervisee and see him as a safe relation where he is sure to be acknowledged and approved. Over time this can result in a seemingly warm and deeply connected relationship

Apart from this, isn't there a high level of understanding among supervision relations, due to shared valued functions?

[The Reality Denialist]

First the supervisee's creative is seen as bit shocking first. Then the fun begins.
There is shared understanding although supervisee role is stronger and might give some wrong signals like supervisor might delude him/herself seeing it as stable and reliable IE while supervisee see it as bit painful and ineffective.

Supervisee might brush off supervisee's interests as nonsense. Furthermore supervisor gives disapproving signals towards mobilizing and starts to rely on supervisee's demonstrative.

You see how it works. Supervisor might get closer which makes supervise more uncomfortable.

It is only partial.

[DirectorAbbie]

There is a good level of understanding in supervision relationships. But it's inadvisable to try that relationship beyond friendship.

[bolong]

I'm fascinated by a pair of supervision relations I'm witnessing. One is LII male with IEE female (romantic) and the other is SEE female (boss) and EII male (employee, upper mgmt). Yes, when the supervisor is upset it shakes up supervisee but otherwise they are COMMITTED and seem like strong bonds.

I'm interested in hearing of more supervision relations where both parties are very close and loyal to each other.

[Adam Strange]

I am LIE-Te and my ex-wife is SLE-Te and we were happily married for many years. (At least, I was happy and she seemed to be. I have pics of her smiling.) I think her sub-type made her more like a Mirror than a Supervisor, because she never really got on my nerves.

I think she often thought I was an idiot while I never thought that of her, but that is about as close to the standard description of Supervision as we got.

We still like and love each other, but that isn't enough for me to want to get back together with her. @bolong, you mentioned loyalty, and I should add that we were both 100% loyal and faithful to each other. Neither of us are cheaters, and I always knew I could count on her in a pinch.

She never really gave me a consistent reason for why she left, but I think it had to do with her tendency (along with other SLI's) to want to conserve resources. I tend to spend money freely on things which I think will have a good return, and this has mostly worked out well, with only a few spectacular failures. But I think it was the failures that spooked her, so she wanted (and got) a divorce while there was still some money left.

The bad thing, from her perspective, was that my income went up significantly after she left. She has a very poor ability to foresee future outcomes, although I will add that she walked away with enough that she will never have to work again. So maybe her timing was good enough. Lol.

Nevertheless, I like her and we still say Hi to each other every month or so.

Now, my father is also an SLI, and for many years I had a hard time being in the same room with him. Furthermore, he has never thought of me as being successful in any way, which is more along the lines of the standard Supervision relationship descriptions.

[DirectorAbbie]

Yeah: subtype makes a difference. As an LSE-Si, SEI-Sis can usually get along better with me than ILI-Nis can.
My Finnish tutor is SEI, and he has noted that if our roles were reversed he wouldn't like it.
And I hypothesize that in a relationship where one partner would be more likely to have the upper hand (like the male in a romantic relationship), it is better that this person not also be supervisor to the other. But 'tis but a theory.

[Adam Strange]

Yeah: subtype makes a difference. As an LSE-Si, SEI-Sis can usually get along better with me than ILI-Nis can.
My Finnish tutor is SEI, and he has noted that if our roles were reversed he wouldn't like it.
And I hypothesize that in a relationship where one partner would be more likely to have the upper hand (like the male in a romantic relationship), it is better that this person not also be supervisor to the other. But 'tis but a theory.

Having the "upper hand" in a relationship is not always the male's disposition. My LSE mother definitely had the upper hand in her marriage to my SLI father, and when I was taking dance lessons, I noted that in about half of the male-female dance couples, where the male is always supposed to lead, the woman had to strongly encourage her husband to "do something". It was like they were saying, "C'mon, start already."

[bolong]

I am LIE-Te and my ex-wife is SLE-Te and we were happily married for many years. (At least, I was happy and she seemed to be. I have pics of her smiling.) I think her sub-type made her more like a Mirror than a Supervisor, because she never really got on my nerves.

I think she often thought I was an idiot while I never thought that of her, but that is about as close to the standard description of Supervision as we got.

We still like and love each other, but that isn't enough for me to want to get back together with her. @bolong, you mentioned loyalty, and I should add that we were both 100% loyal and faithful to each other. Neither of us are cheaters, and I always knew I could count on her in a pinch.

She never really gave me a consistent reason for why she left, but I think it had to do with her tendency (along with other SLI's) to want to conserve resources. I tend to spend money freely on things which I think will have a good return, and this has mostly worked out well, with only a few spectacular failures. But I think it was the failures that spooked her, so she wanted (and got) a divorce while there was still some money left.

The bad thing, from her perspective, was that my income went up significantly after she left. She has a very poor ability to foresee future outcomes, although I will add that she walked away with enough that she will never have to work again. So maybe her timing was good enough. Lol.

Nevertheless, I like her and we still say Hi to each other every month or so.

Now, my father is also an SLI, and for many years I had a hard time being in the same room with him. Furthermore, he has never thought of me as being successful in any way, which is more along the lines of the standard Supervision relationship descriptions.

What about physical chemistry? Did you enjoy talking to each other?

[bolong]

Yeah: subtype makes a difference. As an LSE-Si, SEI-Sis can usually get along better with me than ILI-Nis can.
My Finnish tutor is SEI, and he has noted that if our roles were reversed he wouldn't like it.
And I hypothesize that in a relationship where one partner would be more likely to have the upper hand (like the male in a romantic relationship), it is better that this person not also be supervisor to the other. But 'tis but a theory.

I agree, in any given supervision couple, if the woman is the supervisor (and everyone is healthy) they are probably more likely to get along without abuses and the supervisee feeling worthless

[Adam Strange]

What about physical chemistry?

Well, I was friends with her before I thought of sleeping with her, so there wasn't much physical chemistry there at all. Victim and Caregiver, you might know. Nevertheless, we were both technically good in bed. She was kind of amazed at first, which is not bragging, just a fact.
I have since had a chance to compare her with an Aggressor, and while the particular Aggressor had some problems, physical chemistry between us was not one of them. There is a lot of truth in the "Erotic Attitudes" article.

Did you enjoy talking to each other?

Yes, she is smart as hell and has incredibly sensible advice, and we had identical outlooks on the world. I just spent Thanksgiving with her (platonically) and told her that, while I wasn't going to re-marry her, I hoped to always be able to talk to her because she has such great ideas.

She even gave me an article on how to date. Lol.

[powerrainbowcrystal]

Both sexual & romantic chemistry happen a lot sure. But communication is more awkward so it's harder for something to actually happen. I think it works much, much better one-on-one as hot private sex but kinda fails anywhere else. I have this theory that supervision relationship could work as some weird fuck buddy thing that's completely underground but realistically I don't think that's very psychologically healthy or even realistically manageable. Most people want some integrated thing where they can show off their partner in a variety of social situations. And the chemistry kinda feels less and less the more people come around, especially for the supervisee I think as the supervisor's ego function will begin to really, really annoy you.

[Adam Strange]

Both sexual & romantic chemistry happen a lot sure. But communication is more awkward so it's harder for something to actually happen. I think it works much, much better one-on-one as hot private sex but kinda fails anywhere else. I have this theory that supervision relationship could work as some weird fuck buddy thing that's completely underground but realistically I don't think that's very psychologically healthy or even realistically manageable. Most people want some integrated thing where they can show off their partner in a variety of social situations. And the chemistry kinda feels less and less the more people come around, especially for the supervisee I think as the supervisor's ego function will begin to really, really annoy you.

Today I had lunch with a female IEI Supervisee whom I've dated before. She was kind of indicating that she hasn't "dated" in a while, and why don't we get together because Dammit there are no decent men around and she's going nuts and there's no commitment involved. She's incredibly smart and classically beautiful, but I'm suffering from the knowledge that Victim-Victim is a really bad idea, and I'm holding out for Aggressor-Victim and I told her she should, too. Her ex-husband is an ILE, and I can only imagine what that was like.

What she needs most is not a Supervisor, but just someone who is very supportive and not critical of her. I told her that, too, and she called me a friend. Which was nice. She's a very good person.

[Bertrand]

I agree, in any given supervision couple, if the woman is the supervisor (and everyone is healthy) they are probably more likely to get along without abuses and the supervisee feeling worthless

the whole point of supervision is that theres 16 unique ways to experience supervision. if you're applying a stereotyped view of supervision based of one or a few of those modes, and then saying female>male supervision is less likely to be damaging, based on an expectation of damage looking the way you assume it to based on said modes, you just beg the question and ignore the reality of supervision. supervision doesn't have to be devastating at all, and there's nothing about it that makes it inherently abusive. it simply means the supervisor is in a stronger position psychologically. you could just as easily argue that women are socialized to cope with being in a vulnerable position easier (not to mention society provides more resources to vulnerable women in recognition of this fact) and even come to expect that from their partner, hence supervision is easier on them. the point is not that that's true, but that you don't understand supervision if you think gender has anything to do with it, because it operates on a level prior to the social one. in other words, whatever social manifestation it takes its the underlying psychological strata that supervision describes, meaning in any given scenario or power relation supervision will precede the social arragenement and color it accordingly. to say gender roles can attenuate the negative effects presupposes what the negative effects look like and applies that definition to supervision when the whole point of supervision is that it can take even "favorable" social structures and invert them. it presupposes that dominant social relations "deserve" to be inverted and thus balance eachother when in fact the result is likely to be equally harmful. if a secretary dominates her CEO boss it could lead to an entire company going under the man being removed from his position and committing suicide, you might say "yeah! score one for women!" but it just implies a moral narrative that has perniciously superseded socionics itself (or even better you could say "a woman would never do that!"--the point is they would do it completely well-meaning and without even realizing it). a spouse who psychologically dominates his or her partner has little reason to abuse him or her anyway, the whole point of abuse is to wear them down so as to gain the superior position, which they already have. to say the superior position is inherently abusive is to incorrectly reverse the nature of abuse from the byproduct to the cause. and feelings of worthlessness are not a foregone conclusion of supervision. the supervisor is generally benevolently disposed to the supervisee

in short there's a million and one problems with that hypothesis, that comes down the idea that supervision is inherently malevolent and that women are inherently more benevolent, and ergo your conclusion. which is wrong

[powerrainbowcrystal]

Her ex-husband is an ILE, and I can only imagine what that was like.

Probably socially satisfying but erotically disappointing. People can call me whatever they want, but I care about how I like to get fucked. It's important.

What she needs most is not a Supervisor, but just someone who is very supportive and not critical of her. I told her that, too, and she called me a friend. Which was nice. She's a very good person.

This would feel very nice! America is a Te valuing society and many IEIs are used to being unfairly criticized. It's not really the LIE/LSE's fault, it's just the culture values as a whole pits Fe/Ti valuers into a bad light. /chokes Diane Sawyer.

It would be nice to feel supported (not coddled or mommied though) in a relationship for once. <3 Most of the time though my brain is just hatefully tearing somebody apart mentally because I think they are doing the same to me.

[Adam Strange]

America is a Te valuing society and many IEIs are used to being unfairly criticized. It's not really the LIE/LSE's fault, it's just the culture values as a whole pits Fe/Ti valuers into a bad light. /chokes Diane Sawyer.

I agree with you, @bulletsandoves. I saw this bias as a kid when I realized that my LSE mother hated my favorite IEI cousin. And I mean she hated her. I've since seen LIE's who are either dismissive or pretty hard on IEI's, because the LIE's seem to be blind to the virtues of an IEI. Like, if LIE's are insisting to themselves (and others) that the only good people are the ones using Te, then they are going to miss a whole lot of good stuff.

I sometimes am painfully aware of how bad some IEI's are at Te, but because of my cousin, I just let it go, never mention it, try to give them some Se and move my focus to their Fe or their incredible Ni.


*EDIT* I sometimes wonder if this is the way my SLI ex viewed me.

[Bertrand]

there's a reason nature selected out IEI

and why the Russians shot theirs into space

[powerrainbowcrystal]

And I mean she hated her.

Was it mutual? IEIs are good at playing innocent while being pretty fucking evil and getting away with it.

[Hope]

Apart from this, isn't there a high level of understanding among supervision relations, due to shared valued functions?

More or less, it depends.

I can see the reasons behind acts or understand their motives (shared valued functions), but I definitely can't understand (get) why they proceed in the way they do. To me they often do things in unsuitable, improper and inconvenient ways. And its pretty much because I wouldn't do most things in the same way they do(PoLR vs Lead).

[Tallmo]

Yes there is chemistry in supervision. The supervisor has an unexplainable "magical" impact on the supervisee. This can create attraction and chemistry. It's not good in the long run, but for the moment it can make people interested in each other.

[strrrng]

ime there's usually a kind of peripheral, up front magnetism; and if at least one person's subtype is aligned (more so the supervisor), it can be pretty agreeable, though I still don't think it would work past standard friendship.

I have a pretty good Ni-LIE friend and a really good Ni-EIE friend. Putting aside their respective strengths, it's essentially that the former implicitly lowers my worth without really meaning to. The interesting thing is that it took more effort to earn the respect of the EIE. So, to me it's that the supervisor can simply only get so close without feeling wrong/irrelevant -- the LIE respects me greatly, he just has a "can't be bothered" attitude when it comes to me trying to reel him in in that beta way. A similar thing happens between me and ESEs, and I think the pattern is simply that supervisors unconsciously see limitations that supervisees don't or would rather ignore.

[Aylen]

there's a reason nature selected out IEI

and why the Russians shot theirs into space

Because IEI belong in space, among the other stars.

[Olimpia]

Supervision can be attractive for a couple of reasons...

One of them is having the same Cognition style. Then also, the match of an Extrovert with an Introvert.

Other reasons would be non-ITR related, like physical attraction etc. Those reasons can make every relation attractive...

People who have a thing for power imbalances in a relationship (consciously or not) will be typically drawn to Supervision and Benefit.

[Tigerfadder]

I think that supervisor can straighten things out for the supervisee in tough times. But also that it can become addictive to be supervisor eventually.

[Sol]

Apart from this, isn't there a high level of understanding among supervision relations, due to shared valued functions?

of boring understanding, what partly reminds mirror

"Supervision partners often look like good friends."
Revisor tends to perceive the subrevisie as personally below him. Friends like and respect each other as equals.

Meanwhile, people of different sexes may to have passion and indeed to try be "friends". I remember an ILI girl which liked me, while I found her just interesting (my heart gone to IEI in that times). I suspect her farther was LSI and she assigned me LSI traits what helped her to get light feelings.

[Chae]

Depends on the elements involved If it's ethics - which governs creating/sustaining chemistry - there might be mutual effort. If two logical types are involved: they could not even notice their interpersonal dynamics?

[at sirac son of sirac]

Supervisor Chemistry


Max Keiser and Stacey Herbert, married,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Herbert

Herbert is a co-host, with her husband[1] Max Keiser,[2] of The Keiser Report on RT,[3] and Double Down on Radio Sputnik

Max Keiser - LIE
Stacey Herbert - SLI

They host some TV show on Russia Today called Keiser Report



You can find loads of their videos online. I've watched some, Stacey is co-host, Max does most of the talking with Stacey amusingly at times keeping him on track.

They look a bit more 'couply' here

[Pookie]

To women with daddy issues.

[Alomoes]

I don't know. I'd say no. Cause it's a thing that is deemed bad. Hey, if the supervisee beats the supervisor's challenge, maybe. Like woah. Maybe.

[FDG]

Depends on the elements involved If it's ethics - which governs creating/sustaining chemistry - there might be mutual effort. If two logical types are involved: they could not even notice their interpersonal dynamics?

Yes but I like it with my SLI-Te friends that we are both kind of...positivist-assholes towards the external world (less to each other because there is some mutual understanding).

Notice how Strasevskaya says that the "least likely to work" dualities are IEE-SLI and LIE-ESI, because thinking positivist simply believe they can always do whatever they want in their personal relationships and there will be no reaction from the other part (lack of attention towards / ). That's Strats' interpretation of the issue, but I can see what she means.

Anyway, staying on topic: never had romantic chemistry with SLI women, they are often nice, intelligent and pretty, but relationship with thinking type women just don't click for me. I've worked and done sports projects with SLI-Tes,(the captain of my cycling team was SLI, and I was the strongest time trialer, so he needed me) - they have abilities which I don't have but everything they say makes sense to me, I'm easily able to learn from them, only other LIEs are better teachers for me.

Overall I find it a quite positive relationship from a developmental point of view, of course if you're involved in work politics and you're a LIE with a SLI boss - good luck.

I have less experience with IEIs but I respect their intuitive skills, they often seem like positively inclined ILIs. IEI-Fes are a bit more moody and pushy, I don't always fully relate to them.

[Rebelondeck]

Depends on how the word 'chemistry' is defined and in what context the relationship is. Libido trumps intertype-dynamics especially in the short-term, and may even sustain a relationship over a long period, especially an extramarital one. So long as relationship objectives and expectations of both parties are confined, there shouldn't be any huge problems; they can't lose control or get scratched if the cats are kept in the cage......

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

Yes but I like it with my SLI-Te friends that we are both kind of...positivist-assholes towards the external world (less to each other because there is some mutual understanding).

Notice how Strasevskaya says that the "least likely to work" dualities are IEE-SLI and LIE-ESI, because thinking positivist simply believe they can always do whatever they want in their personal relationships and there will be no reaction from the other part (lack of attention towards / ). That's Strats' interpretation of the issue, but I can see what she means.

Anyway, staying on topic: never had romantic chemistry with SLI women, they are often nice, intelligent and pretty, but relationship with thinking type women just don't click for me. I've worked and done sports projects with SLI-Tes,(the captain of my cycling team was SLI, and I was the strongest time trialer, so he needed me) - they have abilities which I don't have but everything they say makes sense to me, I'm easily able to learn from them, only other LIEs are better teachers for me.

Overall I find it a quite positive relationship from a developmental point of view, of course if you're involved in work politics and you're a LIE with a SLI boss - good luck.

I have less experience with IEIs but I respect their intuitive skills, they often seem like positively inclined ILIs. IEI-Fes are a bit more moody and pushy, I don't always fully relate to them.

This is very interesting, @FDG. You and I should talk about Strat's take on the LIE-ESI duality problems, because I think I see what you are saying and don't want to screw things up with ESI's.

[Number 9 large]

I don't want to screw things up with ESI's.

Good luck with that m8

[Sol]

Notice how Strasevskaya says that the "least likely to work" dualities are IEE-SLI and LIE-ESI, because thinking positivist simply believe they can always do whatever they want in their personal relationships

The example when: 1) Reinin's traits is bs, 2) Stratievskaya is low quality heretic source.
All will work and similarly good in case the types are dual indeed and non-types factors will not prevent. When there emotions to mistype is especially easy.

> Anyway, staying on topic: never had romantic chemistry with SLI women, they are often nice, intelligent and pretty, but relationship with thinking type women just don't click for me.

Duals give strong soul attraction. You need to communicate informally with them and then will get it, generally. This may happen not in 1st minute, this may take some time when initial sympathy goes on the level of attraction. The switch may happen when your dual gives you real support for superid regions. You need to be open, to be agree on feelings. Also you need to tune to other human, introject him (to become him in some sense and become with him as One). I'm talking here about romantic pairs, but technically it's about any friendship.

At best, you need to have a deal for both where you collaborate and depend on each other equally, according to your strong functions - you need to show your natural support. Preferably, when you both are isolated from external help, other familiar people and in a stress conditions. Like, for example, other town where noone of you were before and where you need to solve a mutual task.

[Olimpia]

Good luck with that m8

Haha!
Rekt.

[Adam Strange]

Good luck with that m8

Fortunately, there's a lot of them.

[Number 9 large]

Fortunately, there's a lot of them.

Yea

[Bertrand]

there's a certain irony in playing the numbers game when its that game that ensures you'll alienate all of them no matter how many there are

[bolong]

the whole point of supervision is that theres 16 unique ways to experience supervision. if you're applying a stereotyped view of supervision based of one or a few of those modes, and then saying female>male supervision is less likely to be damaging, based on an expectation of damage looking the way you assume it to based on said modes, you just beg the question and ignore the reality of supervision. supervision doesn't have to be devastating at all, and there's nothing about it that makes it inherently abusive. it simply means the supervisor is in a stronger position psychologically. you could just as easily argue that women are socialized to cope with being in a vulnerable position easier (not to mention society provides more resources to vulnerable women in recognition of this fact) and even come to expect that from their partner, hence supervision is easier on them. the point is not that that's true, but that you don't understand supervision if you think gender has anything to do with it, because it operates on a level prior to the social one. in other words, whatever social manifestation it takes its the underlying psychological strata that supervision describes, meaning in any given scenario or power relation supervision will precede the social arragenement and color it accordingly. to say gender roles can attenuate the negative effects presupposes what the negative effects look like and applies that definition to supervision when the whole point of supervision is that it can take even "favorable" social structures and invert them. it presupposes that dominant social relations "deserve" to be inverted and thus balance eachother when in fact the result is likely to be equally harmful. if a secretary dominates her CEO boss it could lead to an entire company going under the man being removed from his position and committing suicide, you might say "yeah! score one for women!" but it just implies a moral narrative that has perniciously superseded socionics itself (or even better you could say "a woman would never do that!"--the point is they would do it completely well-meaning and without even realizing it). a spouse who psychologically dominates his or her partner has little reason to abuse him or her anyway, the whole point of abuse is to wear them down so as to gain the superior position, which they already have. to say the superior position is inherently abusive is to incorrectly reverse the nature of abuse from the byproduct to the cause. and feelings of worthlessness are not a foregone conclusion of supervision. the supervisor is generally benevolently disposed to the supervisee

in short there's a million and one problems with that hypothesis, that comes down the idea that supervision is inherently malevolent and that women are inherently more benevolent, and ergo your conclusion. which is wrong

No, that's not all what I meant. The supervisor is in a more powerful situation, so if there are external factors (NTR) that mitigate that, it will be less abusive for the supervisee overall.

I.E. I know a ESE female and SLI male couple, from a male dominated culture, that are very healthy and have raised 4 healthy kids. While the male in this situation is older, more educated and esteemed just for being a male, he doesn't also get to be a supervisor to his wife. The wife is fully in control of pretty much every social situation. And that worked out well for the whole family.

[bolong]

Supervision can be attractive for a couple of reasons...

One of them is having the same Cognition style. Then also, the match of an Extrovert with an Introvert.

Other reasons would be non-ITR related, like physical attraction etc. Those reasons can make every relation attractive...

People who have a thing for power imbalances in a relationship (consciously or not) will be typically drawn to Supervision and Benefit.

YES, thank you. Same cognition style = pretty powerful initial attraction.

But at what point, and HOW does it break down? Do you think supervisees who cannot let go have maybe never known duality? Or forget duality, maybe they haven't even known semi-dual or mirage (which can be a satisfying match of creative functions)

[bolong]

I think that supervisor can straighten things out for the supervisee in tough times. But also that it can become addictive to be supervisor eventually.

Interesting. Do you think being in that position of power would be attractive enough to keep someone in a toxic relationship? Depends on type, maybe?