Making things work in Supervision
Anyways, I'll keep the short story short. I've become good friends with an IEE lately. (through mutual friends) She's a pretty amazing person and fun to be around. Feels like discovering another side of myself that never really got to flourish.
Getting to the point, how would a Socionics dynamic figure into this?
Post-script: As always, open for a retyping on the person involved if necessary.
Nothing against liking your supervisee, and the creative function is generally undeveloped compared with the base function (hence "another side of yourself that never really got to flourish"). More to the point, what does she think of you?Originally Posted by MatthewZ
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
I agree. I tend to enjoy the presence of my supervisees. For some reason, they seem to be annoyed at me.
Jason
Relation M-Supervisor F-supervisee can do wonders IMO, provided that Supervisor picks up "take it easy" attitude regarding his base function i.e. refrains himself from criticizing his Supervisee too much(is that possible?).
It is because you are always in a more favourable position in respect to your supervisees.
Relations of Supervision can give the impression that Jason is constantly watching every step of his supervisees. They usually feel this control even if Jason does not say or do anything. The explanation for this is that their weak point is defenceless against Jason's strong point. This makes them nervous and expect the worse.
Although Jason can seem self-satisfied, petty, faultfinding and narrative, his supervisees pay attention to his actions and consider him as consequential. They normally want to gain recognition and commendation from Jason. However, it may seem like Jason always undervalues the abilities of supervisees surrounding him. This stimulates them into proving their own worthiness with various actions, yet there is little chance that they will succeed.
Jason sees the surrounding supervisee as quite interesting and capable, but incomplete and therefore in need of some help and advice. They do not respond to this aid as expected and this will often increase Jason's attempts to change them. Because they naturally do not understand what it is that Jason wants from them, this may irritate Jason, who thinks that they simply don't want to understand.
In these relations it may also appear as if Jason patronises his supervisees, which can be quite obtrusive for them. When there are more than two people present, supervisees often attempt to release themselves from the control of Jason by starting arguments for the sake of it or by attempting to manoeuvre themselves into the commanding position. Unfortunately, these attempts lead nowhere. Jason may think instead that his supervisees simply require more attention.
Jason and his supervisees often look like good friends. The reason for this is that in these relations every party can sense their social value: Jason as a "guardian angel", without whom surrounding supervisees will get into trouble, and supervisees as the object of attention.
Relations of Supervision can give the impression that Jason is constantly watching every step of his supervisees. They usually feel this control even if Jason does not say or do anything. The explanation for this is that their weak point is defenceless against Jason's strong point. This makes them nervous and expect the worse.
Although Jason can seem self-satisfied, petty, faultfinding and narrative, his supervisees pay attention to his actions and consider him as consequential. They normally want to gain recognition and commendation from Jason. However, it may seem like Jason always undervalues the abilities of supervisees surrounding him. This stimulates them into proving their own worthiness with various actions, yet there is little chance that they will succeed.
Jason sees the surrounding supervisee as quite interesting and capable, but incomplete and therefore in need of some help and advice. They do not respond to this aid as expected and this will often increase Jason's attempts to change them. Because they naturally do not understand what it is that Jason wants from them, this may irritate Jason, who thinks that they simply don't want to understand.
In these relations it may also appear as if Jason patronises his supervisees, which can be quite obtrusive for them. When there are more than two people present, supervisees often attempt to release themselves from the control of Jason by starting arguments for the sake of it or by attempting to manoeuvre themselves into the commanding position. Unfortunately, these attempts lead nowhere. Jason may think instead that his supervisees simply require more attention.
Jason and his supervisees often look like good friends. The reason for this is that in these relations every party can sense their social value: Jason as a "guardian angel", without whom surrounding supervisees will get into trouble, and supervisees as the object of attention.
What does she think of me? I can't know that for certain. As I've observed and she's confessed to, one of her worse habits is saying "no" and/or disappointing people. As a natural result, I can't fully know of the negative perception she has of me, or how embellished the positive things she says may be. If there's an obvious "supervisor trying to change the supervisee" characteristic at this point, it would be changing that habit of hers. She can put the weight of the world on her shoulders sometimes, feeling that all problems around her are her fault and that she should feel bad for all of it.
That kept in mind, I believe she thinks I'm an honest friend, a fairly understanding person with an unbreakable sense of calmness. She also speaks of me having some sort of "know everything" ability. (Not in the derogatory sense of me putting my own thoughts above input for others; rather, in the sense that I have some ability to analyze anything rather succinctly.)
For LII/IEE to get along, the LII has to practice at not accentuating IEE's unstructured thinking style. This isn't easy considering that LII is constantly focusing on it. From the LII's perspective, there won't be any problems. From the IEE's perspective things will be okay as long as the LII doesn't become overly critical.
supervisor/supervisee
These relations can be fine, as long as:
1. Both of you need to be objective. Do not share what you are really feeling. If either party opens up the other kind of feels sheepish and 'awkward.' Leave the subjective stuff for your own quadra.
2. If your supervisee tells you to do something just do it. Pay attention to when you are criticizing the supervisee. The supervisor has the power in this situation but it can be made better by realizing this imbalance and working with it. We subconsciously and very often criticize our supervisee without thinking about it. And this just goes back to basic humanity. Nobody likes being criticized, you know, even when they know they done something wrong, especially when it's not an official test or something. It's just, people communicating. Just be aware of your natural knee-jerk reaction to criticize supervisee and simply don't do it. You can't control what you think or how you feel, but you can control how you behave and conduct yourself.
There is no reason to act like an adolescent just because you're with somebody who you can't be all romantic fag like. Grow out of that shit. You can only be your 'true self' with very few people, and that's just how it is.
3. Don't talk so much, find an activity you both enjoy and that you are good at. This keeps psychological distance focused on the activity and less on the feelings or internal impressions. Whatever you do don't share your romantic life with each other, or anything like that. The supervisor is bound to give you advice that really annoys you, or vice-versa. Be a human doing, don't be a human being.
Of course this advice is unnatural and counter-intuitive. Well that's the point. You can't be your internal self, the self you really want to be, the kind you always virtuously are- around your supervisor/supervisee. But behaving in this way, I bet that you will improve your relations with others. It takes practice, though.
Also, relationships are everything. You want to have good relationships with others as much as possible. It will only make you more powerful and successful right? I mean if you want a 'real life example of socionics' I can't think of anything better. With a little practice and effort, whenever I do these things they do work.
Just remember too that we all need the sort of unconditional love and understanding that only our own quadra provides us. Where you don't have to try at all, you just be yourself. But realistically, to function in the world, you just can't do this. I know you already know that but it's worth repeating!
Alright B&D .... this is all good stuff and seems OK if both people know socionics or at the least the supervisor is the one with the knowledge and the goodwill to use it in the way you describe.
Have you given any thought to what happens when the supervisee has the knowledge (but cannot share it) and is having their space incessantly invaded by a supervisor who cannot always be avoided.
ILE
the way you described needing to be in this relation is how my marriage has gone. My advice to everyone on this board: do not marry your supervisor or supervisee. DO NOT DISREGARD THIS ADVICE JUST BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS A GOOD PERSON OR HOT OR SEXY OR WHATEVER. Because everything B&D has written is exactly right. And if you want your marriage to be that way, then go ahead and do it. At your own risk, ladies and gentlemen.
IEI-Fe 4w3
We should distinguish between j>p and p>j supervision!
The relation of supervision with a rational supervisor is definitely much better than the other one. It's even the relation Keirsey recommends (even though some people are different types in MBTI).
@redbaron: What's your type and what's the type of the person you married?
I think everyone on this board must know except for you! LOL I'm IEI-Ni and my husband is ESE-Fe. Married for 15 years.
IEI-Fe 4w3
I wasn't aware that there was that much of a difference between j>p and p>j. I got the impression that the problem with supervision is that the supervisor stresses the supervisee without knowing it. I think a j would be as annoyed by a p as a p would be by a j, but that an extrovert would have an easier time bugging an introvert than vice versa.
Do supervisors get irritated over supervisees "missing the obvious"? I've noticed in a few people that when the supervisee says something clueless related to their polr that the supervisor will reply with something snarky. As though they're thinking, "Why do you always ask the dumbest questions?"
That's what it felt like my LII boss was doing to me, and I've noticed it a fair amount with other people I've been observing...
IEE
Yes. The supervisor feels certain things are obvious and that the supervisee is just being difficult. Over time it has the effect of causing the supervisor to lose respect for the supervisee.
IEI-Fe 4w3
It happens. But it's not so bad if there's an understanding of socionics involved. For example, I'm lousy at predicting the weather. I told my ILI friend. I tried to predict the weather the other day, and my friend laughed at me. But it was a good reminder not to trust my own judgement on something I know nothing about.
It's kind of weird being the third party in those situations because it's obvious the person is asking a real question, but the supervisor doesn't see it at all.Yes. The supervisor feels certain things are obvious and that the supervisee is just being difficult. Over time it has the effect of causing the supervisor to lose respect for the supervisee.
IEE
It's possible supervision relationships can survive a marriage ... but of the ones i know
The most extreme:
ENFJ(man)-ISFP(woman) At first he was amazed at her - compliments like her cooking was just fabulous and in the kitchen things just appeared. The relationship ended with him under evaluation in a psychiatric ward about 9 months later, on the edge of being diagnosed as requiring ongoing treatment and life changing medication. I remember it well there was absolutely nothing wrong with him before he met her nor in the last 10 years since that time.
Another ENFJ(man)-ISFP(woman) lasted 10 years and with kids. In the later part of the marriage the guy spent a lot of time perched on the roof trying to escape her ! ... seems funny but i doubt he saw it that way. In the end from frustration she "crossed the line" precipitating divorce (ie cheated on him). Apparently she is still unsure what the problem was between them in the first place. He's obviously learned his lesson and just recently married another ISFP ...
Another was an INFP(man) - ENTJ(woman). This marriage lasted 3 years but serious problems appeared after the first. Again the man ended up on medication (lol) and the problems in the relationship (mood swings, aggression etc) soon began to be attributed to that.... turns out there was not much need for medication after the divorce and he could hold a job.
ILE
These are all examples of females as supervisors. It's more natural for men to be head of the house, so it's probably worse for the female to be the supervisor than the man.It's possible supervision relationships can survive a marriage ... but of the ones i know
The most extreme:
ENFJ(man)-ISFP(woman) At first he was amazed at her - compliments like her cooking was just fabulous and in the kitchen things just appeared. The relationship ended with him under evaluation in a psychiatric ward about 9 months later, on the edge of being diagnosed as requiring ongoing treatment and life changing medication. I remember it well there was absolutely nothing wrong with him before he met her nor in the last 10 years since that time.
Another ENFJ(man)-ISFP(woman) lasted 10 years and with kids. In the later part of the marriage the guy spent a lot of time perched on the roof trying to escape her ! ... seems funny but i doubt he saw it that way. In the end from frustration she "crossed the line" precipitating divorce (ie cheated on him). Apparently she is still unsure what the problem was between them in the first place. He's obviously learned his lesson and just recently married another ISFP ...
Another was an INFP(man) - ENTJ(woman). This marriage lasted 3 years but serious problems appeared after the first. Again the man ended up on medication (lol) and the problems in the relationship (mood swings, aggression etc) soon began to be attributed to that
Removed at User Request
I tried to think of an example of a supervisee marraige, then I remembered-my mom's mom is an ESI, and my mom's dad is an SLE. They're an old couple and have raised 5 kids together. She doesbehind his back, like sending birthday money to grandkids without his knowledge
Damn...It's possible supervision relationships can survive a marriage ... but of the ones i know
The most extreme:
ENFJ(man)-ISFP(woman) At first he was amazed at her - compliments like her cooking was just fabulous and in the kitchen things just appeared. The relationship ended with him under evaluation in a psychiatric ward about 9 months later, on the edge of being diagnosed as requiring ongoing treatment and life changing medication. I remember it well there was absolutely nothing wrong with him before he met her nor in the last 10 years since that time.
Another ENFJ(man)-ISFP(woman) lasted 10 years and with kids. In the later part of the marriage the guy spent a lot of time perched on the roof trying to escape her ! ... seems funny but i doubt he saw it that way. In the end from frustration she "crossed the line" precipitating divorce (ie cheated on him). Apparently she is still unsure what the problem was between them in the first place. He's obviously learned his lesson and just recently married another ISFP ...
Another was an INFP(man) - ENTJ(woman). This marriage lasted 3 years but serious problems appeared after the first. Again the man ended up on medication (lol) and the problems in the relationship (mood swings, aggression etc) soon began to be attributed to that
wow this sucks, Im so fond of my 'supervisor'. I seriously cant see how the hell this would develop. the one about the dudes getting psychiatric help after is insane
Last edited by thePirate; 01-23-2010 at 10:57 PM.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
While this may all be true it doesn't mean that supervision relationships can cause people to develop mental disorders. If they developed a disorder it is because they already had the genetic predisposition for the disorder. Granted the supervision relationship might have caused the stress that triggered the disorders but being in a supervision relationship isn't itself going to cause a disorder. Any relationship or just time might have eventually caused the disorder to develop.It's possible supervision relationships can survive a marriage ... but of the ones i know
The most extreme:
ENFJ(man)-ISFP(woman) At first he was amazed at her - compliments like her cooking was just fabulous and in the kitchen things just appeared. The relationship ended with him under evaluation in a psychiatric ward about 9 months later, on the edge of being diagnosed as requiring ongoing treatment and life changing medication. I remember it well there was absolutely nothing wrong with him before he met her nor in the last 10 years since that time.
Another ENFJ(man)-ISFP(woman) lasted 10 years and with kids. In the later part of the marriage the guy spent a lot of time perched on the roof trying to escape her ! ... seems funny but i doubt he saw it that way. In the end from frustration she "crossed the line" precipitating divorce (ie cheated on him). Apparently she is still unsure what the problem was between them in the first place. He's obviously learned his lesson and just recently married another ISFP ...
Another was an INFP(man) - ENTJ(woman). This marriage lasted 3 years but serious problems appeared after the first. Again the man ended up on medication (lol) and the problems in the relationship (mood swings, aggression etc) soon began to be attributed to that
“No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov
http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0
Well this is my point, what may in fact be a natural phenomenon of sustained "mental discomfort" (ie. as a result of a supervision relationship) is then labelled as a "mental disorder". Thats kinda like a small step from a "physical" disorder that has to be treated with drugs .... before you know it a downward spiral of drugs, dependency and helplessness.
Reminds me of a chance event several years back when i was waiting for my partner to undergo some tests in a hospital ward, there was a couple seated next to me the that seemed to have something really intense going on. The woman was really forceful, determined/animated/abrupt in a controlled way and the guy really submissive ... you might say cowering, speaking in hushed pleading tones. I started paying a little attention to the interaction and soon after figured the guy for an INTJ and the woman an ESTP (whoa! ... lol) .... I simply could not help thinking "Buddy, i think i've diagnosed your problem!!! ....she's sitting right next to you .... get rid of the bitch and you'll be OK."
This went on for about 25 minutes until two doctors came out to him with a swag of results .... blood tests, xrays you name it. They ASSURED him that there was absolutely nothing wrong with him that they could find. When he objected .... they went on to say that if he still had thoughts of "hurting" himself then perhaps he should see a psychiatrist. The guy was dumbfounded he just simply could not believe that there was nothing physically wrong with him.
Just after the two doctors left his wife suddenly turns to him. Gives him one final and very public blast for being useless, tells him he was wasting her time and storms out.
After i had left with my partner the guy was still there waiting by himself in despair.......
ILE
And you didn''t say anything to him?
Reply With Quote
