Originally Posted by
wacey
To validate someones experinces feels like a real gift when you are on the receiving end. Validation, IMO, is a key component of a supervision relationship. The supervised may have a hard time feeling validated when the supervisor instructs them about some issue and because the supervisee process, or actions was not validated they may feel that the relationship itself is lopsided. This effect is amplified if the supervisee lacks self-reflection enough to recognize the inherent personality imbalance. They may see there was a "correct" way of viewing that situation, or behaving in that event and by nature of ones super-ego weaknesses are effected either positively or negatively depending on individual worldview and outlook. This lopsidedness is felt by the supervisee because hi/her psyche perhaps does value the supervisors most used Information Elements, starting with the leading function, yet may lack sufficient resolve and life skills to adequately implement mastery over these information elements.
The supervisor invalidates the supervisee by using communication blockers. Each communication blocker is different for each sociotype ( so this is why it is such a opportunity to read posts on this website because it is a chance to get into the heads of other sociotype, without all the real world messy observations of intertype relationships that are affected by me the viewer).
A supervisor more often than not is correct about the supervisee, but even so, they invalidate the supervisee by using these communication blockers.
Some examples include the following.
1.) ADVISING; giving the other person the solution.
An SEE says to her LSI friend, "The house is always a mess when I come home. I try to talk to my husband but every time I start to talk he just gets up and leaves. I don"t understand! I mean he leaves whenever I open my mouth.". The LSI supervisor, responding with her leading function, offers her advice "maybe it feels like you are nagging him. What you should do is talk with him when he is relaxed maybe after supper or something. Then just talk with him without yelling or screaming or accusing. Then make sure you have laundry baskets set up for certain clothes, whites in one, colours in another. All shoes come off before he enters the stairwell......" In this instance the SEE was simply venting her emotions, she wants to be heard and not be advised about her situation. She knows he is right but does not appreciate the approach.
2.) MORALIZING; telling others what they should do.
A confused SLE talks with her ESI cousin,"I feel so guilty. My best friends boyfriend called me last night and he wants just the two of us to go out sometime. I told him yes, but now I don't know what to do." The ESI, seeing the dilema the SLE has walked into offers an answer from her ego block. "The right thing to do is tell your best friend what has happened. It's wrong to go behind her back like this." With this moralizing statement, the SLE feels unsure and unvalidated about about the implications about what she has done. She did not want to hear the ESI message because it tugs at her ethically bereft base functions. Even if the ESI solution and judgment of the SLE actions are correct she still feels uncomfortable with its implications. Moralizing is a communication blocker the ESI's unwittenly use to invalidate her supervisee, the SLE.
3.) EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING; closed or irrelevent questions that move the person away from the issue or their feelings.
Two sisters, an LII and IEE discuss their families. The IEE sighs, "I'm so tired of trying to take care of everybody. My husband, my kids, my mother; everyone seems to need something from me. When do I get time for myself?" The LII quickly and cooly addresses what she believes to be the problem, " Do you ever get a day off? Have you ever tried telling your family "no"? Can you find yourself a good baby sitter? Would your husband mind if you had a housekeeper?" Clearly, the IEE understands she could find solutions to her issues that would change the outlook of getting days off. She feels powerless and disconnected from her base function Ne at times like this and wants that validated. Her supervisor sister has done exactly what the IEE does not appreciate at moments like this: asked to many questions that pull the IEE away from her overwhelming feelings and focus instead on "irrelevant" questions asked by her LII sister, who herself cannot understand why the IEE puts so much on her plate to begin with. The IEE knows she can handle anything regarding her family, just sometimes it can be a lot. Using her creative Fi function, the IEE is trying to find the source of her unease. The LII sister has used a communication blocker to steer the conversation from what is relevent, the feeling of being overwhelmed, towards the content, or what can be done, which the IEE feels is less important.
4.) DIVERTING; switching from the other's concerns to your own topic.
Long time and close coworkers sit down for lunch. The younger of the two, an SLI admits, "I just don't know what to do! I can't eat, I can't sleep, and I can't do anything but think about what my wife is doing since we have separated." His intertype supervisor, the ESE, sees the obvious turmoil his work mate is in, quickly he responds, "It sounds bad but I know that it took me a couple of years to get over that stage after my wife left. It just didn't do me any good to worry about him SO I started to blah blah blah blah blah........". The ESE, in best intentions has moved the topic to himself. This makes the SLI feel unsure about his already confused feelings, which he is normally unaware of to begin with. He wants a chance to discuss HIS predicament because it is weighing heavily on his mind. He knows in his gut things should be addressed because he has slide far away from his base Si by not eating or sleeping, both activities he does not normally avoid. Without his wife in his life, he has few others he can turn to for an open ear and instant validation. To help out his friend, the ESE has tried to "cheer him up" in the present moment by using his confident leading Fe function. This is not the way an SLI wants to resolve his feeling of breavement. He quickly swallows his comments, he needed recognition for verbilizing his feelings in the first place. Although appreciative that the ESE has been in a similar situation, he has been invalidated. He pastes on a mechanical smile for his ESE coworker.
5.) DIAGNOSING; analyzing, psycologizing.
An ESI neighbor takes the beer offered by an IEE. He sips it slowly and puts the bottle down. "My wife has been really distant lately. The only thing I can think of is that I've started playing ball again. It takes me out of the house a few nights a week. Maybe she doesn't like that." The IEE looks out the window then with wistful and knowning look says to the distraught ESI, "Your problem is that you don't spend enough time with your wife. You should take her out for a nice dinner tonight that would help. She feels as though you don't care enough for her to make romantic gestures anymore". The ESI isn't so sure the IEE assesment of his situation is right. Besides hadn't the ESI thought of doing that already? The IEE is invalidating the ESI by psyco-analyzing the ESI and his wife. Who knows what the wife is really thinking or doing? The leading Ne function of the IEE has gotten carried away by opportunities to change the ESI situation by offering the solution of going out for dinner when the IEE lacks critical information, information that the ESI feels the IEE is not privy to as neighbors. The ESI thinks "let the IEE analyze what I do, knowing my wife, she wouldn't even realize I spend much of my day thinking about her wellbeing anyway". The communication blocker of diagnosing is something the IEE does when supervising his ESI neighbor. The ESI feels invalidated, even if she she can agree dinner might be a quick solution to an chronic problem.
6.) CRITICIZING; negative evaluation of the other person.
The LSI's Mom is an ILE, his supervisor. He seems sullen and quite all through dinner, so she approaches him. He says something has happened at school with his friends. "I feel so bad, I told a secret about my bestfriend to a girl I though I could trust, and now there are rumours about her all over the school." The ILE's Mom can see the obvious remorse her son feels, but responds with habitual excaserbation, "That was really mean of you to tell a secret, you should feel bad." The LSI rarely gets involved in lunch time gossip and ever time he does he ends up getting "in trouble". He often feels unsure about others feelings towards him and usually he is unconcerned with rumours anyway. The ILE has invalidated her LSI son by using her leading function Ne, which is very comfortable imagining all sorts of possible outcomes when revealing a secret. She would have already guessed the secret would get out and become a rumour, even before sharing it. She sees her son struggle with this sort of imagining possible consequences his whole life. She feels she needs to educate him, but has yet again said something that has invalidated his effort. Next time he just won't say anything at all.
7.) REASSURING; trying to stop the other person from feeling the negative aspect of their situation or concern.
"I am worried about going back to Toronto tomorrow, I'm scared of flying, " an ESE confides in her IEI friend. The IEI replies, "Oh, it will be okay. Planes are really safe now. You don't have to worry about anything!" The ESE knows her IEI friend is right, and she is always amazed by how sure her IEI friend is of what is going to happen tomorrow. She still however, feels worried. She has been invalidated by her IEI, who could have instead offered her to help pack her suitcases and babysit the dog. The supervisee in this case admires her IEI friends optimism and appreciates the attempt to reasure her worries. Somehow though, it seems lopsided, how does the IEI KNOW the plane won't crash?!
8.) ARGUING; attempting to convice the other with an appeal to facts of logic.
A younger rookie coworker finds partner in the coffee room. Being a chatty type SEI, he complains: "The boss totally jumped down my throat today. I was half and hour late for work, that's all, half an hour late and this is the way she treats me!" Quick to offer his two cents, the LSE intertype supervisor responds. "Well, it sounds like you are at fault here. After all you are the one who was late for work". The SEI replies, "yeah but....", trailing off, he sees the LSE is right. But the SEI wasn't looking to argue with his boss and his coworker! He is invalidated and feels the LSE will just argue him anyway, with that straighforward leading Te, "why even bother?" the SEI thinks.
Nine: WITHDRAWING; implies unacceptable ;leading the other person to believe that their problems are insignificant and that negative emotions should be avoided.
*will come back to this later
Reply With Quote
