Benefit relationships: really asymmetric?

[tejing]

My older sister is a , my benefactor (I'm ), and I have to say I don't think the descriptions of benefit relationships fully realize the important aspects involved in this juxtaposition of functions. (we've enjoyed a very close relationship for many years now; she's one of two people in my life most psychologically close to me) They seem to focus on the fact that her creative function is my suggestive function (thus she makes me feel safe and at peace), but fail to consider the fact that my base function is her mobilizing function, thus I'm always stretching her imagination and fascinating her. Furthermore, though I may value her more than she does my , I'm more able to provide than she is , resulting in what I think is a symmetric relationship. (not in terms of affecting each other in the same way, but in terms of equal give and take)

[Wavebury]

I think the benefit relations are one of the most misunderstood relations in the socion.

The descriptions do mention the fact that the benficiary's mobilizing is the benfactor's HA though, Im not sure why you say they dont mention that fact. I think this fact is the root of the problem in benefit relations, because the benefactor sees the beneficiary as someone they can rely on for this reason, kinda like you can your activity partner, except when its time for the beneficiary to teach the benefactor something, its unnappealing because it doesnt appeal to the benefactor's dual seeking function the way activity partners do. Benefit is like a defunct activity relation basically.

Also if she finds your that stimulating , consider she might not actually be your benefactor, and ask yourself if its the she finds stimulating, or it something else. Im not saying shes mistyped as I dont know you guys but Im saying maybe.

[tejing]

The descriptions do mention the fact that the benficiary's mobilizing is the benfactor's HA though, Im not sure why you say they dont mention that fact.

We may not be reading the same material, or maybe I overlooked it. They certainly don't spend much time on it or its implications.

I think this fact is the root of the problem in benefit relations, because the benefactor sees the beneficiary as someone they can rely on for this reason, kinda like you can your activity partner, except when its time for the beneficiary to teach the benefactor something, its unnappealing because it doesnt appeal to the benefactor's dual seeking function the way activity partners do. Benefit is like a defunct activity relation basically.

Also if she finds your that stimulating , consider she might not actually be your benefactor, and ask yourself if its the she finds stimulating, or it something else. Im not saying shes mistyped as I dont know you guys but Im saying maybe.

I'd suggest that rather than finding my less stimulating, she has a more difficult time absorbing it. However, once the parties in the relationship realize the importance of this aspect of the relationship, they tend to put in the necessary effort to deal with the issue. (Interestingly, this can suggest a power difference in the opposite direction, where the benefactor sees the beneficiary as "better" than them as a result of their difficulty absorbing the beneficiary's base IM element)

[Wavebury]

Yeah, I guess the descriptions dont emphasize it very well.

Do you know other IEIs? Is your relationship in this regard different than with your sister, or is it the same scenario?

I think its normal for two people who have a relation of support(ie two infomation elements that complement each other like and do) to take time to "digest" what the other is saying, what one understands right away, it takes time for the other to understand.

[tejing]

Do you know other IEIs? Is your relationship in this regard different than with your sister, or is it the same scenario?

Unfortunately, no, she's the only IEI I know.

I think its normal for two people who have a relation of support(ie two infomation elements that complement each other like and do) to take time to "digest" what the other is saying, what one understands right away, it takes time for the other to understand.

Agreed.

[rat1]

it's impossible for them to be really asymmetric, so yeah..

[silke]

... but fail to consider the fact that my base function is her mobilizing function, thus I'm always stretching her imagination and fascinating her. Furthermore, though I may value her more than she does my , I'm more able to provide than she is , resulting in what I think is a symmetric relationship. (not in terms of affecting each other in the same way, but in terms of equal give and take)

I prefer descriptions that explain benefit dynamics in terms of exchanges of information and energy as they seem to more accurately describe these relations. Beneficiary stimulates benefactor's mental ring, provides information that benefactor deems interesting and valuable. In turn, benefactor stimulates beneficiary's vital ring, provides beneficiary with an energy impetus. The relationship isn't really that asymmetric. Technically, the beneficiary is a level higher on the 'evolutionary ladder' of socion than benefactor since information flow goes from beneficiary to benefactor, though the names may imply otherwise.

[Beautiful sky]

Look at your signature where you list what functions you Value and Devalue and Conscious/Subconscious functions are; now take INFp's functions and locate them on YOUR grid; once that's done, you'll see why by the mix of Subconscious/Conscious and Value/Devalued it's not symetric and also is the function repressed by and hence that is the "fit."