Originally Posted by
Bertrand
my point is its silly to identify power with abuse. couldn't you just as easily say if all supervisors married their supervisees there'd be less abuse in the world, because they're more likely to use the power benevolently than they otherwise would, thus offsetting abuse that way? its like you frame supervisory relations as inherently adversarial and only see them being balanced by a similarly ugly power imbalance, when they're not even necessarily not benevolent and hence not abusive to begin with. further it implicates judgements as flowing from the power imbalance and not from actual judgement, and further gives no room for actual judgements in offsetting them. it totally ignores how socionics actually works just to play up a stereotype of one ITR