what do you think of your supervisor/supervisee?

[Braingel]

I just think he feels more pressure to “obey the law of god”, despite not being Ti valuing and even PolR. He also is Deep South, and that atmosphere is Fe.

[Braingel]

You get a mix for sure, of good role model versus bad, and that goes for any belief system. Take Furen a goody two shoes Christian, versus say, Pan who is just chill, laid back and low key degenerate.

[Braingel]

But with blaquaman specifically, I can feel his pressure to it and how he was raised and it drilled into him, by how he speaks on voice chat. How he says “amen”.

[InterPrizeWes]

The pizza is always the candy land gold snatcher and bear pelt of destruction!!*

[youfloweryourfeast]

I knew this SEE boy, my supervisor but he was an annoying one at that. At the beginning we were actually decent friends, but then he started to cause drama for no reason. He told me to cut random people out of my life for no reason, talked about me to people making up false things about me. He liked to play tricks and jokes with me, do things behind my back which would result in us having arguments. Sometimes after a argument he would not exactly apolgize, rather try to lighten the mood and I would give in, then it would be fine for some time. Something that bothered me as well as he would just make assumptions about people with out looking any further. It began to be more of him not leaving me alone where as I was getting tired of having to put him up with him.

[End]

Well-meaning and ultimately trying to do right by you, but stubbornly refuses to accept how wrong they're getting what is, to you (if we're talking from the perspective of the supervisor) a painfully obvious fact. Like, say, how if you haven't touched a given object in X amount of time it is almost certainly both A) Right where you left it and B) In the state it was in where you left it.

My LSE mother insists on "checking the stove" even when neither of us has used it that day for example. If neither of us both concretely used it nor had we any reason to even imagine we might have and the house does not smell like a natural gas leak, then guess what? The stove is still off! No need to obsessively check the dials and all that.

Yet she does. She tests them with her eyes quite thoroughly (and with her hands if I don't act to stop her). As they aren't exactly all that good she demands I use my own decent set to confirm her observations.

I am thankful she at least has me slotted in as an "accredited" authority on things. LSE's are infamous for refusing to trust anyone without "credentials" and yet if they pass that test in their mind they just brainlessly accept it as it were . Thus when I do tell her the truth that no, the stove is not on and that all the doors are indeed locked she actually just accepts that as true and stops worrying. No "certification" required. I guess that's because is her weakest suit and, as I've been living with her for pretty much my whole life up until adulthood, she learned that if I make a prophecy, despite her misgivings, I should probably be taken seriously in that matter. I get a lot of this shit right BTW.

It's a damned annoying situation to be in. If anyone has a similar story, please share it for the good of our collective understanding and it is, ironically enough, thread relevant. I'd imagine other people who "Supervise" one of their own parents can relate.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Well-meaning and ultimately trying to do right by you, but stubbornly refuses to accept how wrong they're getting what is, to you (if we're talking from the perspective of the supervisor) a painfully obvious fact. Like, say, how if you haven't touched a given object in X amount of time it is almost certainly both A) Right where you left it and B) In the state it was in where you left it.

My LSE mother insists on "checking the stove" even when neither of us has used it that day for example. If neither of us both concretely used it nor had we any reason to even imagine we might have and the house does not smell like a natural gas leak, then guess what? The stove is still off! No need to obsessively check the dials and all that.

Yet she does. She tests them with her eyes quite thoroughly (and with her hands if I don't act to stop her). As they aren't exactly all that good she demands I use my own decent set to confirm her observations.

I am thankful she at least has me slotted in as an "accredited" authority on things. LSE's are infamous for refusing to trust anyone without "credentials" and yet if they pass that test in their mind they just brainlessly accept it as it were . Thus when I do tell her the truth that no, the stove is not on and that all the doors are indeed locked she actually just accepts that as true and stops worrying. No "certification" required. I guess that's because is her weakest suit and, as I've been living with her for pretty much my whole life up until adulthood, she learned that if I make a prophecy, despite her misgivings, I should probably be taken seriously in that matter. I get a lot of this shit right BTW.

It's a damned annoying situation to be in. If anyone has a similar story, please share it for the good of our collective understanding and it is, ironically enough, thread relevant. I'd imagine other people who "Supervise" one of their own parents can relate.

It seems common in nature for parents to have children who Supervise them? lol

Just on this forum:
I supervise my mom
You supervise yours
Adam Strange's son supervises him
Pretty sure there's lots of other examples...

[Bethanyclaire]

Supervision (child as supervisor)/ benefit/ quasi-identical and identical seem common for parent/child ITR. I supervise my mum- won’t be telling her that for a while lol. We’ve had problems :/ i get on well with other ESEs, I don’t think my mum does ‘reverse supervision’ well enough..

[End]

Supervision (child as supervisor)/ benefit/ quasi-identical and identical seem common for parent/child ITR. I supervise my mum- won’t be telling her that for a while lol. We’ve had problems :/ i get on well with other ESEs, I don’t think my mum does ‘reverse supervision’ well enough..

Just noticed this, it seems "kindred" supervise their "conflictors" as it were. I just so happen to supervise the LSE. You, in turn, supervise the ESE. Might be why they tend to get along so well. After all, that'd be another source of resonance. OMG you get it! How can that other person (i.e. your conflictor) be so blind as to not get such an obvious fact of life! We should be friends! Holy hell how can that other person be so blind! I totally resonate with you!

I do actually mean that BTW. If you have followed me for any amount of time you will get why I make this request. I am in the final stages of resolving my attachment issues and finally becoming what God intended me to be.

That means I need to... *shudder* make "friends" with people. This may be another point of conflict between the kindred. For an ILI like myself you only ever allow yourself to "get close" to those who are worth it. For to us "getting close to someone" equates to "being willing to die slowly and painfully" for them. In an objective and factual way no less. Case in point? Crucifixion. Only modern science allows us to map out/conceive of a way to more painfully die than Christ did. Gotta give the devil/Romans credit where it's due after all.

If an ILI considers you as a friend/lover you have no idea how much that means for us. I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it again. If some rando undertakes a suicide mission out of nowhere they're likely an ILI. After all, and both say that, though the odds suck, your own odds suck the least. Thus, you ought to undertake the mission...

Worst case scenario people better able to realize an ideal future survive due to my meaningful sacrifice. I'll be remembered by those who dig deep enough, but that's already the case here and now. Many a true hero of their era no matter what side you resonate with are criminally unknown. I mean fuck. Who still remembers the name A. Merritt?j

Unless you're like me with ambitions that essentially link up, you'll need a google search to get what I'm pointing out. And if you need to resort to Google of all things shame. Shame on you as Google itself says likewise. Such an Istaphobe! Don't you know it's X-Pride month!

Seriously, too many fucking rainbows (ugly rainbows as those colors they're trying to add in do not mesh) everywhere I look. I guess this is another factor in regards to the prophecy of how Satan is about to have his power taken away.

The demons are getting desperate. Good!

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

@End LSE father kept avoiding changing the GPU year after year bc it was fine or it was something else and we have to try this and that. one of many things i gave up asking for or talking to him about. u cant get anything reasonably done with an LSE. if u want something u always have to do it their way. only this year, this is, what, 7 years? he changed the GPU.

[Lord Pixel]

Supervisor/scary, supervisee/annoying

[End]

Supervisor/scary, supervisee/annoying

I'd rather argue it's annoying for both parties but for the supervisee it's doubly annoying. It's annoying when they tell you how something you've done or are doing could be done better. It gets doubly annoying when they (the supervisor) actually does that and it pans out well for them. Frustratingly well.

Ever heard of the term "Work smarter not harder?" Yeah, LSE's (and ESE's who are even worse because "operational efficiency" is apparently an outright alien concept to them) have a hard time wrapping their minds around that one. How the fact that one could do/accomplish more in a set time frame doesn't mean one should or, in the worst cases, ought to. This is mainly because, having as a vulnerable function, the should/ought question doesn't really occur to them to ask unless prompted to by an outside party (e.g. me).

Yes, yes you could also sort out that other pile of papers after you get done washing the dishes. However, since you've already done X and Y (both very important tasks) and that has drained you of most all of your stamina and both the pile and the dishes aren't in dire need of getting sorted out you can and really ought to just take a break, rest, and get around to them tomorrow when you've got the energy to spare to do them at the "give a fuck" level over what will necessarily be the mere "give a damn" level you can just barely muster at this moment due to your clear and apparent exhaustion.

To truly maximize your efforts, once fatigue well and fully sets in you really ought to take a break and relax. If there is no metaphorical sword of Damocles hanging over your head (e.g. a hard deadline from your publisher if you're an author) than you can and should take a break.

This dynamic will be quite different in regards to what functions we're talking but this is how it plays out in regards to those who value . In the cases of supervision, you both value a key function but the supervisor just so happens to also value your PolR. In the cases of conflict, well...

To hold a difference of opinion on how to best accomplish a shared given goal is one thing. To disagree as to how and perhaps even why the goal is even worthwhile in the first place is quite another...

If you wonder why your conflictor frustrates you so much more and harder than your supervisee this is why. At least your supervisee understands, at least in part, where you're coming from. The Conflictor? Ehhhh... not so much.

[Nephilthoth]

Ever heard of the term "Work smarter not harder?" Yeah, LSE's (and ESE's who are even worse because "operational efficiency" is apparently an outright alien concept to them) have a hard time wrapping their minds around that one.

This

On EIEs, my "supervisor". I think I'm rather fortunate to have this one as my supervisor. To me, they seem bitter, petty, and histrionic. You can always trust the fact that you can't trust them. Well, that is what I did think until I interacted with more of them. Despite having good relations with some of them, some of their criticisms even when meant to be harmless, seem below the belt. They also have a tendency to mock and ridicule those they don't agree with, which I see as arguing in bad faith.

[Adam Strange]

^ Ouch ouch ouch ouch.

Lol.

[Lord Pixel]

I'd rather argue it's annoying for both parties but for the supervisee it's doubly annoying. It's annoying when they tell you how something you've done or are doing could be done better. It gets doubly annoying when they (the supervisor) actually does that and it pans out well for them. Frustratingly well.

Ever heard of the term "Work smarter not harder?" Yeah, LSE's (and ESE's who are even worse because "operational efficiency" is apparently an outright alien concept to them) have a hard time wrapping their minds around that one. How the fact that one could do/accomplish more in a set time frame doesn't mean one should or, in the worst cases, ought to. This is mainly because, having as a vulnerable function, the should/ought question doesn't really occur to them to ask unless prompted to by an outside party (e.g. me).

Never thought about that but that's pretty darn insightful.

To hold a difference of opinion on how to best accomplish a shared given goal is one thing. To disagree as to how and perhaps even why the goal is even worthwhile in the first place is quite another...

Yea, I think this is a good distinction to be aware of.

[Lord Pixel]

This

On EIEs, my "supervisor". I think I'm rather fortunate to have this one as my supervisor. To me, they seem bitter, petty, and histrionic. You can always trust the fact that you can't trust them. Well, that is what I did think until I interacted with more of them. Despite having good relations with some of them, some of their criticisms even when meant to be harmless, seem below the belt. They also have a tendency to mock and ridicule those they don't agree with, which I see as arguing in bad faith.

Yes, and in an argument they try and use this to pressure you into agreeing with them. Agree or be destroyed.

[End]

Yes, and in an argument they try and use this to pressure you into agreeing with them. Agree or be destroyed.

I will once more reiterate my point that the supervisor/supervisee relationship is merely annoying but never outright hostile like it is with the conflictor relationships. The EIE does not seek nor even desire to destroy the ILI. Indeed, the EIE likely see a great potential in them that they'd like to help them realize, but their apparent utter inability to recognize what is (to the supervisor) the most direct, easiest, and obvious way to attain it is frustrating.

Us utterly disregarding in favor of is the main source of tension. Hell, I can think of a situation that'd set an EIE off really quick.

I've mentioned elsewhere that ILI's are quite prone to self-sacrifice. That if we conclude that the objective odds of us dying are the "least bad" we'll propose that course of action. If the odds of anyone else in the group doing X lands a 1 in a thousand odds where everyone survives versus where if we take that spot it becomes a mere 1 in Hundred than the choice is obvious. We stay behind in the rational hope that our one percent chance of survival is far greater than the .1 percent chance of survival any of the other poor dumb fools we've come to actually care about.

We will still probably die, but it means there's a much better chance at the "golden ending" if we go for it. The EIE will be overly focused on how sad our sacrifice will make everyone feel and, because of their see how that will cause all the others to lose hope in their cause.

"Survivors Guilt" is a real thing. The EIE is likely frustrated to all hell when, after we've actually bothered to bond (or more to the point, allowed others to become bonded) with everyone around us and themselves, we'll just tell everyone to choke down their pansy ass tears as we likely die for their sakes.

I don't know any EIE's IRL but I bet something along these lines is how I'm likely frustrating them...

[Lord Pixel]

I will once more reiterate my point that the supervisor/supervisee relationship is merely annoying but never outright hostile like it is with the conflictor relationships. The EIE does not seek nor even desire to destroy the ILI. Indeed, the EIE likely see a great potential in them that they'd like to help them realize, but their apparent utter inability to recognize what is (to the supervisor) the most direct, easiest, and obvious way to attain it is frustrating.

Us utterly disregarding in favor of is the main source of tension. Hell, I can think of a situation that'd set an EIE off really quick.

I've mentioned elsewhere that ILI's are quite prone to self-sacrifice. That if we conclude that the objective odds of us dying are the "least bad" we'll propose that course of action. If the odds of anyone else in the group doing X lands a 1 in a thousand odds where everyone survives versus where if we take that spot it becomes a mere 1 in Hundred than the choice is obvious. We stay behind in the rational hope that our one percent chance of survival is far greater than the .1 percent chance of survival any of the other poor dumb fools we've come to actually care about.

We will still probably die, but it means there's a much better chance at the "golden ending" if we go for it. The EIE will be overly focused on how sad our sacrifice will make everyone feel and, because of their see how that will cause all the others to lose hope in their cause.

"Survivors Guilt" is a real thing. The EIE is likely frustrated to all hell when, after we've actually bothered to bond (or more to the point, allowed others to become bonded) with everyone around us and themselves, we'll just tell everyone to choke down their pansy ass tears as we likely die for their sakes.

I don't know any EIE's IRL but I bet something along these lines is how I'm likely frustrating them...

Idk about EIE supervision, but in general EIE wants you to agree with them and if not they will try and beat you into agreement.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

SLEs are assholes, but the good ones are innocent about it and they can have a sensitive side underneath it where you know they're a good person, but they need some guidance because they don't realize they're assholes. I have a friend who is SLE, and we share a mutual friend who is another ESI-Se. The ESI and I are eerily similar, and we always tell the SLE the SAME EXACT THINGS/ADVICE without even knowing it until after we've said it. Poor SLE is being double supervised, but he's growing and maturing because of it. Recently, there was an incident where ESI friend and I got fed up and caringly very firm with SLE about relationship things. I am proud of him for the growth he's doing because of it.

Other ESI is a bit more graceful and tactful than I am. I haven't yet perfected the art of making my bluntness that tactful. She is 9 years older than me, so that may be why she has a better grip on some things than I do. Sometimes she is better at talking to him than I am because of that, but sometimes my roughness is what does the job in the end.

[Averroes]

IEE = mostly neutral towards them. They're overly preachy, patronizing and pretentious at worst, inspiring and incredibly tasteful in some cases

SLE = I usually respect them if they have principles and wish I were more like them in some respects

[DEAD]

ESI: We never get on well, or seem to agree. Their Fi tries to override my PoLR Fi, and it's like "DEAD you should act this way, and not X" and it's kinda annoying from what I have experienced. I don't want them to control me, or let their values rule over me and dictate to me what I should logically do.

LII: The Ne drives me a bit mental, and I think they are kinda unrealistic at times, but they have Ti which helps. It's not like EII, who are Fi bases.

I don't gel well with the thinking of self-righteous people, and moralistic people of any type who try and push their views onto people without logically thinking them through first, and having them make sense past "this is the right thing to do". Why is it the right thing to do? Does doing it in this situation make sense? Can you bend your morals and make them useful in this situation?

[Bethanyclaire]

ESE-si are quite intriguing to me. I like having ESEs in my life. Mum is si subtype and sister’s best friend is fe. I seem to get on ok with LIE-te.

[Lord Pixel]

Here's the real question. Should you supervise your supervisee? Or should you just point them to the nearest dual/mirage to help them?

[ouronis]

Let's see.. if I'm an LII, I see SLEs as competent, unnecessarily harsh, too on-edge, and generally kind of intense, but there is generally joviality and a capacity for self-irony to all of it (if they are not dumb as a rock; some are), so it's not that bad. IEEs I see as very cheerful and afraid of my bluntness and sometimes not respecting or paying attention to other people enough (inserting themselves where they don't belong). If I'm an ILE, I don't really have any problems with EIIs except maybe they suck at thinking sometimes (poor logical toolset). And LSIs, good at incontrovertible thinking but sometimes think their thinking is incontrovertible when it is just limited (eager to cling onto conclusions made with limited data rather than try to imagine another situation).