Adding on some issue I've previously handled.
This first post is about mirror and supervisor relationships and some of the intricacies in the dynamics.
Full Mirror relationships.
This is a relationship where the type of both individuals is centered exactly or very closely to the corresponding function of the other one. This means for example ESTj-Te and the ISTp-Te. But the following discussion is now limited to this duo.
Both types have the same interests and equal potential for capability in their own role in this sphere. These two may commonly compete for the same job roles and the same resources. Depending on the situation they may be most respectful teammates though. This is most likely to happen in circumstances where both win or fail at the same time.
These dynamics havea areas of symmetry: both are either extrovert or introvert, either taciturn or narrative and in equal measure. If one is likely to go out and test something, the other is equally likely to grab onto the same issue. If one is likely to stay back and explain an issue, the other is likely to try to tell a story of their own. If the actions of one partner depletes the possibility of the other to do their thing, this fuels competition and possibly enmity. If the two are trying to perfect a matter in the same team, their competition will enhance the end product. If the two have their own sets of resources, they may ignore each other, create respect or form a union to enhance their interests against a mutual enemy.
The two are also united in aristocracy or democracy, though this is trivial.
The two have areas of asymmetry. Most pointedly one is positivist, the other negativist or the partner may be limiting versus enabling. This creates a mismatch in energy levels. The limiting/enabling thing is one of the most likely issues to create conflict. At this point the balance of power has most likelihood of being equal but the enabled partner has every desire to move with eager anticipation while the limited partner feels increasing stress and threat with every moment. There's a lot of potential for one partner to make a direct move against the other.
To counteract this, the enabled partner may actually benefit from offering some kind of a security to the limited partner to dissuade their fears. Such a security needs to be carefully evaluated though. If the situation continues expectedly for both participants, the limited partner will continue to become more and more stressed and the enabled partner more and more rambunctious. There's a significant chance that the other partner will view the actions of the other as betrayal despite any security. It is quite possible that a buyout situation will be the best solution.
In the case of one partner being fully positivist, the other fully negativist... this basically means that the other partner feels they are forced in their choice or action. The positivist partner is mentally more able to choose what happens and basically has initiative.
It's completely possible that a situation of generosity may evolve. Importantly though, actual power of individuals may not be associated with the psychological feeling of the situation. THe positivist might not be the individual that has actual power. It is vital for them to realize that the other partner is stressed and potentially dangerous. What actually works for them is that they should push the negative partner into asynchrony with themselves.
Another area of asymmetry is the creative vs. accepting or the process vs. result. This is ultimately an area of misunderstanding. One partner does not understand the others' focus of resources. What's important to one is trivial to the other. This is not directly associated with 'powerlevel' or 'skill level'. This is related to the view of what is the end-goal, intensity, investment. This is associated with endings, beginnings and midpoints.
The result partner is unattached, likely to end or start new projects. The project partner is sort of 'on their way'. Their invested, not likely to end or begin anything just to continue on their way. The result-partner will tend to surprise the project partner. This surprise may of course be positive or negative. The process-partner will seem reliable but boring.
The creative partner views themselves near the end of a cycle, they feel they have momentum. The accepting partner isn't much invested. It is easier for them to dodge things because they're less firm. The creative partner will be more intensive and the accepting partner will give way.
One can of course go further into the specific dynamics but all other issues are a created by a combination of the former factors and non-socionics issues.
Then ... the supervisor partnership. This is a lot LESS asymmetric than is usually claimed.
The relationship is defined by being one quadra distant while being in a mirror relationship. The relationship is defined by sequential processes.
Usually it is suggested that the supervisor has the mentally stronger position in this relationship but the matter is a bit more complex in reality.
Let's first consider the quadra progression, the club in and of itself. Sequentiality is the primary issue. Is a primary creator of a product in a better or worse position compared to the distributor? This is absolutely not obvious. Truth depends on the details of the matter.
So then... If one person has an idea and distributes it and the next person uses that idea to create a good product... did somebody beat someone else? No, both succeeded.
Now if the product is bad and the creator is destroyed by it, does this help the one who made the idea? No, both fail.
These individuals do not compete. Neither are they separate. THey have enough to differentiate themselves that there's no direct threat to the other but enough to connect so that they are relevant to each other.
One partner is democratic, one is aristocratic or one partner is perceiving and the other judging. This is just another way to describe the distance between the interests of the two partners.
The two partners have important similarities. Both are either positivist or negativist or enabled or limited. The shared state tends to create emotional balance. This makes it easier to create a team-mentality where both partners do their part and they both either sink or rise.
Partners also share the quality of process or result or creative or accepting. This view of shared intensity helps create a functional work culture. Either both partners work intensely or both are open, or both are striving toward more or less intensity.
As for the differences between the partners, the two are even further helped by one being extrovert, one introvert, one being taciturn, one narrator. This creates a natural dialogue dynamic which help the transition of information and maintains interaction.
While all of the aforementioned things create potential for a positive functional partnership there's also plenty of potential for dysfunction. If the partners should work closely together, they will have difficulty. Tension will increase rapidly.
If the two share the same title, such as both being members of parliament, main actors, doctors or any job which puts the two into a situation where both are trying to define what their job actually means, it will be difficult to find common course.
Finally there's the individuals who are somewhere between the two above versions...