PoLR - big zero or stagnant emphasis

[Jonathan]

Sometimes PoLR is described as a "big zero" in a person's awareness and behavior...a weakness, an aversion. I wonder if this is the whole story. I have come to notice that sometimes people use their PoLR function in a way that is actually quite noticeable (and even useful and important), especially when in situations that bring out this function. Rather than it showing up as a "big zero," I suspect that it may show up more as a stagnant emphasis, a sort of crutch. In a way, it may be linked to the hidden-agenda function as a sort of "reflection." This tendency may be stronger in some people than in others. I'm curious if anyone else has noticed this.

Here are some possible examples of what I mean:

Te PoLR may involve a hardness used to repel people one doesn't want to talk to. I've noticed this in some IFp types; if they really don't want contact with someone, they put on a sort of "chip on the shoulder" affect that's sort of like simulated Te without the actual logic part. This serves a function to keep away certain people.

Ti PoLR may involve a tendency to focus on what's authoritative; to listen only to authoritative sources; to consider only the most "correct" theory. Here's a good example of how the PoLR may be a certain kind of strength; for example, an ENFp may be better at focusing on the question (and explaining) "what is classical Socionics" than an INTj, whose advanced investigations are more likely to confuse people and quickly lead away from classical Socionics. ENFp's strength here comes precisely from the need to restrict him/herself (in Ti matters) to what is standard or clearly applicable.

Fi PoLR may involve a constantly ironic or sarcastic quality. For example, ETp types may have about them a constant emotion of playful irony.

Fe PoLR may involve a fixed attitude...an emotion of steadiness, an emotion of objectivity, a constant sweetness, a fixed smile. In ILI, this may show up as putting on a "literary quality" or even playing the role of a highly negative version of an SEI. In this way, the ILI artist makes him/herself relevant to issues involving people's emotions, and disguising his/her highly calculating approach to life.

Ne PoLR may involve an impression (to others at least) of constant openness to inventions and new ideas.

Ni PoLR may involve a strong believing quality, a state of very strong, unshakable conviction.

Se PoLR may involve a constant sense of determination, a constant confidence, a fiery quality. LII types may exude a strong "constant" confidence to make up for the "lack of Se."

Si role or PoLR may involve a constant default awareness of a sort of steady "atmosphere"; a blank slate, a palette, a sense eternity, a respect for nature.

***
One corollary of this is the possibility of a sort of "confict-duality" effect; that is, in stressing one's super-ego-block functions, one appears outwardly similar to one's conflict type (and naturally guides these functions in part through the id block); in this way, the conflict type becomes a sort of "secondary dual."

[UDP]

Right - this is what I was talking about when I said "it depends on what side of your polr you are on".

Polr is something that you basically either avoid and are victim to
or you actively, consciously try to deal with it and challenge it

[science as magic]

i'm not sure the polr is necessarily negative at all. it seems that it can be something that someone focuses on to such an extent that they master it.

[UDP]

Right.

PORL more or less seems like "The default disadvantage". But I think there is something to the process of 'mastering/conquering' it, indeed.

[Expat]

i'm not sure the polr is necessarily negative at all. it seems that it can be something that someone focuses on to such an extent that they master it.

Of course, but you think you shouldn't have to.

[Phaedrus]

i'm not sure the polr is necessarily negative at all. it seems that it can be something that someone focuses on to such an extent that they master it.

Of course, but you think you shouldn't have to.

Exactly.

[science as magic]

Of course, but you think you shouldn't have to.

it seems like when one tries to master something they throw that thought away

:edit:

one only forces himself to do something until it becomes an end in and of itself. that is, once doing is the fruit of his labor.

/rephrase

[Jonathan]

i'm not sure the polr is necessarily negative at all. it seems that it can be something that someone focuses on to such an extent that they master it.

Of course, but you think you shouldn't have to.

Exactly.

Well, that's the standard theory of course. The very idea of the super-ego block is what is irrelevant to your agenda. That's basically the definition. That's why one accepts the super-id (one sees it as helping one attain important goals) but not the super ego (it seems to just get in the way).

However, there is a tendency in some people to want to experience and master everything, in one way or another. And, I think in particular that artists of various forms are interested in mastering the Socion.

But apart from that, going back to my examples, these are things I've observed in real, ordinary people...In that case it's not a matter of mastering, it's just how people deal with that side of life; it's still there, and it doesn't go away. Coming back to those examples, I wonder if other people have noticed similar things.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[implied]

I've decided to not have a PoLR.

high fives. however, i think i am kind of proud of mine.

[vague]

I've decided to not have a PoLR.

high fives. however, i think i am kind of proud of mine.

Curious...why?

[agree with sci]

[Phaedrus]

Coming back to those examples, I wonder if other people have noticed similar things.

Yes, I have. I can relate to all of your examples, except maybe Ne PoLR and Si role or PoLR. I don't know how to say about those two. All the others make sense to me, but how do we know for sure that that kind of behaviour is due to their use of their PoLR and not due to something else, at least partially?

[Jonathan]

Coming back to those examples, I wonder if other people have noticed similar things.

Yes, I have. I can relate to all of your examples, except maybe Ne PoLR and Si role or PoLR. I don't know how to say about those two. All the others make sense to me, but how do we know for sure that that kind of behaviour is due to their use of their PoLR and not due to something else, at least partially?

Well, like anything else here, not so easily. If one can find good evidence that someone is a given type, and then see those behaviors I mentioned, that's evidence for what I'm talking about. Determining what the real *source* is of those behaviors is an interesting question. I guess that would be the next step.

[Creepy-bg]

I've decided to not have a PoLR.

I can't have a POLR until I get a type so I'm safe...

[Exodus]

Sometimes PoLR is described as a "big zero" in a person's awareness and behavior...a weakness, an aversion. I wonder if this is the whole story. I have come to notice that sometimes people use their PoLR function in a way that is actually quite noticeable (and even useful and important), especially when in situations that bring out this function. Rather than it showing up as a "big zero," I suspect that it may show up more as a stagnant emphasis, a sort of crutch. In a way, it may be linked to the hidden-agenda function as a sort of "reflection." This tendency may be stronger in some people than in others. I'm curious if anyone else has noticed this.

Here are some possible examples of what I mean:

Te PoLR may involve a hardness used to repel people one doesn't want to talk to. I've noticed this in some IFp types; if they really don't want contact with someone, they put on a sort of "chip on the shoulder" affect that's sort of like simulated Te without the actual logic part. This serves a function to keep away certain people.

What does this have to do with Te?

Ti PoLR may involve a tendency to focus on what's authoritative; to listen only to authoritative sources; to consider only the most "correct" theory. Here's a good example of how the PoLR may be a certain kind of strength; for example, an ENFp may be better at focusing on the question (and explaining) "what is classical Socionics" than an INTj, whose advanced investigations are more likely to confuse people and quickly lead away from classical Socionics. ENFp's strength here comes precisely from the need to restrict him/herself (in Ti matters) to what is standard or clearly applicable.

Fi PoLR may involve a constantly ironic or sarcastic quality. For example, ETp types may have about them a constant emotion of playful irony.

Both of those behaviors, though well-described, have more to do with the hidden agenda.

Ni PoLR may involve a strong believing quality, a state of very strong, unshakable conviction.

Fe PoLR may involve a fixed attitude...an emotion of steadiness, an emotion of objectivity, a constant sweetness, a fixed smile. In ILI, this may show up as putting on a "literary quality" or even playing the role of a highly negative version of an SEI. In this way, the ILI artist makes him/herself relevant to issues involving people's emotions, and disguising his/her highly calculating approach to life.

Hmm, maybe.

Ne PoLR may involve an impression (to others at least) of constant openness to inventions and new ideas.

Not "constant". Maybe a tentative openness, but only at certain times.

Se PoLR may involve a constant sense of determination, a constant confidence, a fiery quality. LII types may exude a strong "constant" confidence to make up for the "lack of Se."

Yes, I do this sometimes. It mostly comes from choosing to ignore Fe + Si.

One corollary of this is the possibility of a sort of "confict-duality" effect; that is, in stressing one's super-ego-block functions, one appears outwardly similar to one's conflict type (and naturally guides these functions in part through the id block); in this way, the conflict type becomes a sort of "secondary dual."

But then you realize the behavior isn't sustainable, and start conflicting again.

Attracting conflictors is probably the biggest reason not to actively use your PoLR. Otherwise there are many healthy ways of doing so.

[Jonathan]

Sometimes PoLR is described as a "big zero" in a person's awareness and behavior...a weakness, an aversion. I wonder if this is the whole story. I have come to notice that sometimes people use their PoLR function in a way that is actually quite noticeable (and even useful and important), especially when in situations that bring out this function. Rather than it showing up as a "big zero," I suspect that it may show up more as a stagnant emphasis, a sort of crutch. In a way, it may be linked to the hidden-agenda function as a sort of "reflection." This tendency may be stronger in some people than in others. I'm curious if anyone else has noticed this.

Here are some possible examples of what I mean:

Te PoLR may involve a hardness used to repel people one doesn't want to talk to. I've noticed this in some IFp types; if they really don't want contact with someone, they put on a sort of "chip on the shoulder" affect that's sort of like simulated Te without the actual logic part. This serves a function to keep away certain people.

What does this have to do with Te?

It has nothing to do with *real* Te; it's just something I've noticed in some IFp types. They put on this "hardness" that sometimes fools people into thinking that they're Te types, only it's not actual Te. It has no intellectual use; it's just to repel people.

Actually, though, it seems to me that what I'm talking about may be more than just a "fringe" thing that people do. As I observe, it seems like a much more fundamental thing. As per Phaedrus's question regarding where is the "source" of this, I think it's actually just a side-effect of expressing one's ego functions.

I've generally thought that people expressed themselves in a certain way and subconsciously produced something that is axially opposite. I.e., if you're expressing Ti, you subconsciously express Fe just by the fact that you expressed Ti. However, I've come to see that someone expressing Ti may appear to others as expressing a certain form of Fi; that is, it's perceived (or may be perceived) as an expression that exists within the Fi space.

It may have to do with emphasis. An INTp, in making a Te point, seems emotional and exhortating in a sort of Fe way. It isn't *real* Fe, though, but it is perceived within the Fe space.

What's going on here? It seems that really, rather than being "little versions of their dual," each type is more of "a little version of his/her conflict."

If this is true, duality is not caused by similarity, but by the lack of potential for conflict. Conflict is not caused by dissimilarity, but rather by conflicting over the appropriate source of the exact same manifestations.

Put another way, Te is a specific subset of possible Fe expressions. And Fe is a specific subset of possible Te thoughts. By merely being him/herself, each type is unconsciously playing a very specific role in the super-ego space. Awareness of this fact can cause people to believe that they're their super ego, conflict, or quasi-identity type.

I have noticed this more in introverts, although it may occur in all types.

[Igxfl]

Most descriptions of POLR seem to treat it as an instant pain button, which would lead me to expect some rather ridiculous interactions.

Example:
LSE- Hi! Let's be productive!
SEI- OH MY GOD PLEASE DON'T HURT ME!!!


I'm thinking it might be better to imagine POLR as totally unresponsive rather than actively painful. Individuals would then tend to be confused or mildly irritated by their POLR, or else miss it entirely, rather than finding it threatening or terrifying. The above caricatured example would then be replaced by the below caricatured example:

Example:
LSE- Hi! Let's be productive!
SEI- Productive? You mean like fingerpainting?

This seems to make more sense in general - I can't really imagine an XIE threatened by Si, an XLE terrified by Fi, or an XLI who jumps out the nearest window at the first sign of Fe. Rather, each type just seems totally oblivious to POLR information, and will rarely show any reaction to it, positive or negative.

Reasonable? Evidential? Laughable? Opinions, please.

[Azeroffs]

That is my idea of what a PoLR is.

The only time a person might become distressed is when it becomes a point of percieved necessity. If someone sees something as a point of significance they will naturally attempt to handle it with their creative and always fall short when it reqires their PoLR. This is why prolonged exposure to superivsors can lead to neuroses, especially since supervisors relate your PoLR to your base which is naturally considered to be important.

As you said, it's nothing like the first example. Socionics interactions take time to play out.

[Slacker]

Here's a really interesting link someoen put in another thread:

http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?opt...251&Itemid=139

Anyway, no I dont' think it's as strong as "OMG don't talk about productivity!" LOL. But I think it is a person's weak point, and depending on the specific scenario can cause some unsettled or unpleasant feelings.

[EyeSeeCold]

It can be like that for phone calls. .

[Airman]

I see that SLEs usually have little more than disdain for Fi, at most they feel a little insecure when Fi is demanded from them, but to me, the POLR is rather an area of personal disdain. The person simply does not value the POLR. ESTP is a very good example of that. ISTJ gets irritated or frowns in disdain when imagination, possibilities and scenarios are being discussed - he thinks they are of no use in practical reality because he is too pragmatic. This definition of POLR just came to my mind some minutes ago.

edit: I don't see ISTP's Fe POLR to be like getting easily hurt emotionally. I see it as more like simply not caring about emotional intensity and being too upbeat, as this disturbs the Si his leading function in his case. Being easily hurt emotionally would refer to weak F in general and strong and valued Si (internal states of body and MIND) so that ISTP values these inner states a lot, and what causes an unpleasant emotional state will be strongly rejected.

[Nowisthetime]

. Rather, each type just seems totally oblivious to POLR information, and will rarely show any reaction to it, positive or negative.

It's not like that. It is a conscious function. It is sensitive. We have a hard time being creative and flexible in the polr area. It's hard to discuss it and adjust it to a social situation. We tend to be rigid. And sensitive to criticism.

Saying "lets be productive" is not the same as Te.

Have you read this?
http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?opt...251&Itemid=139

[Marietta]

[quote=Nowisthetime;755809]

.
Have you read this?
http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?opt...251&Itemid=139

"This point aches for the reason that it can put only superhigh goals and suffer feeling the discrepancy between itself and its goals."

this description focuses on overdoing it without being elastic. it seems a quite different idea than being oblivious to sth. in various threads opposite behaviours are seen as sign of PoLR. sure it can be explained by inability to be elastic, but when you see sb with a tendency to overdoing sth a lot and another person neglecting it, it's hard to type them both as the same type.

what would a general tendency to neglect vs overdo depend on? if you overdo sth to the extent of no elasticity, you would prolly consider it somehow important (yet painful), right? PoLR is an ego function so theoretically it shouldn't be a blind unconscious spot. a blind weak spot could be HA I think.

is there any consensus at all?

[krieger]

here's another thing i find "strange" about the way PoLRs are interpreted in socionics.

an ESTp's PoLR is usually described as a kind of "bad-ass" disregard for Fi that makes the person fearless toward ethics. the person behaves without ethical restraint and isn't held back by these except when another person reprimands them on an ex-post basis.

an INTj's PoLR is NOT usually described analogously. if it was, people would be describing INTjs as people with a kind of fearless disregard for Se, when usually they instead describe it as cowardice.

and this is how a person like me gets mistaken for an ISTj. all the arguments they think point to Se strength in me are actually arguments for the Se PoLR if they interpreted PoLRs consistently.

[Cat King Cole]

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...ough-weak.html

The other thing about the PoLR is that you find it uncomfortable to try and figure it out. It's a 1D function that has to approach complex information. People don't like their PoLR to be overtaxed because they'd much rather think about other things. PoLR hits are like "Why are you forcing me to think about this crap?!"

EDIT

I always explain your certainty to myself as being Ti dominance, you're a very Ti sort of person. You're no more Se than me or Richard Dawkins.

So, I'm curious, how can your certainty and logical pressure be considered "Se PoLR"? I can't quite model it in my head as being a badass disregard for Se, except perhaps for just sidestepping any issues of displays of force or coercion.

[krieger]

So, I'm curious, how can your certainty and logical pressure be considered "Se PoLR"? I can't quite model it in my head as being a badass disregard for Se, except perhaps for just sidestepping any issues of displays of force or coercion.

it is that for reasons of what it doesn't do more so for what it does. it states the case for a claim with theoretical backing without regard to how people's practical sense will receive it.

[DirectorAbbie]

Example:
LSE- Hi! Let's be productive!
SEI- Productive? You mean like fingerpainting?

[Nowisthetime]

This seems to make more sense in general - I can't really imagine an XIE threatened by Si,

It doesn't matter if it's Si or whatever. It's not the information in itself, it is our inability to handle it that is painful. We have to strain ourselves. We constantly feel our weakness with supervisors and conflictors. That's why supervision can be so devilish. It's like they affect us from the inside.

[mu4]

It's a blindspot until it's a sorespot.

Not all information in the PoLR is bad, only information that indicates failure or negative consequences. You may not even get fatigued in this area easily. Different types handle this area differently.

Like I know some very good EIE chefs and some very eccentric ones who have very peculiar tastes.

In fact, I type some of the best chefs in the world are EIE and they're neurotic about the cleanliness, quality, creativity of food to a extent that they have turned it into a perfected craft. The world of haute cusine is full of betas.

Also Si is very personal like all the introverted functions, so it's very possible one EIE will love the nasty bits, offal and focus on it and another will hate it and won't touch anything except for what they find acceptable.

This is just one example but the PoLR Function is a evaluatory function so people make very strong judgements here. However, the judgments can be go one or two directions. It's a area of fear, so it triggers a fight or flight response and many environmental and conditioned factors will affect it.

I am personally avoidant with meeting people, but I know a SLE who is not at all avoidant with getting to know people yet does not really get close to anyone.

Also how people approach your PoLR with id functions is totally different then someone who has your PoLR as a ego function, ultimately this is more important then any sort purely positive or negative.

I know a EIE who is very insistant on me meeting with them and hanging out, and guilts me when I don't do it.

I know a ESE who doesn't do this. This difference in action make a huge difference, which makes me avoid one and not the other.

I know a EII, who tells me that I suck at relationships because I'm too critical and combative in discussions. (They still want a relationship with me, but they make it sound like I need to change for them)

I know a SEI who tells me that even if I am too critical and combative, they still like me and want to be my friend and it doesn't really matter if I change or not. This makes a huge difference.

[Creepy-Snaps]

It's a blindspot until it's a sorespot.

Very simply: Your POLR (4th function) is typically a blindspot, until someone else points it out and it hurts bigtime, where your Role function (3rd) is typically a sorespot, something that hurts more often because you're aware of it, but because you're aware of it, hurts less when other people point it out.

[Airman]

Very simply: Your POLR (4th function) is typically a blindspot, until someone else points it out and it hurts bigtime, where your Role function (3rd) is typically a sorespot, something that hurts more often because you're aware of it, but because you're aware of it, hurts less when other people point it out.

No man, the role function is one you should be able to use with some degree of success, even if it seems somehow faked or odd, it's the shadow of your base function and you do use it at times just pay attention.

[Beautiful sky]

It's a blindspot until it's a sorespot.

Not all information in the PoLR is bad, only information that indicates failure or negative consequences. You may not even get fatigued in this area easily. Different types handle this area differently.

Like I know some very good EIE chefs and some very eccentric ones who have very peculiar tastes.

In fact, I type some of the best chefs in the world are EIE and they're neurotic about the cleanliness, quality, creativity of food to a extent that they have turned it into a perfected craft. The world of haute cusine is full of betas.

Also Si is very personal like all the introverted functions, so it's very possible one EIE will love the nasty bits, offal and focus on it and another will hate it and won't touch anything except for what they find acceptable.

This is just one example but the PoLR Function is a evaluatory function so people make very strong judgements here. However, the judgments can be go one or two directions. It's a area of fear, so it triggers a fight or flight response and many environmental and conditioned factors will affect it.

I am personally avoidant with meeting people, but I know a SLE who is not at all avoidant with getting to know people yet does not really get close to anyone.

Also how people approach your PoLR with id functions is totally different then someone who has your PoLR as a ego function, ultimately this is more important then any sort purely positive or negative.

I know a EIE who is very insistant on me meeting with them and hanging out, and guilts me when I don't do it.

I know a ESE who doesn't do this. This difference in action make a huge difference, which makes me avoid one and not the other.

I know a EII, who tells me that I suck at relationships because I'm too critical and combative in discussions. (They still want a relationship with me, but they make it sound like I need to change for them)

I know a SEI who tells me that even if I am too critical and combative, they still like me and want to be my friend and it doesn't really matter if I change or not. This makes a huge difference.

Because they are trying to get their point across and can't sense if the person has picked up on their point or not so they get more "aggressive" with their approach only to have created an adverse situation for themselves. Through reasoning/reasoned discussions, they become less so aggressive.

[crazedrat]

the polr is contrary to the priorities of the creative function. It's sort of the red tape holding you back. It's not a void.. it's a negative function.

[krieger]

I'm thinking it might be better to imagine POLR as totally unresponsive rather than actively painful. Individuals would then tend to be confused or mildly irritated by their POLR, or else miss it entirely, rather than finding it threatening or terrifying. The above caricatured example would then be replaced by the below caricatured example:

Example:
LSE- Hi! Let's be productive!
SEI- Productive? You mean like fingerpainting?

This seems to make more sense in general - I can't really imagine an XIE threatened by Si, an XLE terrified by Fi, or an XLI who jumps out the nearest window at the first sign of Fe. Rather, each type just seems totally oblivious to POLR information, and will rarely show any reaction to it, positive or negative.

Reasonable? Evidential? Laughable? Opinions, please.

yeah, this is how i see it too.

[FDG]

Right. Supervision is directed towards base function, not PoLR.

[krieger]

Right. Supervision is directed towards base function, not PoLR.

i like that. the insistence on the idea that supervision derives from a "PoLR" is actually a bias in socionics. the view that it is actually the supervisor's Creating function that supervises the Base function is equally valid under an instrumentalist interpretation of the intertype relations.

i like how this gets rid of the idea that sticking to the fundamental convictions of the Base function is somehow a "safe" way to behave. there are no safe havens!

[mu4]

i like that. the insistence on the idea that supervision derives from a "PoLR" is actually a bias in socionics. the view that it is actually the supervisor's Creating function that supervises the Base function is equally valid under an instrumentalist interpretation of the intertype relations.

i like how this gets rid of the idea that sticking to the fundamental convictions of the Base function is somehow a "safe" way to behave. there are no safe havens!

It's both. You don't supervise your Mirror.
Supervision happens for every function in the mental and vital blocks.

Supervisor-Supervisee
1st = 4th
2nd = 1st
3rd = 2nd
4th = 3rd

All bold functions in the supervisee is cautious in the supervisor, it will feel as if the supervisor is scrutinizing minutely over everything the supervisee uses freely. To the supervisor, the supervisee is doing everything too slowly and cautiously. (All introverts / extroverts are similarly like this however, but in this particular relationship the psychological pressure is different and there is some compatibility in the 2nd and 3rd function of the supervisor, your conflictor is a symmetric relation which both side engage in information of high psychological pressure )

Also due to the free use of the supervisors base function which is the supervisee's PoLR, there is a great deal of pressure on the supervisee.

You have this with your dual as well, except the vital and mental ring and flipped and communication does not incur the psychological pressure. They are able to concretely help you with their bold function and help regulate you with their cautious functions rather than only criticism.

[Ave]

Right. Supervision is directed towards base function, not PoLR.

i like that. the insistence on the idea that supervision derives from a "PoLR" is actually a bias in socionics. the view that it is actually the supervisor's Creating function that supervises the Base function is equally valid under an instrumentalist interpretation of the intertype relations.

i like how this gets rid of the idea that sticking to the fundamental convictions of the Base function is somehow a "safe" way to behave. there are no safe havens!

Well really what you have going on with supervision is the supervisee feeling demeaned by the supervisor's polr, but the supervisor, on the other hand is there to give his dis/aprroval to the supervisee based on how well the supervisee uses the supervisor's control/7th function.


From http://socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index.html

7. The Control Function: it is easier for an individual to criticize others for mistakes relevant to this function, to control other people's activities, than to demonstrate his/her own initiative.

[Trevor]

Functional rings of supervision:

Acc-Fe => Cre-Te => Acc-Te => Cre-Fe => Acc-Fe
Acc-Ti => Cre-Fi => Acc-Fi => Cre-Ti => Acc-Ti
Cre-Si => Acc-Si => Cre-Ni => Acc-Ni => Cre-Si
Cre-Ne => Acc-Ne => Cre-Se => Acc-Se => Cre-Ne

"=>" means "supervises".

So there are two kinds of supervision going on here. The first one is the "Cre function supervising it's Acc counterpart" kind of supervision. Labcoat and "me" called this version "supervision by correction", because, all things being equal, Cre version of a socionics function is superior to Acc version of that same function.
The second kind of supervision is the "Acc function supervising its Creative opposite" kind of supervision. Labcoat and "me" called this version "bull-in-a-china-store" supervision, because, all things being controled for, it does exactly that. An analogy/metaphor/whatever for this kind of a process would be: imagine careful building of a machine, and someone just comes and destroyes it in no time. This is how this kind of supervision works. You, proud SEI, build something with your Cre-Fe, you put some good ol' effort in building it, and then some LSE comes and destroyes it with his/her Acc-Te in a split second.

Your Supervisor uses both versions of supervision upon you.

You and your Mirror supervise eachother's Acc functions, using Supervision by Correction. A synergy between two of you can occur. According to socionics patriarchs, Mirror relations are superb when it comes to work. Synergy rullz.

You and your Conflictor supervise eachother's Cre functions, using Bull-in-a-China-Store Supervision. Both of you have a natural inclination to destroy other party's projects. That sucks.

[krieger]

awesome; thanks for that recollection.

i think it merits adding that there isn't usually a pointed intent to destroy the other person's efforts, though. it happens more or less "accidentally".