Benefit and Supervision Rings
I've noticed that benefit and supervision rings are basically groups with equal amount of similarity within them as quadra, club, or temperament, and people tend to get mistaken for their beneficiary or supervisee a lot for some reason (as in, far more than they get mistaken for their conflictor). Supervision rings correlate with Gulenko's cognitive styles but no one has been able to say what benefit rings are. Does anyone have any more information here? Thanks!
Eh, I would say that this is true about beneficiaries but not supervisors. I have attempted to explain some of the similarities using Model A2. Gulenko's Model G also touches on this. The general idea is that "information" flows from Ti -> Ne -> Fi -> Se or in the reverse direction, and "energy" flows Ti - Ni - Fi - Si etc. In practice, while the creative function is stronger, the mobilizing function can be engaged quite a bit as well. We also seem to act more like our mirrors than our supervisees.Originally Posted by Verbrannte
@thehotelambush I said supervisee, not supervisor... I'm also not sure we need Model A2 or Model G any more than we need Model X. I can explain most of the "problems" with just Model A... Of course we share more functions with our mirrors, but in real life, I've been confused with the type of person my supervisee is far more often than my mirror...
The same thing applies.
I been thinking lately that the flow of information in supervision goes the other way around when what is expected. It is actually the supervisor that is attracted towards the supervisee, and this is because that the supervisee got 4D demonstrative that feed into the supervisors suggestive. cool huh? The other way around is that the supervisor's lead element harass the supervisee's at the vulnerable point. The idea here is that your supervisors supervisors supervisor is your supervisee. It create a circle, or ring.
The benefit work similar. The creative of the "giver" goes into the suggestive of the "receiver". Here there is no pressure on the vulnerable so these relations become quite addictive, at least for the receiver. Your givers givers giver is your receiver.
Also this:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1151066
I have a hypothesis that the same way supervision rings share a way of thinking, benefit rings share a way of acting, but I haven't been able to delve deeper on this hypothesis.
@Tigerfadder I think benefit can be as awkward as supervision if not more in some cases (although it's probably subtype-dependent), but besides that I'd agree with all of that.
@mclane So supervision rings share a way of thinking, benefit rings share a way of acting, and quadras share a way of feeling. There is some more significance to that but it's a bit hard to explain... I just want to know what the benefit rings are defined by now... But I think Gulenko has already skimmed over it, just not gone into it super in-depth.
I discovered that types in the benefit ring all share the following dichotomies:
Introversion/extroversion
Asking/declaring
Result/process
But how this actually relates to the description of a benefit relation I'm not clear about.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
I just came here to post something I found, only to discover that you beat me to it! However I will add anyway.
Your super-ego is the only type with whom you share both temperament (IP/IJ/EP/EJ) and the result/process dichotomy.
Temperament is synonymous with the combination of static/dynamic and rational/irrational dichotomies.
If you flip both these dichotomies, but keep result/process the same, you are left with your benefactor and beneficiary. (who are each other's super-egos). Pretty neat!
I am also at a loss for interpretation but I'm sure there's something there.
@Nehtaro I just noticed your Super-ego is opposite you in both your Supervision and Benefit rings. So it seems you have a lot in common with your Super-ego... That explains a lot...
Many of these have probably been noted before.
Your benefactor and beneficiary are your dual's supervisor and supervisee.
Similarly, your benefactor and beneficiary's duals are your supervisor and supervisee.
You obtain your supervisor and supervisee by flipping your type's rationality but keeping static/dynamic and process/result the same. Flip static/dynamic as well and you get your benefactor and beneficiary.
If you flip static/dynamic only you are left with your dual and your contrary--who is the dual of your super-ego.
Each ring of benefit has the same result/process and introversion/extroversion and runs across every club.
Finally, change result/process alone and you get your kindred and look-a-like types, who are each other's super-ego, with you happily in between in both club and quadra.
Yes, the process/result groups are made up of two benefit rings and also two supervision rings. The Process/Result dichotomy is one of the relationship dichotomies or "orbital dichotomies", in that each Process type has one of eight relations with the others, and same for Result types. This is true exactly of the seven dichotomies that superegos share:
Introvert/Extrovert
Rational/Irrational
Static/Dynamic
Process/Result
Negativist/Positivist
Democrat/Aristocrat
Questioner/Declarer
Even these dichotomies are not "created equal" however. For example, some contain asymmetric relationships and others don't.
I don't think, however, that benefit and supervision rings are particularly apparent as traits of types. They are more important on the level of IM elements.
We can definitely approach it from this. + FeSi TeNi, - SeTi NeFi
FiTeNiFe+ and - : ESE, IEI, LIE, SLI
All got + spins.
LII, IEI, ESI, SLI = corrector/perfector
LII -
IEI +
ESI -
SLI +
The spin in supervision is just one direction in benefit it is both direction.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote