Let's talk about duals! - Page 7

Let's talk about duals!

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 127
Thank Tree51Thanks

This is a discussion on Let's talk about duals! within the Socionics Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Originally Posted by Wisteria Can you actually give any source that this is how asymmetric relations are defined? I've seen ...

  1. #61
    Unknown


    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    Can you actually give any source that this is how asymmetric relations are defined? I've seen the terms symmetric/asymmetric but I don't know the meaning of them.
    The website you linked some while ago makes reference to it.

    As I said above. Asymmetric means that the level of influence the two have over one another is unequal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    Nothing suggests they have the high ground either. They do in terms of ability, just not power, authority etc.
    They do in terms of influence (which you called ability). Influence is a form of power. Going by the variables measured, supervisors do hold the high ground.

    Other forms of power (i.e. authority, expert, coercive, material) are not measured by socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    Why wouldn't the supervisor help you develop your PoLR, when they know how to use the supervisee's PoLR and leading elements co efficiently?
    Their blocks don't match up. Communication goes in these steps:

    1. Supervisor communicates through their leading function and it hits the supervisee's vulnerable. Supervisee: "Ow, that hurts!"

    2. Supervisee responds through their own ego block. "Stop stop!"

    3. Supervisor cannot interpret both elements at once because information is coming in two separate blocks (Supervisee 1+2 = Supervisor 2-3).

    4. Supervisor defaults to ego block, thereby only getting half of the message. "Op op? what does that mean?"

    5. Supervisor sees the message as faulty, tries to correct the supervisee. "Stop speaking gibberish, it's easy!" (Go back to step 1.)
    L P thanked this post.

  2. #62

    Quote Originally Posted by Bastard View Post
    The website you linked some while ago makes reference to it.

    As I said above. Asymmetric means that the level of influence the two have over one another is unequal.
    Ah thanks, I haven't looked at school systems ITR page. Because your typed as an Se leading type with Fi PoLR, I thought that might be giving you that pov.

    It does say that the relationship is unequal, but also note that it says "formally unequal" and that these relations "represent a communicative mechanism of social progress". I think what this means is that when using their social superblock functions (the mental functions) the asymmetrical relations are more of a positive thing.

    The PoLR is a mental function as well, so I think that a supervisor can help the supervisor progress with their mental functions, particularly when using their PoLR and leading functions, or perhaps for the development of the super ego.

    Supervision is considered one of the worst relationships for marriages however. This probably means that supervision is more unpleasant in intimate relationships, where the mental functions aren't really being used.

    They do in terms of influence (which you called ability). Influence is a form of power. Going by the variables measured, supervisors do hold the high ground.
    Other forms of power (i.e. authority, expert, coercive, material) are not measured by socionics.
    I said ability because I was referencing dimensionality and strength of the function. You basically mean the supervisor is superior because of how they influence the supervisor, but authority and coercion is sort of having an influence.

    Their blocks don't match up. Communication goes in these steps:

    1. Supervisor communicates through their leading function and it hits the supervisee's vulnerable. Supervisee: "Ow, that hurts!"

    2. Supervisee responds through their own ego block. "Stop stop!"

    3. Supervisor cannot interpret both elements at once because information is coming in two separate blocks (Supervisee 1+2 = Supervisor 2-3).

    4. Supervisor defaults to ego block, thereby only getting half of the message. "Op op? what does that mean?"

    5. Supervisor sees the message as faulty, tries to correct the supervisee. "Stop speaking gibberish, it's easy!" (Go back to step 1.)
    They match in a sense that they share the same mental functions though? With conflictors the blocks are even more different. I think it goes more like this;

    Supervisor notices that supervisee cannot use their base function to a high ability, so the supervisor mentors supervisee and helps them use their PoLR, which is the supervisee's ultimate drawback when using their leading function. To me the supervisee's response is more like "Aha so that's how I can use my PoLR more effectively o/" rather than "Stop bullying and criticising me"

  3. #63

    gah, why do you think supervisor is supervisor and supervisee is supervisee though?

    since this is such a terrible relationship, since there's such shitty communication how supervisor ever be able supervise?

    you are almost describing the relationship of matter with antimatter. the moment they interact, boom! so why call this shit a "relationship of supervision"?

    to be able to supervise, your supervision must be smooth and subliminal. not in your face...

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #64

    quotes from: Relations of Supervision between psychological ("personality") types

    Supervisee weak point is defenceless against the Supervisor's strong point. This makes the Supervisee nervous and expect the worse.

    this is true, as an entp i'm worried i will hurt infp with my brutal objectivity. but that's not some kind of paranoid thing to think. i should be worried, she is sensitive and shit. this is interesting if you think about it, because since when i give a shit i will hurt people as an entp? i'll tell you, since they don't reflect shit back, she absorbs that brutally objective statement or rude joke of mine and let it implode inside her and i have to sit and watch this which make me almost feel things.

    = Supervisee pays attention to their actions and considers the Supervisor as consequential.

    how is this a bad thing, again?

    The Supervisee normally wants to gain recognition and commendation from the Supervisor. However, it may seem like the Supervisor always undervalues the abilities of the Supervisee. This stimulates the Supervisee into proving their own worthiness with various actions, yet there is little chance that they will succeed.

    the key part in this quote is this: "it may seem like" and this is why we study facking typology. to see beyond what it "seem like".

    The Supervisor sees the Supervisee as quite interesting and capable, but incomplete and therefore in need of some help and advice.

    that's good. that's not terrible.

    The Supervisee does not respond to this aid as expected and this will often increase the Supervisor's attempts to change the Supervisee.

    these descriptions are default and most expected reactions of a supervisee that is a level 1 noob and learnt nothing in this world. like, i can see how i would act like this when i was 10. but not anymore, you know? i won't try to make intp from that infp.

    Because the Supervisee naturally does not understand what it is that the Supervisor wants from them, this may irritate the Supervisor, who thinks that the Supervisee simply does not want to understand.

    writer of this uhm, article still adresses a noob level 1 supervisor and supervisee robots fresh outta factory.

  6. #65
    Unknown


    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    To me the supervisee's response is more like "Aha so that's how I can use my PoLR more effectively o/" rather than "Stop bullying and criticising me"
    No. That's an unorthodox interpretation.

    Direct pressure on the vulnerable is nothing but painful. The Supervisor consistently pressures the supervisee's vulnerable. Their attempted correction just pressures it more.

    That is how supervision works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    I said ability because I was referencing dimensionality and strength of the function. You basically mean the supervisor is superior because of how they influence the supervisor, but authority and coercion is sort of having an influence.
    I mean that the supervisor has the superiority because the influence is one-way. Supervisee does not influence the supervisor.

    Authority and coercion are types of power not measured. You'd need to look at actual interactions between people (rather than ITRs between sociotypes) to pick up on those.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    Ah thanks, I haven't looked at school systems ITR page.
    It is not different from other sources on Supervision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    Because your typed as an Se leading type with Fi PoLR, I thought that might be giving you that pov.
    Well all interactions have power dynamics, a lot of people just don't notice them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    With conflictors the blocks are even more different. I think it goes more like this;
    Conflictors inadvertently harm each other. Supervisors inadvertently harm supervisees.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChaoticEvil View Post
    you are almost describing the relationship of matter with antimatter. the moment they interact, boom! so why call this shit a "relationship of supervision"?
    It's also called audit, or revision, or social control. The last one is the most accurate.

    Translations are a bitch like that.
    Last edited by Bastard; 09-16-2018 at 07:05 PM.

  7. #66

    Quote Originally Posted by Bastard View Post
    It's also called audit, or revision, or social control. The last one is the most accurate.

    Translations are a bitch like that.
    entps can not be supervised / controlled or revised by anything other than soft power. entps will rebel against anything else.

  8. #67
    Unknown


    Quote Originally Posted by ChaoticEvil View Post
    entps can not be supervised / controlled or revised by anything other than soft power. entps will rebel against anything else.
    ENTPs are pussies. Stick to tilting at windmills.

  9. #68

    Quote Originally Posted by Bastard View Post
    ENTPs are pussies. Stick to tilting at windmills.
    let's assume this is true. i guess you mean entps can't rebel then? rebellion do not have to be physical. entps will rebel intellectually, entps will debate the hells out of you. just like i'm doing here. why did you ignore everything else i said? i made many entp & infp specific examples, i make quotes from websites, i explained the mechanics which is based on my real life experience- but you went and focused on the translation. and your alternative translations changed nothing. and when i stuff that in your ass you got upset. aww.

    and if entp can't even rebel intellectually because estp is on his face, then entp will simply quit. see, you can't control entp, you can't actually make entp listen to you. but infp can and i already explained how in detail.

  10. #69
    Unknown


    Quote Originally Posted by ChaoticEvil View Post
    why did you ignore everything else i said?
    You don't understand supervision. I'm helping you.

  11. #70

    Quote Originally Posted by Bastard View Post
    You don't understand supervision. I'm helping you.
    a very baseless statement. no, you don't understand it. you think we are simplistic robots ruled by ten lines of gwbasic code.

    "if infp do x entp does y"
    "when entp does y infp does z"
    "when infp does z entp explodes"

    extremely deterministic, simplistic. i am an entp working around the problems and finding alternative solutions and making it work is my thing. i can see how this shit called "relationship of supervision" can be "improved".

    you accept it as it is. you worship this shit you read online as if it's god's writing. some asshole wrote those things in his basement who gives a shit? lol. i will only use his descriptions as a starting point.


     
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Interview questions for all MBTI types (let's talk about ourselves)
    By SilentScream in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 02-14-2019, 02:19 PM
  2. [INTP] Let's talk about Luck
    By HeadofHudet in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-22-2018, 10:58 AM
  3. 4 good duals and 4 mediocre duals?
    By Tellus in forum Socionics Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 04-30-2016, 11:32 PM
  4. Socionics Duals in Movies/ TV Shows
    By Oldlady in forum Socionics Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-20-2012, 03:01 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:53 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0