Relations of Benefit vs Relations of Supervision?

Relations of Benefit vs Relations of Supervision?

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59
Thank Tree63Thanks

This is a discussion on Relations of Benefit vs Relations of Supervision? within the Socionics Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; How exactly would you distinguish between the two? @ LeaT said to me the other day that we seem to ...

  1. #1

    Relations of Benefit vs Relations of Supervision?

    How exactly would you distinguish between the two? @LeaT said to me the other day that we seem to have a Benefit relationship, but I could see the case for Supervision.



  2. #2

    Quote Originally Posted by FacelessBeauty View Post
    How exactly would you distinguish between the two? @LeaT said to me the other day that we seem to have a Benefit relationship, but I could see the case for Supervision.
    ILIs and EIIs are in Benefit relations, though some type Lea as LII, which would be quasi-identical relations, which could feel like supervision: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...uasi-identical i.e. sometimes you may feel like strangling your quasi.

    In Benefit relations there is information of interest coming from Beneficiary's dominant function onto Benefactor's hidden agenda. The Benefactor is capable of assimilating this information. Thus the Benefactor is influenced by Beneficiary for the duration of their relations (however long they stay in touch). Beneficiary can change Benefactor's views and ideas.

    In Supervision, however, whatever the supervisee says cannot be assimilated by the Supervisor and thus Supervisee has no effect on the Supervisor. What Supervisee says seems in need of further corrections and additions from the Supervisor. Supervisee cannot make Supervisor change their values and views.

    Though both Benefit and Supervision are asymmetric relationship types, the above makes Benefit relations be less asymmetric than Supervision.

  3. #3

    Quote Originally Posted by FacelessBeauty View Post
    How exactly would you distinguish between the two? @LeaT said to me the other day that we seem to have a Benefit relationship, but I could see the case for Supervision.
    Is it in the sense that you understand each other easily but could never get the point of critique from each other? Why does she seem ENFj to you?

    My sister is uptight on etiquette and she is ENFj, though it seems like her points of critique were from a TiSe perspective with regards to it. But it seems I wouldn't use Socionics to explain why she thinks that a lot of my mannerisms are alien, but I guess everybody has their own quirks that make sense to them.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4

    Quote Originally Posted by Boolean11 View Post
    Is it in the sense that you understand each other easily but could never get the point of critique from each other? Why does she seem ENFj to you?

    My sister is uptight on etiquette and she is ENFj, though it seems like her points of critique were from a TiSe perspective with regards to it. But seem still I wouldn't use Socionics to explain why she thinks that a lot of my mannerisms are alien.
    You mean INFj right? And while I understand that socionics cannot explain every aspect of your relationship, I'd just like to compare Benefit relations to Supervision relations more to find that one characteristic that sets them completely apart, even though I see aspects of both in the case of our friendship.
    Entropic thanked this post.

  6. #5

    Quote Originally Posted by FacelessBeauty View Post
    You mean INFj right? And while I understand that socionics cannot explain every aspect of your relationship, I'd just like to compare Benefit relations to Supervision relations more to find that one characteristic that sets them completely apart, even though I see aspects of both in the case of our friendship.
    INFj is beneficiary, their robust "Fi" easily influences you, it seems just seems amazing that they are so much better than you. ENFjs just seem to try to influence/criticize you but since they are coming from Fe understanding has a little translation barrier, unlike "Ne" in INFjs which is in the ID.

    With Socionics it depends on the interpretation you pick, if you are trying to framework the limits to its advice on inter-type relations. With the version I ascribe to, the theory is limited to discussion, information elements processing elements as innate thought patterns style. Its the temperaments of a person that directly affect how they perceive reality, the "functions" (IM), and it is on the cognitive level (the cognitive side of socionics) that highly correlates with Jung's material. "Phenomenological cognition" some on 16types prefer to frame it.

    Theoretically those who process the same information processing styles, have a high probability of liking each other as they don't have to "translate" as much. Whereas those who process information differently have the "difference", thus lower probability. I wouldn't take the quadra values or Information Metabolism stereotypes as useful due to their inconsistencies contradictions especially with the cognitive side. I find Enneagram being better at that, and more consistence with a lot more integrity over its claims, so I apply it on top of the cognitive side to explain the discrepancies in values between people sharing the same type as well as finding positive relations with the "bad relations types".
    cyamitide and Helios thanked this post.

  7. #6

    Supervisee and Supervisor are inclined to mutual suspicions. The Supervisee doesn't agree with dominant orientation of the Supervisor. Its functioning goes against Supervisee's creative function so it seems harmful and malicious. I remember reading on 16types that Supervisor is kind of like a "bull in a china shop" with respect to their Supervisee (which also applies to conflict partner) since Supervisor's dominant orientation directly counters the creative efforts of Supervisee.

    I think this sort of weariness doesn't exist in Benefit relations; there is more amiability and similarity of interests than in Benefit rather than in Supervision. In cases of quarrels, the Beneficiary is able to strike back by exposing Benefactor's obtuseness in their HA function, while the Supervisee attempts to strike at the role function of Supervisor.
    Last edited by cyamitide; 01-20-2013 at 10:00 AM.
    Helios and Entropic thanked this post.

  8. #7

    Quote Originally Posted by cyamitide View Post
    Supervisee and Supervisor are inclined to mutual suspicions. The Supervisee doesn't agree with dominant orientation of the Supervisor. Its functioning goes against Supervisee's creative function so it seems harmful and malicious. I remember reading on 16types that Supervisor is kind of like a "bull in a china shop" with respect to their Supervisee (which also applies to conflict partner) since Supervisor's dominant orientation directly counters the creative efforts of Supervisee.

    I think this sort of weariness doesn't exist in Benefit relations; there is more amiability and similarity of interests than in Benefit rather than in Supervision. In cases of quarrels, the Beneficiary is able to strike back by exposing Benefactor's obtuseness in their HA function, while the Supervisee attempts to strike at the role function.
    Based on this, I still think we have more of a benefactor relationship.
    Helios thanked this post.

  9. #8

    I will note that I have been in what, according to intertype relations theory, is a Supervisor/Supervisee relationship with an IEE for over a year now, and I will say, though the dynamic is somewhat descriptive of the problems that are sometimes had in communication, the overall interaction between us is really not as the often fatalistic descriptions would depict. More than just the fact that we both put effort into maintaining what is to both of us a healthy relationship, it would be difficult for me to even say the overall sentiment of the Supervisor/Supervisee relationship is true for us, for although I do recognize that the functional analysis is rather accurate, there doesn't even seem to be a fundamental misunderstanding between us. We operate in very different ways and though this can sometimes become an issue in times of crisis, I would never say that it creates an inherent problem for us and it hasn't for almost a year and a half.

    I will also say that there is not much possibility that either of us are not the types with which we identify (LII and IEE for me and her, respectively).

    Hence, I would argue that if you're trying to determine what kind of intertype relation you're in with another person, perhaps overlook the larger and often more credulous conclusions that are made and instead look for the intertype dynamic that exists there and see if it fits.
    cyamitide and Helios thanked this post.

  10. #9

    Quote Originally Posted by RoSoDude View Post
    I will note that I have been in what, according to intertype relations theory, is a Supervisor/Supervisee relationship with an IEE for over a year now, and I will say, though the dynamic is somewhat descriptive of the problems that are sometimes had in communication, the overall interaction between us is really not as the often fatalistic descriptions would depict. More than just the fact that we both put effort into maintaining what is to both of us a healthy relationship, it would be difficult for me to even say the overall sentiment of the Supervisor/Supervisee relationship is true for us, for although I do recognize that the functional analysis is rather accurate, there doesn't even seem to be a fundamental misunderstanding between us. We operate in very different ways and though this can sometimes become an issue in times of crisis, I would never say that it creates an inherent problem for us and it hasn't for almost a year and a half.

    I will also say that there is not much possibility that either of us are not the types with which we identify (LII and IEE for me and her, respectively).

    Hence, I would argue that if you're trying to determine what kind of intertype relation you're in with another person, perhaps overlook the larger and often more credulous conclusions that are made and instead look for the intertype dynamic that exists there and see if it fits.
    We tried, but it would help if Face could decide on her type already I am fairly sure about mine but she changes type as she changes clothes.
    GreenCoyote thanked this post.

  11. #10

    There's a fleck of Supervision in Benefit, but Supervision is much more strict than Benefit. They're similar in that they are the only 2 asymmetric relationships in the system, and for somewhat similar reasons - basically, one person lacks what the other values, and the other person doesn't value what the one person is good at.

    This is hardly a complete description, but generally Benefit lacks the feelings of inadequacy that come with Supervision, since your Benefactor values your Creative function more than your Supervisor does.

    In Benefit, I find that EII sometimes have really interesting ideas or different ways of looking at something, but I always process them in favor of Ni. There can be ego battles in these relationships, but the difference is that the Benefactor sees how weak the Beneficiary is in his/her Dual-Seeking function and tries to correct flaws in it. The Beneficiary may try to "educate" the Benefactor in favor of their Creative, but the Benefactor doesn't really care.

    Example:

    EII: "You shouldn't box yourself in with personality theory. You're limiting your potential"
    ILI: "But I'm not boxing myself in. There is a systematic method of observing the people around you, and it is usually accurate. I would be limiting my own potential if I didn't take advantage of it, and you should too. I'll send you a website."


    Supervision, on the other hand, has a more extreme set of corrective scenarios. Unlike in Benefit where the Benefactor gives at least some space to the Benefaciary (though they doubt the Beneficiary will make it on their own), your Supervisor thinks they have to take direct action to "save" the Supervisee. They see the flaws more clearly and get a stronger sense of self value/ego boost from helping. No matter what the Supervisee does or says, the Supervisor either is neutral or finds something to correct. The Supervisee feels huge pressure, because they're always being corrected and checked for things they simply can't do as well as the Supervisor. Sometimes the relationship can be positive for some time, and won't feel like "Supervision" per se - but it happens eventually. And the warmth that Benefit has is at best very sporadic with Supervision.
    cyamitide, QueenofEagles, Entropic and 1 others thanked this post.


     
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-16-2019, 04:24 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-02-2016, 03:38 PM
  3. [INTP] Relations
    By Ink in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-12-2012, 07:16 PM
  4. [ISFJ] Relations with a Sif (ISFJ)
    By Elaminopy in forum ISFJ Forum - The Nurturers
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-15-2011, 02:24 PM

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 07:18 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