Personality Cafe banner

Relations of Benefit vs Relations of Supervision?

16K views 58 replies 14 participants last post by  brittauzenne 
#1 ·
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 ·
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/vbulleti...-ever-felt-supervised-by-your-quasi-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 ·
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 ·
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.
 
#6 · (Edited)
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.
 
#7 ·
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.
 
#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.
 
#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.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Benefit relations last longer in my experience. The Benefactor is continuously attracted by Beneficiary's dominant function. There is a sense that you can at least partially depend on a person and receive valuable feedback from them. If needed be, the Beneficiary can "correct" the Benefactor from their dominant function is weaker in Benefactor (in case of EII-ILI interactions the EII will ethically re-orient the ILI, but they do it from intuitive, delta standpoint to which the ILI is only partially responsive).

In Supervision there is more asymmetry. The Supervisor doesn't feel like he or she can depend on the Supervisee, even if the later has proven to be a capable individual of their own right. Whatever the Supervisee is doing seems to require inspection and revision from you when you are the Supervisor in these relations. In Supervision marriages I've seen this causes anxiety for the person in role of Supervisor because they start feeling like they have to pull the entire weight of the family and that person who is Supervisee isn't pulling their share. In this manner, Supervision is more like parent-child relations while Benefit is more like older sibling-younger sibling relations.
 
#12 ·
In this manner, Supervision is more like parent-child relations while Benefit is more like older sibling-younger sibling relations.
Interesting point. If I have to pick one, it feels more like the latter than the former but I am not sure about how correct it is.

I just remembered that I told face the other day that in some ways she feels older and more mature than I despite me clearly being much older. I feel the same way with @Amaterasu who is probably an ILI. Is that common for the benefit relationship?

Also, I can see the whole Fi thing with Ama. We Fi a lot together lol.
 
#38 ·
#48 ·
I think ANYONE micromanaging me in any way would be super annoying and cause me to break down eventually (and gamma NTs do this to EVERYONE, don't play). And I've dealt with this from different types, especially LIEs and LSEs. With SEIs though I don't really feel supervised in that particular sense--I just feel like I can't keep up with their base function, and at the end of the day I fail them in trying to do so. They're NICE about it but it's obvious that if they could they would rather just put me out of my misery and find someone more capable, like I'm the LEAST capable person they've ever met. When I was a kid I think it was seen as cute but now that I'm not, it's like there's no excuse to not be like everybody else.
 
#49 · (Edited)
I think ANYONE micromanaging me in any way would be super annoying and cause me to break down eventually (and gamma NTs do this to EVERYONE, don't play). And I've dealt with this from different types, especially LIEs and LSEs. With SEIs though I don't really feel supervised in that particular sense--I just feel like I can't keep up with their base function, and at the end of the day I fail them in trying to do so. They're NICE about it but it's obvious that if they could they would rather just put me out of my misery and find someone more capable, like I'm the LEAST capable person they've ever met. When I was a kid I think it was seen as cute but now that I'm not, it's like there's no excuse to not be like everybody else.
o.o oh come on...I can't handle micromanagement or bossyness, control...:\ I react very badly to it (direct agression, confrontation, stubburn intense defiance :S..in exteme situation can turn violent). I'm a free spirit/rebellious by nature and don't hold back when my values are threatened and there is NO compromise on this one (values incude personal freedom and dislike for authority ^^)....I'm ESI...ffs...they are my duals and semi duals.

I tolerate this stuff at work (suffering for survival), but otherwise, frelling NO!

ISFPs are warm and affectionate once they feel comfortable in a relationship. They are offended by people who are domineering and insensitive to other people's feelings. They dislike talking about their relationships and prefer to show they care by being helpful. They do not like feeling manipulated. They value trust and are loyal.
Nuff said...
 
#50 ·
@FreeBeer Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Gamma NTs, but they CAN be very bossy and controlling, especially when they have a "vision" for something and it's not getting there fast enough or in the way they want. That's just NiTe for you. I was just pointing out that it's something that doesn't ONLY happen around their supervisees. If anything, Gamma NTs could supervise the entire planet.
 
#51 ·
:p doesn't matter, I'll never agree to anything that goes against my Fi and I have the Se to back it up. Its either as equals or nothing. I guess that is why ESI is their dual, I'm more then a match for them when it comes to being willful about what I think is correct.
 
#52 ·
I don't know about supervision, but I've experienced benefit relationships both as a benefactor and beneficiary. The beneficiary becomes spoiled in a way. I'll admit- I have felt serviced and taken care of and spoiled as a beneficiary. So I have tried not to take advantage of it / and show appreciation. I also liked taking care of someone too. But not sure how a very long-term situation like that would have played out for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyamitide
#54 ·
What I notice being the case with supervision more often than not is that the supervisee sees the supervisor using their base function and tries to create the illusion of competency so as not to embarrass themself by using their PoLR for a little while without realizing that the supervisor is going to notice this and try to get them to use it all the time. For any other type this would just be annoying, but for the supervisee it's exhausting and causes them to avoid or resent their supervisor (that person cares so much about this BS, but why do I have to do it?), even if they think he or she is a good person. It feels like entering a learning contract with someone who wants to teach you to be good at your PoLR, but you don't see your PoLR as actually important, just ever-present. Most of the things you do are actually geared around AVOIDING using your PoLR or taking it at your own pace. Occasionally I see supervisees respond violently to the expectation to use their PoLR, usually in an effort to get whoever's pushing it down their throat to back off. I don't think the supervisor usually KNOWS they're hurting them until after they witness an outburst of this sort, because how could their base function be PAINFUL?


And FWIW I think this can happen with other types as well if a person refuses to use their PoLR in a situation where it's required. Anyone who's capable of using the function and recognizing its importance is going to be annoyed by someone else needlessly complicating the situation and refusing to respond appropriately. It's just that where it's possible to make others aware of how much you suck at this function so that they won't make you use it as much, your supervisor isn't going to go for that.




As for relations of benefit, the only thing I notice being a PROBLEM with them is that the beneficiary is semi-retarded in the realm of the benefactor's creative function and sets themself up to get flack for this. Actually it usually seems that the beneficiary's base function is extremely alluring to their benefactor and this never seems to change. I know that I love SEEs' base function use and actually regard their creative function with respect, but I HATE their blind optimism when it comes to Ni-DS. Whereas our DS function seems to assume that someone else will come along and save us when we mess up in this area, someone who has that as their creative function will gladly make it known that NO, no one is going to save you. HELP you maybe, but first you need to try and help yourself, and I think this can stress the beneficiary out.
 
#55 ·
As for relations of benefit, the only thing I notice being a PROBLEM with them is that the beneficiary is semi-retarded in the realm of the benefactor's creative function and sets themself up to get flack for this. Actually it usually seems that the beneficiary's base function is extremely alluring to their benefactor and this never seems to change. I know that I love SEEs' base function use and actually regard their creative function with respect, but I HATE their blind optimism when it comes to Ni-DS. Whereas our DS function seems to assume that someone else will come along and save us when we mess up in this area, someone who has that as their creative function will gladly make it known that NO, no one is going to save you. HELP you maybe, but first you need to try and help yourself, and I think this can stress the beneficiary out.

Benefactors creative stacked to beneficiarys is totally emaciated. Beneficiary does already feel helpless. Beneficiary should get help because benefactor will likely not even come to fully understand the beneficiarys problem. Beneficiary has to learn to stand on their own eventually.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top