# Does the "supervision" relation always work as its description?



## Ludwig Ciekanowski (Mar 28, 2015)

Supervision - Wikisocion

The "supervision" relationship, basing on functions interaction, is formed by the match of 2-1 functions, to influence the idea of supervisee, and 1-7 functions, to attack the supervisee's weakness, as an ENTJ can influence an INFJ's idea by its creative function Ni and force INFJ by the later's weakness Te.

However, in spite of the function interaction theory, does the "supervision" really happen in all couples in this relation?

For instance, INTJ is a typical example of independent, stubborn and self-conscious. Image that does the Ni of an ENFJ can influence the INTJ's mind? Does the use of Fe can suppress INTJ?

The similar example may be ENFP, ENTJ, whose independent, stubborn and self-conscious are as strong as INTJ. How can INTP supervise ENFP? How can ISTJ supervise ENTJ

It is just curious for this kind of relationship. Normally it thinks "supervision" should happen from the mentally stronger one to weaker one. Whereas on some matches seems that the weaker one can supervise the stronger one. Thus that makes a bit incredible.

How do you think about the supervision relationship? Does it always work depend on the cognitive functions?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Intj can not really absorb the Fe from ENFJ. It will be like a complex system of rules for the best feeling for the environment. Which is not focus for intj.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

It's an interesting question. I think there are a couple distinctions out there that may help you understand the relation better. 

Firstly, "Supervision" does not mean that the Supervisor is a more competent, stronger, or more developed, mature person than the Supervisee. Like all of the intertype relations, it is purely based on the arrangement of the IE's how they are valued, and how fluid each type is with using them. 

Secondly, Supervision is actually two separate relations within the same two people. The experience of being the "Supervisor" is extremely different than being the "Supervisee" (i.e. the relationship is asymmetric). Socionics calls these two Supervision +/- to differentiate between the two. 

Basically what happens with Supervision is that each person/type bases their entire worldview around a given IE (their Base function). Function #1 is the motive to which you direct all of your other functions, and the basis from which your goals, and overall life outlook always begin. To your Supervisee type, this function happens to be their weakest, most vulnerable point, where they are both incredibly unaware, skeptical, pressured by the slightest input, and blind to being able to understand. It's a difficult relation, because the Supervisor puts immense pressure on the Supervisee just by going on autopilot, not understanding why someone would take offense, or not notice the things they do/be able to formulate things their way. Yet, the Supervisee again is blind to this informational area so they literally cannot meet this expectation. 

Supervision in my experience can take a couple different forms, depending on the context. Sometimes, when the Supervisee is in a better social position, more competent, more intelligent, more aggressive, more self-assured than the Supervisor there can be open conflict. The Supervisor unconsciously tries to assert dominance over the Supervisee, but can't completely do it, all the while still putting immense informational pressure on him/her. The Supervisee unconsciously respects the authority of the Supervisor, but still feels that they are incompetent in the actual arena they interact in and becomes aggravated, rebelling against them without really understanding why. 

Other times, the Supervisee completely bows to the Supervisor, and tries to copy them, asking for their advice almost constantly or trying to pal around with them, with the Supervisor either responding lukewarm (because their info preference is only partially satisfied), or trying to change the Supervisee's POV. The Supervisee ends up feeling like no matter what they do, the Supervisor doesn't agree or doesn't appreciate them, whereas the Supervisor in reality is partially stimulated by the Supervisee but just wants their POV to be slightly different, or slightly better clarified to match their own. This goes on and on, slowly degrading the Supervisee's ego. 

Other times still, particularly in casual settings, the relationship can be attractive and friendly. There's a sense of thinking very similarly, and warmth in figuring out (via function #2 ) shared opinions.



I have a lot of experience with this relationship, with work, friends, etc, both + and -; I can go into specific function/IE interactions if that helps as well?


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

I happen to be my mother's supervisor and my brother's supervisee, which makes for an unusual dynamic. In my experience as a supervisor, I see my supervisee almost as a child, irresponsible, "dull" at times, even dangerous, I feel like I have to constantly keep my eye on her to avoid any impending catastrophe. As a supervisee, you feel like your most worthwhile traits (shall I say qualities ?) don't even exist anymore, this time you feel like the child trying his best to follow his parents directives and learning from them, yet no matter how hard you try you don't become better, it is like the wisdom your supervisor tries to transmit just isn't meant for you to have. You feel incapable, weak, and the supervisor often feels even more annoyed by that sudden "moodiness" and reluctance to achieve something as easy. It's one of the worst relationship no question about that.


----------



## Ludwig Ciekanowski (Mar 28, 2015)

Figure said:


> It's an interesting question. I think there are a couple distinctions out there that may help you understand the relation better.
> 
> Firstly, "Supervision" does not mean that the Supervisor is a more competent, stronger, or more developed, mature person than the Supervisee. Like all of the intertype relations, it is purely based on the arrangement of the IE's how they are valued, and how fluid each type is with using them.
> 
> ...


Thanks for explanation. Since I am INFJ and my father is ENTJ, I am much curious about the relationship between these two type, to understand the father-son communication style between us. Whereas there are two point. One is that an ENTJ really look like a supervisor since his personality, and the second is that it is normal for a father to supervise a son. These two point may be an illusion to understand the relationship.

I am also interested in the situation that if the supervisor has a weak or undeveloped creative function, how will the relationship of supervision be different?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Figure said:


> It's an interesting question. I think there are a couple distinctions out there that may help you understand the relation better.
> 
> Firstly, "Supervision" does not mean that the Supervisor is a more competent, stronger, or more developed, mature person than the Supervisee. Like all of the intertype relations, it is purely based on the arrangement of the IE's how they are valued, and how fluid each type is with using them.
> 
> ...


Spot fucking on!!!
Thanks for putting it so perfectly.
Will intensify efforts to keep the fuck away from ENFp.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

My experience with an ILE I worked with (I would be the supervisor), rationally I knew he was very intelligent and competent, but I always saw him as careless and prone to mess things up. That seems to be a common theme here. So I instinctively took on a role of monitoring/managing him, although we were of equal status socially and within the company, I had the higher status in the relationship (I didn't _want_ this but it happened).

I didn't think this was a terrible relationship though, I actually really liked this ILE, but it was a relationship with some specific difficulties. Maybe problems with supervision relations are overstated?



Ludwig Ciekanowski said:


> I am also interested in the situation that if the supervisor has a weak or undeveloped creative function, how will the relationship of supervision be different?


As I understand it functions don't develop in socionics, a creative function is always strong by definition.

It might be interesting to look at differences between subtypes though. Maybe the relation would work best with a creative subtype supervisor and leading subtype supervisee?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ALongTime said:


> My experience with an ILE I worked with (I would be the supervisor), rationally I knew he was very intelligent and competent, but I always saw him as careless and prone to mess things up. That seems to be a common theme here. So I instinctively took on a role of monitoring/managing him, although we were of equal status socially and within the company, I had the higher status in the relationship (I didn't _want_ this but it happened).
> 
> I didn't think this was a terrible relationship though, I actually really liked this ILE, but it was a relationship with some specific difficulties. Maybe problems with supervision relations are overstated?


That is easy to say for you.
You are not the one getting your PoLR prodded all the time.
Everything seems dandy when you are not the one in the pit of fire.
Maybe you should get a SEE collegue to *see* how well you handle being on the receiving end.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

hornet said:


> That is easy to say for you.
> You are not the one getting your PoLR prodded all the time.
> Everything seems dandy when you are not the one in the pit of fire.
> Maybe you should get a SEE collegue to *see* how well you handle being on the receiving end.


I guess you're right, it could well have been more difficult for him. He did a good job of hiding it if that's the case, and I'm normally quite good at reading people. I considered this person a friend, we used to go out for drinks together after work. This was a long time ago, before I knew about socionics, I'd never intentionally do anything to treat someone badly. Working with a leading Se type would be a nightmare for me.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ALongTime said:


> I guess you're right, it could well have been more difficult for him. He did a good job of hiding it if that's the case, and I'm normally quite good at reading people. I considered this person a friend, we used to go out for drinks together after work. This was a long time ago, before I knew about socionics, I'd never intentionally do anything to treat someone badly. Working with a leading Se type would be a nightmare for me.


That is the the absolute dillemma with Jungs teachings.
Some people will be trampled by our natural self just being present.
By manifestnig your chief value you are devaluing his.
There is no good solution other than seperation.
You usually feel at good terms with your supervisor, I for the most part have felt good about ENFp's I've met.
It doesn't really matter what happened on the surface interaction.
Every minute I was in their company I was damaged a little bit.
My ego boundaries was stripped away and I felt more and more useless.
At the time I didn't realize that it was them.
To me I just experienced massive feelings of insignificance and inferiority.
I linked it to all sorts of things other than their omnious presence.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

hornet said:


> That is the the absolute dillemma with Jungs teachings.
> Some people will be trampled by our natural self just being present.
> By manifestnig your chief value you are devaluing his.
> There is no good solution other than seperation.
> ...


That's quite tragic; if the supervisor only wants to protect the supervisee and help them, and yet their best efforts only hurt them without either realising it.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ALongTime said:


> That's quite tragic; if the supervisor only wants to protect the supervisee and help them, and yet their best efforts only hurt them without either realising it.


Yep leaving each other alone is probably the best course of action.
It is like you have ebola, hence running around hugging people is transformed from a nice thing to not so nice.
It is really a misidentification, you mistake him subconciously as an ENFp and he mistakes you for an INTj.
Hence you think you have mirror to befriend.
Far from it and the one with the exposed PoLR will have to learn the hard way.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

@hornet Many thanks, you've been really insightful.

Just an observation though, a priority of a leading -Fi type is to minimise/avoid negative relationships. Even with a relationship with an SEE, as a leading +Fi my instinct is to see the silver lining, and I'm not inclined to want to cut off a relationship that's working on some level because it has problems - I'll try to focus on the positives, because a relationship to me is more important than any problems, and I've experienced some of the more negative relations in socionics, I know what it's like. Maybe these positive efforts with PoLR Fi types do more harm than good, that's a difficult one and not a comfortable thought, but it would be hard to change my nature. Nothing much else to say about that, I'm not arguing which is the right/wrong way to be, just an observation.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ALongTime said:


> @_hornet_ Many thanks, you've been really insightful.
> 
> Just an observation though, a priority of a leading -Fi type is to minimise/avoid negative relationships. Even with a relationship with an SEE, as a leading +Fi my instinct is to see the silver lining, and I'm not inclined to want to cut off a relationship that's working on some level because it has problems - I'll try to focus on the positives, because a relationship to me is more important than any problems, and I've experienced some of the more negative relations in socionics, I know what it's like. Maybe these positive efforts with PoLR Fi types do more harm than good, that's a difficult one and not a comfortable thought, but it would be hard to change my nature. Nothing much else to say about that, I'm not arguing which is the right/wrong way to be, just an observation.


You are welcome.

I was not aware of the Fi+/Fi- thing.
I've noticed that EII tend to try to keep relationships going yes.
Silver lining and all.
I can't do that, if I feel that the negatives outweighs the positives, I will be a gonner.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

ALongTime said:


> My experience with an ILE I worked with (I would be the supervisor), rationally I knew he was very intelligent and competent, but I always saw him as careless and prone to mess things up. That seems to be a common theme here. So I instinctively took on a role of monitoring/managing him, although we were of equal status socially and within the company, I had the higher status in the relationship (I didn't _want_ this but it happened).
> 
> I didn't think this was a terrible relationship though, I actually really liked this ILE, but it was a relationship with some specific difficulties. Maybe problems with supervision relations are overstated?
> 
> ...





hornet said:


> Yep leaving each other alone is probably the best course of action.
> It is like you have ebola, hence running around hugging people is transformed from a nice thing to not so nice.
> It is really a misidentification, you mistake him subconciously as an ENFp and he mistakes you for an INTj.
> Hence you think you have mirror to befriend.
> Far from it and the one with the exposed PoLR will have to learn the hard way.


Supervisor and supervisee value each other because they have half their functions in common, the problem comes from the other half, as it includes the leading function of the supervisor that happen to be the less used function of the supervisee.

So superficial relations can be beneficial to both, but as soon as they get closer, or that they have to interact with each other much more frequently, they wear each other down. The supervisee has to do so much efforts to follow his supervisor, that thinks he isn't even trying and gets annoyed. At some point the supervisee snaps and try to push his supervisor back to get some space but he fails and the supervisor gets even more condescending and harsh. It's a relation that can turn out abusive very fast, except when both try to keep a safety distance and restrain themselves from getting on each other's nerves. 

I still value my mother and brother despite how terrible our relationships are, and I know they value me as well. But we had to part ways, interact as little as possible and when we do we focus on not letting our gut feelings get the best of us.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kyusaku said:


> Supervisor and supervisee value each other because they have half their functions in common, the problem comes from the other half, as it includes the leading function of the supervisor that happen to be the less used function of the supervisee.
> 
> So superficial relations can be beneficial to both, but as soon as they get closer, or that they have to interact with each other much more frequently, they wear each other down. The supervisee has to do so much efforts to follow his supervisor, that thinks he isn't even trying and gets annoyed. At some point the supervisee snaps and try to push his supervisor back to get some space but he fails and the supervisor gets even more condescending and harsh. It's a relation that can turn out abusive very fast, except when both try to keep a safety distance and restrain themselves from getting on each other's nerves.
> 
> I still value my mother and brother despite how terrible our relationships are, and I know they value me as well. But we had to part ways, interact as little as possible and when we do we focus on not letting our gut feelings get the best of us.


It is a risk reward proposistion, with the supervisee gambling with mental health and sense of self worth.
After all the strain on the supervisor is more one of frustration.
I can be around ESFp's all day long, I might get annoyed in the end of all their ways,
but since my Ti barrier is absolute and my Fe tolerance is really high I'll be fine.
Not so the other way around.
The strain on the supervisee is so great that I myself is not willing to risk it.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ALongTime said:


> That's quite tragic; if the supervisor only wants to protect the supervisee and help them, and yet their best efforts only hurt them without either realising it.


Sad, but kinda true.

I had a brief "fling" with an EII once (my supervisee) and in the end I realized my best efforts to "help" him were actually doing a lot more harm than good. In the past I found myself falling into the same trap with this type, time and time again. I am able to recognize the pattern now so I know when it's best just to keep a safe and civilized distance. It kinda sucks unintentionally hurting someone just by being yourself. :/


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

hornet said:


> It is a risk reward proposistion, with the supervisee gambling with mental health and sense of self worth.
> After all the strain on the supervisor is more one of frustration.
> I can be around ESFp's all day long, I might get annoyed in the end of all their ways,
> but since my Ti barrier is absolute and my Fe tolerance is really high I'll be fine.
> ...


I agree, it's not worth the meager benefits. At the same time I don't like the idea of avoiding certain types, because you kind of ignore the person's individuality. Maybe you won't be able to get along with that group of persons, but I think there's something to learn from every type. No matter how far you develop your main functions, there are some parts of reality that are beyond your reach. It's like not being able to see certain colors, when you have no idea what red or blue looks like because you can't see it, yet most people see those colors everyday and it's part of reality for them, but not for you. In a sense you feel secluded, like everyone gets a share of the fun but not you. That's what gets to me the most when I'm interacting with my supervisor.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kyusaku said:


> I agree, it's not worth the meager benefits. At the same time I don't like the idea of avoiding certain types, because you kind of ignore the person's individuality. Maybe you won't be able to get along with that group of persons, but I think there's something to learn from every type. No matter how far you develop your main functions, there are some parts of reality that are beyond your reach. It's like not being able to see certain colors, when you have no idea what red or blue looks like because you can't see it, yet most people see those colors everyday and it's part of reality for them, but not for you. In a sense you feel secluded, like everyone gets a share of the fun but not you. That's what gets to me the most when I'm interacting with my supervisor.


Yeah ignoring the individuality got to me too at first.
But the more I see how damaged I've become by the time I've spent with them,
the more I realize that I can't keep to the notion of not prejudging people.
I got to make the best of my life and my functions.
Sure you are left out of that part, but I rather live a good polarized life
rather than a poor flatline negated life where I cancel out my own perspective just to be let in where I don't belong.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

hornet said:


> Yeah ignoring the individuality got to me too at first.
> But the more I see how damaged I've become by the time I've spent with them,
> the more I realize that I can't keep to the notion of not prejudging people.
> I got to make the best of my life and my functions.
> ...


True, I suppose that's the healthier behavior to have. As a type 4 my biggest weakness is envying others for the things I don't have. In the end I have the hardest time enjoying the things that _I have_. Sometimes the dumbest things make the most sense on a personal level...


----------

