# Supervision Relationships



## ChrisFergusonFl (Jul 8, 2017)

This is the most dangerous relationship I think.

You really have to walk on egg shells with someone who is either a Supervisor or a Supervisee to you with Socionics.

Both ways.

It's really dangerous.

I find it's the same on both ends. More about it being Supervision rather than Supervisor or Supervisee.

They want to hurt me the same if I say the wrong thing.

After all, they're super ego to each other.


----------



## Mr Oops (Jun 29, 2016)

It is one-sided correction and supervisee does not get supervisor's reactions and supervisor does not grasp supervisor's stance fully.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Supervision is a positive relationship. It is how an individual best receives extra-Quadra information, and is a necessity for the health of the individual. It is smooth and natural. If it seems negative, you're mistaking supervision for another relationship, or dealing with an individual who is very unhealthy regardless of type.


----------



## ChrisFergusonFl (Jul 8, 2017)

Both of you are correct.


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

I would say that the supervisor can be hurt too because of the constant ignoring of their leading function, which they identify as who they are. So, for example, if you are Ne leading, you would identify with your ideas, and this general...sense of potential energy, of possibilities. And if someone has that as their PoLR, they would ignore that function completely, making you feel like you're screaming at a wall, basically. Your voice isn't going to be heard. So I think both the supervisor and the supervisee can be hurt in this relationship. 

It is true though - and this in my opinion is the dangerous part - you can't fight against attack on your PoLR. You just freeze, or at least I did. You can't defend yourself against it, and it can open the doors for potential abuse. You may even feel traumatized and you have no way to make yourself feel heard about the damage it's doing to you.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I think saying that Supervision as the Supervisee is a "positive" relation is misleading and not really correct. I agree that information sharing between quadras is beneficial, but it's possible to obtain such information without having a Supervisory relationship either by learning from the Supervisor from afar or from a Benefit relation. Also, the Supervisee needs to use the Supervisor's input in their own way, not the Supervisor's - and the Supervisor tends to crush the Supervisee's own initiatives. 

The most dangerous aspect of Supervision is the overestimation the Supervisee tends to make of the Supervisor. A good chunk of any intertype is one's presence - how a person handles situations, their life rhythm, energy levels, and preferences. In Supervision, the presence of the Supervisor almost always catches the Supervisee's attention and draws them in. Sometimes the Supervisee rejects the Supervisor outright and the relationship never develops. Often, though, the Supervisee develops a blind fascination with the Supervisor's presence and can't really explain it. 

Once the Supervisee develops a fascination with the Supervisor, they buy into the Supervisor very easily and can overlook viewpoints or approaches that are different from the Supervisor's and more compatible with the Supervisee's strengths. If the Supervisee develops an actual relationship with the Supervisor, they can try in vain to adapt to the Supervisor's preferences, only to be corrected every time they try. This is particularly dangerous for people who are naturally more people-pleasing and prone to looking to others for validation, as the habit is exacerbated by the intertype. 

The main benefits of Supervision are the passing along of information, and some protection from the Supervisor in matters where the PoLR would burn the Supervisee if they were handling it by him/herself. But if the Supervisee tries to conform to the Supervisor they will severely restrict their potential and self esteem. 

A caveat would be that Supervision can take on many different forms, depending on subtype. I've noticed that Creative subtype-Creative subtype Supervision (ex. LIE-Ni and IEI-Fe), for example, is more like a mix between Kindred and Mirror than the classic suppressive form of Supervision, though conflicts with different Temperaments and the PoLR's still create the overall "auditing" tone of the relationship.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Not so sure that extra-quadra information is something to be sought after. Every quadra is equally capable of producing the same information in so much as each IME appears in every quadra in equal proportions of strength. Ideally you'd want to get that information from your own quadra where it's in a form that's beneficial to you. A supervision relation isn't terrible but it's less than ideal.



Figure said:


> The main benefits of Supervision are the passing along of information, and some protection from the Supervisor in matters where the PoLR would burn the Supervisee if they were handling it by him/herself. But if the Supervisee tries to conform to the Supervisor they will severely restrict their potential and self esteem.


I don't see how a supervisor's leading function could offer any help to the supervisee's PoLR - especially as the leading function is so inflexible - the supervisor would not even understand that they're hurting the supervisee.

Best to protect a PoLR function by focusing on your opposing 6th (activating) function - getting help in the activating function, complementing the creative function, relieves pressure on and lessens the need to use the PoLR function.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

ALongTime said:


> I don't see how a supervisor's leading function could offer any help to the supervisee's PoLR - especially as the leading function is so inflexible - the supervisor would not even understand that they're hurting the supervisee.
> 
> Best to protect a PoLR function by focusing on your opposing 6th (activating) function - getting help in the activating function, complementing the creative function, relieves pressure on and lessens the need to use the PoLR function.


The weakness in the PoLR is almost always exposed to other people, because most things you say and do omit information from that function's POV. You're also locked into being below societal standards in the PoLR and can't "improve" the function much. 

There are many situations in life that call for a person to show at least some acknowledgement of the PoLR, and it would cause them immense pain to not be able to meet the expectation. A Supervisor can easily pick up for the Supervisee's weakness in the area, handling the situation for the Supervisee using the PoLR and thereby protecting the Supervisee from having to deal with it themselves, without adequate understanding of what to do.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Figure said:


> The weakness in the PoLR is almost always exposed to other people, because most things you say and do omit information from that function's POV. You're also locked into being below societal standards in the PoLR and can't "improve" the function much.
> 
> There are many situations in life that call for a person to show at least some acknowledgement of the PoLR, and it would cause them immense pain to not be able to meet the expectation. A Supervisor can easily pick up for the Supervisee's weakness in the area, handling the situation for the Supervisee using the PoLR and thereby protecting the Supervisee from having to deal with it themselves, without adequate understanding of what to do.


Right, fair point and I agree about being able to pick up on their weakness. But as PoLR isn't valued I would argue that any help provided - regardless of any good it might do - is not the type of help that the supervisee would want, feel comfortable with, and much less ask for. As you say, you can't really improve PoLR, so for the individual the best they can do is avoid as far as possible situations where they would have to use PoLR (and they would be naturally inclined to do this for survival). But I can't see an individual seeking out a supervisor specifically for help with their PoLR function, they would prefer a different kind of help. Being around a supervisor could also expose them to more PoLR situations.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

It helps, if you utilize the + and - elements.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

ALongTime said:


> Right, fair point and I agree about being able to pick up on their weakness. But as PoLR isn't valued I would argue that any help provided - regardless of any good it might do - is not the type of help that the supervisee would want, feel comfortable with, and much less ask for. As you say, you can't really improve PoLR, so for the individual the best they can do is avoid as far as possible situations where they would have to use PoLR (and they would be naturally inclined to do this for survival). But I can't see an individual seeking out a supervisor specifically for help with their PoLR function, they would prefer a different kind of help. Being around a supervisor could also expose them to more PoLR situations.


The help may not be wanted, but it may be needed. That aside, I would note that the supervisor holds significant power over the supervisee by virtue of holding that advantage of a leading function that corresponds to the supervisee's PoLR. It's a relation you would have to be careful of, since the potential for abuse by the supervisor is quite great. Avoiding PoLR situations sounds like a good idea on paper, but depending on what it is and who's around you that might not be feasible.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

I take what you're saying but put forward that those benefits are marginal compared to the drawbacks for the supervisee, when it comes to PoLR at least.

The way I interpret this relation is: the supervisor and the supervisee notice their similarity with their shared creative and leading function respectively. The well-meaning supervisor notices flaws in the supervisee and feels highly capable of correcting them with their leading function, which turns out to be the worst possible thing for the supervisee (i.e. engaging their PoLR). As it's their leading function, they're confident so it's hard for the supervisor understand that this doesn't work.

PoLR is inert so they're not going to help them directly, so the only advantage I can see is if the supervisor uses their leading function on the supervisee's behalf in dealing with others, which is very short-term and situational, while the supervisor will continue to use their leading function all the time.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

That is not accurate.



The Supervisee has their PoLR function, that which they avoid in favor of the leading function. The Supervisor does not have the Supervisee’s PoLR as their leading function. The Supervisor has the opposite spin version of the Supervisee’s PoLR as their leading function. The leading function is not a contact function. It is an inert function. The Supervisor has the opposite spin versions of the Supervisor’s leading function and creative function as their own creative and role functions. That is, the Supervisor contacts with lower dimensionality versions of the Supervisee’s ego functions. Although the Supervisee avoids the PoLR function, what the Supervisee simply does not do is the Supervisor’s leading function, as the Supervisee lacks the knowledge of how to utilize the Supervisor’s leading function as an alternate version (different spin) of their own PoLR. Only the Supervisor can supply information to properly bridge the dissonance which exists between the Supervisee’s PoLR and leading functions. This is done by the Supervisor’s utilization of the creative and role functions. The Supervisee does not have to attempt to raise their own PoLR to leading level. The Supervisee simply has to lower the dimensionality of their leading function to that of the creative level, by using it situationally and as a contact function, and lower the dimensionality of the creative function to that of the normative level. This alone necessitates that the leading function during this mindset will be accumulating personal 4D dimensionality information on that element. Due to the Supervisee not having the personal experience of what this is like in actual social contact (creative and role), the Supervisor grants this image to the Supervisee.



I will utilize the SEE and the EII in example.



The EII avoids taking (Se-, attacking, expansion). As such, the EII becomes prone to weakness of not having material normalcy. The utilization of volitional force is avoided and painful. However, the EII does not have to take (Se-) anything. All the EII must do is defend (Se+) that which they already have/earn. Due to lack of understanding what must be done to defend and keep the EII’s own possessions/efforts without taking from others, the EII faces cognitive dissonance over Se- and Fi+. This is similar to the SLE, only in the reverse. The two elements simply are not bridged appropriately, due to lack of information, and the dissonance grows when left unchecked. The SEE, however, does know how to defend possessions. He does such by situational relationships and normative potential. All the EII must do is situationally not listen to other’s requests for morality, invest their own possessions/earnings into novel things, and the EII may maintain possessions necessary for a healthy life, without increasing the likelihood of necessity for Se-. The EII simply learns to not listen and look at the big picture when it is necessary for maintaining the overall well-being of the EII’s life.



Similar, although different and more concise, the SLE learns from the ESI how to remove negative relationships which prevent them from having adequate relationships by simply defending (Se+) their own possessions situationally (creative usage). Those who were the negative relationships will find other targets after realizing the SLE is using contact defense of possessions and that those people will have fruitless attempts to take from the SLE.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

@DavidH - were you talking to me there? Just so you know I wasn't talking about the supervisor's creative and role functions, or the supervisee's leading function; I was talking specifically about whether or not the supervisor's leading function can help the supervisee's PoLR. I've never heard of the ability to reduce the dimensions of a leading function to make it a contact function, but if you want my personal opinion; situationally not listening to other's requests for morality for personal material gain doesn't seem like a particularly fulfilling life.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@ALongTime

Yes, it was.

Notice the last line of your post: "for personal material gain." The usage of "gain" is significant. Notice, I used "maintain" and "keep" and "defend."


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

@DavidH - it's a stock phrase, I mean it as benefiting you materially in general (which includes maintaining). I'm not willing to compromise on ethics. What about for an LSI? Would you gain anything from being situationally less logical?


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@ALongTime That is not ethical, though. Ethical includes the right to defend ones own self and property. This is a responsibility that all people share.

Not much, personally. However, the LSI will be more argumentative servicing a viewpoint they hold.

There is no evidence to suggest that being a type is beneficial. Each type is a mode of cognitive dissonance, which, when taken far enough, leads to illness. The average individual does not have enough cognitive dissonance to be recognized as a type. It is an error of cognition, not a positive.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

DavidH said:


> @ALongTime That is not ethical, though. Ethical includes the right to defend ones own self and property. This is a responsibility that all people share.


That's ideology, not ethics. I don't place much value in defending my own self and property, I've long reckoned that this came as a side effect of PoLR :f: (with leading :r, but I see no reason to tackle that.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

ALongTime said:


> That's ideology, not ethics. I don't place much value in defending my own self and property, I've long reckoned that this came as a side effect of PoLR :f: (with leading :r, but I see no reason to tackle that.


It is unhealthy. It is also unhealthy for others.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

@DavidH Or maybe I've just matured to the point where I've learnt that using PoLR :f: is futile for me, so I avoid it, and I've learnt how to avoid it. I can imagine it would be unhealthy for an LSI to say these things, so maybe you're projecting yourself?


----------

