# How people respond to Supervision relationships



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Fried Eggz said:


> So true. My dad is an LSE. He has no foresight, no understanding of personality, no idea what his weaknesses are, no idea what other people think of him and he's intellectually dishonest. He just seems so oblivious to everything.
> 
> 
> My LSE dad gets angry with me very easily, and is incredibly sensitive to my criticism of him. To me, he just seems naive and retarded most of the time.
> ...


Supervision is in your familiy as well huh? I sometimes dislike how unfair these relationships are... the supervisor just wants to help the supervisee but in doing so the supervisee just gets hurt. In return the supervisor always gets dissapointed by the supervisee, it's like the supervisee never fails to do something even more stupid.

Without meaning to people hurt each other, it is very apperent in the Supervisor/Supervisee relationship. I sometimes wonder if people in general just lack a certain kind of maturity in order to accept that there are endless ways help and even love can be expressed.



cyamitide said:


> Is there anything interesting or peculiar that you've noticed of these relationships?


I thought about your question but couldn't come up with an answer, I find almost everything interesting and I've noticed a lot, so I could ramble on but don't know if that's what you want to hear. For me your question isn't specific enough.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

My dad is my supervisee and we definitely tend to go nowhere when we debate. I noticed I tend to dismiss his arguments as being too close-minded and I also half-ass argue with him by just stating where the contradictions in his arguments are while basically not bothering to probe further. Mostly because I'm used to the same type of arguments and I can't be bothered. I also tend to dismiss his own personal experience in favor of assessing how personal experiences vary from person to person.

This usually gets him frustrated because he can't handle how I'm dismissing his arguments as frivolous or too personal (for example not taking into account that other people may not value the same things he does) which almost always ends up with him going ''you will see what I mean one day'' which of course has no logical weight to me. He might even say I'm mocking him.

I can see how this type relationship is pretty problematic. That being said, I am able to get along with him if the ''debates'' don't get too far. Unfortunately, he is really persistent in doing that any chance he gets. He casually goes ''you want to talk?'' sometimes and I already know our chit-chat will likely snowball into a meaningless argument.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Dunno. Any ESE ESFjs want to volunteer to supervise me? Sounds hot. I don't want to gain recognition and commendation from them (at least I don't think I do).


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

I had an interesting experience recently with my supervisee. She's an LSE girl and we were talking about college stuff and went to the library because she wanted an enciclopedic dictionary on psychonalysis. She said she had read a few pages before and loved that book and I was like "that's cool" but I told her that I thought it was a better idea to read the main works of Freud first in order to get a better understanding of the theory instead of separately reading a few concepts in isolation. In the end, it turns out we couldn't take the book outside the library because it was the only copy and I recommended The Interpretation of Dreams to her but she felt it would be too hard for her to understand.

Later that same day, we were chatting in the cafeteria and the conversation kind of went back to the same topic and I was like "you don't need to remember the details, you just need to get the overall picture of something and learn the concepts. Don't memorize stuff, etc...". She gave me a weird face and we changed the subject quickly afterwards.

When we talk about school she appears to know a lot of stuff yet she gets really anxious before exams. I tell her she's knowledgeable and she replies that "her head is like her notebook". It's full of notes, she writes down every detail she gets ahold of, but it's kind of disorganized and every subject is put in the same folder. She says it's hard for her to organize and make sense of that enormous amount of information and she can kind of feel like her head's going to explode.

I think it's interesting, mostly because it's not usually what I think of when I think of LSEs. It's also probably a great example of Ni-porl, because she normally fails at grasping the "essence" of a thing and instead seems to accumulate details and information to get a general idea but to me, an Ni-dom, appears to miss the point at times.

Opinions?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I think it's interesting, mostly because it's not usually what I think of when I think of LSEs. It's also probably a great example of Ni-porl, because she normally fails at grasping the "essence" of a thing and instead seems to accumulate details and information to get a general idea but to me, an Ni-dom, appears to miss the point at times.
> 
> Opinions?


Yeah, that's a good example of Ni as a POLR. One habit of both ILI and IEI is to "wait and see," in the ILI's case having the ability to perceive what will be able to be capitalized upon and what will not. 

With an ILE, an ILI will extinguish initiatives that seem logical to the ILE, with resistance and bickering; with an SEE, the ILI will advise against unnecessary action before the SEE discredits him/herself and overexert; with an LSE, an ILI will do the very same, but for the LSE, there isn't a natural habit of ignoring or awaiting this kind of input, as there are with ILE and SEE. For them it is a "weak spot," an area they aren't even conscious of, sensitive to, and have no real guard against. This is why I am skeptical of people who whine about a specific function as their PoLR. You don't have a guard against it, which is why you are vulnerable - not necessarily repulsed - by it. 

I had a similar experience with an LSE as you. His method for studying would be to literally memorize his notebook by reciting it over and over. My first thought would have gone to what will be asked about and what will not be asked about, as determined by perceiving what has abstract significance to the subject. For him, there wasn't a trigger in his head that said "this is important, this is unimportant" - everything was important, but only in needing to be memorized. The obvious missing piece to me was the time wasted on memorizing all that crap, at the expense of understanding the "whys." 

Unfortunately, my advice only frustrated him and made him think the class was harder than it really was. Had I known about socionics then, I would have just let him do things his own way, without the added stress of banging ones head against a wall he'd crack a skull jumping over.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I think it's interesting, mostly because it's not usually what I think of when I think of LSEs. It's also probably a great example of Ni-porl, because she normally fails at grasping the "essence" of a thing and instead seems to accumulate details and information to get a general idea but to me, an Ni-dom, appears to miss the point at times.
> 
> Opinions?


Dunno, but this reminds me of what I've noticed in my spectroscopy class, as the professor of that class gives lots of facts and details for analyzing spectra of different organic compounds in a way that I find really inefficient. He also explained a method for getting an idea of what compound you may have in a specific problem, but it requires to write down options that are clearly not possible if you know basic organic concepts, therefore for me that's a waste of time. He also thinks that experience is key for being able to understand that stuff, and also mentions that you need tons of data for being sure if you got the compound that you wanted, while I think that's evident that you got it with far less data lol seriously that class is so boring for me, as I think that I'm wasting my time learning about useless details. So, I suspect that this prof is an LSE.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Figure said:


> With an ILE, an ILI will extinguish initiatives that seem logical to the ILE, with resistance and bickering; with an SEE, the ILI will advise against unnecessary action before the SEE discredits him/herself and overexert; with an LSE, an ILI will do the very same, but for the LSE, there isn't a natural habit of ignoring or awaiting this kind of input, as there are with ILE and SEE. For them it is a "weak spot," an area they aren't even conscious of, sensitive to, and have no real guard against. This is why I am skeptical of people who whine about a specific function as their PoLR. You don't have a guard against it, which is why you are vulnerable - not necessarily repulsed - by it.


Yes, I believe the porl only becomes obvious when you interact with your supervisor/conflictor or, to a lesser degree, with types that value that IE. Otherwise you live your life using your HA, without really paying any mind to its counterpart.



> I had a similar experience with an LSE as you. His method for studying would be to literally memorize his notebook by reciting it over and over. My first thought would have gone to what will be asked about and what will not be asked about, as determined by perceiving what has abstract significance to the subject. For him, there wasn't a trigger in his head that said "this is important, this is unimportant" - everything was important, but only in needing to be memorized. The obvious missing piece to me was the time wasted on memorizing all that crap, at the expense of understanding the "whys."
> 
> Unfortunately, my advice only frustrated him and made him think the class was harder than it really was. A great many things your Supervisor tells you seem impossible, but when you do them your own way, without their input, the task is significantly easier. Had I known about socionics then, I would have just let him do things his own way, without the added stress of banging ones head against a wall he'd crack a skull jumping over.


Yes! That is exactly what happens. I remember you describing a similar experience but I wasn't sure so I didn't feel like mentioning you. Hmm that makes me think of how we can make supervision relationships easier. Though I don't think it's something easy. Like, everyone naturally places great importance on their base and during a casual interaction you are likely to bring it up without giving much thought to the consequences. I guess we can try, as long as we remember that our way is not _the _right way. That there are multiple ways of skinning a cat or whatever. But it certainly sounds like the effort necessary can gravely affect the quality and comfort of a relationship... Supervision relationships are hard.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Woah, ENTJs are my supervisees? Bro, I'm such a badass. ALL ENTJs SHALL KNEEL BEFORE ME!

Definitely never known one of them.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Stampede said:


> Woah, ENTJs are my supervisees? Bro, I'm such a badass. ALL ENTJs SHALL KNEEL BEFORE ME!
> 
> Definitely never known one of them.


If you did, you'd probably just see them as incompetent. It'd be the exact opposite of what they've been saying about ILIs supervising LSEs. Things like "you ENTJs don't know anything! You're supposed to be an expert in this field, and yet you don't know any relevant details at all!"


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Fried Eggz said:


> If you did, you'd probably just see them as incompetent. It'd be the exact opposite of what they've been saying about ILIs supervising LSEs. Things like "you ENTJs don't know anything! You're supposed to be an expert in this field, and yet you don't know any relevant details at all!"


Hm, facts and details aren't really my thing. I have no idea how I'd supervise an LIE.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Hmm that makes me think of how we can make supervision relationships easier. Though I don't think it's something easy. Like, everyone naturally places great importance on their base and during a casual interaction you are likely to bring it up without giving much thought to the consequences. I guess we can try, as long as we remember that our way is not _the _right way. That there are multiple ways of skinning a cat or whatever. But it certainly sounds like the effort necessary can gravely affect the quality and comfort of a relationship... Supervision relationships are hard.


If you're the Supervisee, I don't think there's really a solution, besides simply moving away.

If you're the Supervisor, the only thing you really can do is realize that their "way" isn't objectively flawed - it just lacks fluidness in areas you value. So be accepting and supportive, and advise when absolutely needed, but otherwise keep separate affairs and don't butt in too much. Your Supervisee will always want traits you have that they will never have, so it's best to let them try and trace it from a distance. If they do something you see as missing a piece, it's best to just take care of it on your own. Try and see how their Creative function is valuable, and provides feedback you can't be competent in. 

At the end of the day that's an awful lot to ask in a working or close family relationship. Doable if you're just friends, which is about the only relationship I'd recommend keeping for Supervision.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> If you did, you'd probably just see them as incompetent. It'd be the exact opposite of what they've been saying about ILIs supervising LSEs. Things like "you ENTJs don't know anything! You're supposed to be an expert in this field, and yet you don't know any relevant details at all!"


Well, I'm definitely obsessed with facts and details.










How would my supervisor (ESE) supervise me?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Silveresque said:


> Hm, facts and details aren't really my thing. I have no idea how I'd supervise an LIE.


When I was in school, SLIs were my bane because even though I could learn faster, they paid a meticulous attention to detail and they often got near-flawless grades. So either we are evaluating the phrase 'attention to detail' from completely different perspectives, or you are very unusual for an SLI.



Stampede said:


> Well, I'm definitely obsessed with facts and details.
> 
> How would my supervisor (ESE) supervise me?


Going purely on theory here, as I've never seen an SLI and an ESE get close to one another.

It'll be stuff like, "you can't say that!" "You don't have any tact!" "You just can't behave properly to save your life!" "Why aren't you more warm and friendly!" ILIs are supervised by EIEs for exactly the same reason.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Fried Eggz said:


> When I was in school, SLIs were my bane because even though I could learn faster, they paid a meticulous attention to detail and they often got near-flawless grades. So either we are evaluating the phrase 'attention to detail' from completely different perspectives, or you are very unusual for an SLI.


I guess I'm unusual because one of my biggest complaints about some classes is that exams are testing your ability to remember exact words and phrases made up by the book or teacher when it should be about understanding the concepts. There was also one class I took where students had to read articles about schizophrenia studies and then talk about them in class. The teacher wanted the students to regurgitate details of the study, like how many participants there were and where they were from, which frustrated me because I see those things as irrelevant. Whenever I tried to summarize the main idea of what the study was about, the teacher would try to steer me away from there toward details. What does memorizing how many participants were in one study have to do with learning about schizophrenia? Especially when I knew that I wouldn't remember any of the studies later on, just the general information I took from them. I also found it impossible to pay attention in that class. I would try to listen, but it was all gibberish to me because my brain automatically filtered it out as irrelevant.

I don't read text books or any required readings, because I don't feel like it and the details wouldn't stick anyways. I take only very general notes, not meticulous. And I rarely study for more than 5 minutes (the day before the exam). This works for me as I still manage to get good grades. I think meticulous attention to detail and trying to memorize every single thing would likely be a big waste of time for me that would have little, if any, effect on my grades.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Stampede said:


> How would my supervisor (ESE) supervise me?


ESE: Your lack of Fe is disturbing...


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> ESE: Your lack of Fe is disturbing...


I don't think that would work. That wouldn't cause me to desire recognition and commendation from them; I'd just want to slap a bitch and be like #noemotion4life. Am I supposed to think their creative Si is sexy, therefore that would give merit to their annoying base? Since their creative function decides "how they make contact with other people" you'd think that they'd seduce me with Si, then sneak in some Fe jabs every now and then to punish and destroy me. That would probably be effective.

So they'd be like "Hey Stampede, I looked over your work and it was nice, but I added a fact here and polished a detail there."

And I'd be like "Kthx bro ur so cool, u haz merit now plz like me."

And then they'd be like "Oh, and by the way FLOWERS UNICORNS AND LOVE AND SHIT!!!"

And then I'd be like "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU- *dead*"


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Stampede said:


> I don't think that would work. That wouldn't cause me to desire recognition and commendation from them; I'd just want to slap a bitch and be like #noemotion4life. Am I supposed to think their creative Si is sexy, therefore that would give merit to their annoying base? Since their creative function decides "how they make contact with other people" you'd think that they'd seduce me with Si, then sneak in some Fe jabs every now and then to punish and destroy me. That would probably be effective.
> 
> So they'd be like "Hey Stampede, I looked over your work and it was nice, but I added a fact here and polished a detail there."
> 
> ...


o.o well, by description Fe for an SLI can be a rather painful experience in the wrong situation & ESE is king & queen of that very situation / shares the irrational function preferences with SLI.

Its more like "ESE: Yoo biatch!  lemme show you how its done! Haha! Ya little pusseh! XD".


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> If you did, you'd probably just see them as incompetent. It'd be the exact opposite of what they've been saying about ILIs supervising LSEs. Things like "you ENTJs don't know anything! You're supposed to be an expert in this field, and yet you don't know any relevant details at all!"


Nah, SLI see LIE as well meaning but too idealistic. The supervision occurs when Ni idealism is replaced with Si realism. When things are going well SLIs tend to simply leave LIEs to their own devices because well... things are going well. It's when things aren't going well is when the SLI tends to act like a wet blanket to LIE enthusiasm for new initiatives.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> o.o well, by description Fe for an SLI can be a rather painful experience in the wrong situation & ESE is king & queen of that very situation / shares the irrational function preferences with SLI.
> 
> Its more like "ESE: Yoo biatch!  lemme show you how its done! Haha! Ya little pusseh! XD".


If they said that, I would just find them to be annoying/threatening then completely disregard them or somehow eliminate them.

Theoretically, somehow an EIE ENFj with Fe base would make me want to kill them, whereas an ESE ESFj with Fe base would make want to suck their dick. I find that to be interesting.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Stampede said:


> If they said that, I would just find them to be annoying/threatening then completely disregard them or somehow eliminate them.
> 
> Theoretically, somehow an EIE ENFj with Fe base would make me want to kill them, whereas an ESE ESFj with Fe base would make want to suck their dick. I find that to be interesting.


 dude, you can't expect any decent Fe from me. ^^ you taking everything I say literately?
No idea, how about finding a real ESE & seeing for yourself what its all bout?


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> dude, you can't expect any decent Fe from me. ^^ you taking everything I say literately?
> No idea, how about finding a real ESE & seeing for yourself what its all bout?


Too scary.


----------



## peoplesayimanahole (May 21, 2013)

How would a supervision relationship look if the parent was the supervisee and the child was the supervisor?


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

peoplesayimanahole said:


> How would a supervision relationship look if the parent was the supervisee and the child was the supervisor?


Supervisor tries to "help", causing no end of frustration to the supervisee (the supervisor's base is the supervisee's vulnerable element). 

If the supervisor is the child, usually the parent will be exasperated with the child, consider them basically impossible to raise.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

This is so cool, I wanted to post it here too. Thanks, @Draki!

*Supervisor*
NOTE: Because this relation is asymmetric, meaning the interactions described work one way only (as opposed to being equal between partners), I illustrate this difference by heading each section with “[Function] to [Function],” rather than “[Function] and [Function]” as worded earlier in the symmetric relation descriptions. Also note, the Supervisor’s function is listed first, while yours (the Supervisee’s) is listed second in each section heading.

*Base to Vulnerable/PoLR Interaction*
The part of your psyche that your Supervisor finds most natural and enjoyable—being centered in his Base function—is an area which you find to be most unnatural and even intimidating. You may find yourself in awe of your Supervisor, and will hardly care to draw attention to your own Vulnerability in this area. So you may find yourself taking every measure necessary to divert attention from your weakness, while at the same time trying to somehow “make up” for it by showing your Supervisor that you can still be useful to him in other ways.

*Creative to Base Interaction*
As your Supervisor’s Creative function is your Base, the two of you may find some common ground here. But at the same time, your Supervisor will be inclined at times to remind you that—from his Creative perspective—your Base does not deserve quite the amount of focus you tend to give it, and that it would behoove you to sometimes pay more attention to other areas.

*Role to Creative Interaction*
When your Supervisor engages in his Role out of pressure or perceived necessity, you may find it necessary to engage your Creative in turn. But since you typically tend to regard your Supervisor as somehow superior to you, you may be uncertain about performing in his presence. Instead, you may at times simply try to advise or help him. If you do this, though, your Supervisor, rather than take and use your advice, may simply throw up his hands and say something like, “If you think you know better then you take care of it.”
Aside from these moments, your Supervisor probably will not care all that much about what you do with your Creative function, as long as you do not direct your efforts in an attempt to change or pressure him. Though for the most part, you are probably unlikely to engage overly much in your Creative function around your Supervisor, knowing that your efforts will not be valued and that there are better ways to gain his attention and approval.

*Vulnerable/PoLR to Role Interaction
*Most of the time you will be inclined to completely ignore your Supervisor’s most debilitating weakness. At other times you may find yourself taking up your Role in defense of your Supervisor against outside attack on his PoLR. If you do this too often, however, your Supervisor may be fooled into esteeming your strength in this area as much greater than it actually is, perhaps even garnishing more respect from him. As a result of this, however, he may start expecting you to take on more responsibility in this area, which you will hardly be equipped to handle. 

*Suggestive/Dual-Seeking to Demonstrative Interaction*
What your Supervisor most needs psychologically in support of his Base, but struggles to provide for himself, is something that you would be good at, but hardly inclined to provide upon request. You may anyway, in an effort to please your Supervisor, but over time you will begin to hate your performance, and resent your Supervisor’s need and expectation. You may attempt to hide your ability in this area from your Supervisor, but with time and further togetherness, a moment is bound to occur in which your Demonstration finally manifests itself without your conscious awareness. In that moment, your Supervisor may even find himself quite taken with you, as he will be reminded once again of why he even bothers with you generally.

*Mobilizing/Hidden Agenda to Suggestive Interaction*
Your Supervisor will naturally be inclined to put a good deal of time and effort into self-improvement and psychological development related to his Hidden Agenda. You of course will be grateful for this fact, as your Supervisor’s Hidden Agenda is your Suggestive—or Dual-Seeking—function. You will be openly appreciative of your Supervisor’s efforts in this area and will likely encourage him much. And as long as he is still up for the challenge, he will appreciate your encouragement and admiration. But when he begins to tire of the exercise—as tire he will—he may begin to grow irritated with your unrealistic expectation of him. You in turn may find yourself rather disappointed in your Supervisor’s lack of perseverance and living in anticipation of the next time he decides to pursue his Hidden Agenda.

*Ignoring/Observing to Mobilizing/Hidden Agenda Interaction*
Your Supervisor is inclined to pay little attention to your efforts regarding your Hidden Agenda pursuits, unless it is to advise or criticize. This can be rather maddening to you, not only because you probably don’t take very well to criticism of your HA, but also because you happen to be working hard to improve yourself in this area, yet your efforts appear to be utterly unappreciated by your Supervisor. 

*Demonstrative to Ignoring/Observing Interaction*
You are well-equipped to handle your Supervisor’s Demonstrative nature in a no-nonsense way. The Demonstrative function has a tendency to manifest itself at times with little conscious awareness. Since your Supervisor’s Demonstrative function is your Ignoring or Observing function, you can easily recognize when your Supervisor’s Demonstration is getting out of hand and you can help to bring him back to a more stable state. Unlike in other areas, your Supervisor may even express gratitude for your help and perspective.


*Supervisee*
NOTE: Because this relation is asymmetric, meaning the interactions described work one way only (as opposed to being equal between partners), I illustrate this difference by heading each section with “[Function] to [Function],” rather than “[Function] and [Function]” as worded earlier in the symmetric relation descriptions. Also note, the Supervisee’s function is listed first, while yours (the Supervisor’s) is listed second in each section heading.

*Base to Creative Interaction*
As your Supervisee’s Base function is your Creative, the two of you may find some common ground here. But at the same time, you will be inclined at times to remind your Supervisee that—from your Creative perspective—his Base does not deserve quite the amount of focus he tends to give it, and that it would behoove him to sometimes pay more attention to other areas.

*Creative to Role Interaction*
When you engage in your Role out of pressure or perceived necessity, your Supervisee may find it necessary to engage his Creative in turn. But since you typically tend to regard your Supervisee as somehow inferior to you, you probably will not take well to suggestions or advice in this area. But at the same time, deep down you have to admit your weakness relative to your Supervisee’s strength, and it may irk you to the point of throwing up your hands and stepping aside reluctantly to let your Supervisee handle the situation.
Aside from these moments, you probably will not care all that much about what your Supervisee does with his Creative function, as long as he does not direct his efforts in an attempt to change or pressure you.

*Role to Vulnerable/PoLR Interaction
*Most of the time your Supervisee will be inclined to completely ignore your most debilitating weakness. At other times he may find himself taking up his Role in your defense against outside attack on your PoLR. If your Supervisee does this too often, you may be fooled into esteeming his strength in this area as much greater than it actually is, perhaps even garnishing more respect from you. As a result, you may start expecting your Supervisee to take on more responsibility in this area, which he will hardly be equipped to handle. When this fact is realized by you, you may find yourself either disappointed or relieved that your initial estimation of your Supervisee as inferior to yourself was correct after all.

*Vulnerable/PoLR to Base Interaction*
The part of your psyche that you find most natural and enjoyable—being centered in your Base function—is an area which your Supervisee finds to be most unnatural and even intimidating. Consequently, your Supervisee may find himself in awe of your ability, and will hardly care to draw attention to his own Vulnerability in this area. So your Supervisee may find himself taking every measure necessary to divert attention from his weakness, while at the same time trying to somehow “make up” for it by showing you that he can still be useful to you in other ways. You, not understanding the exact motives behind your Supervisee’s near-groveling behavior, may find yourself anywhere from being puzzled or annoyed, to taking undue advantage of your Supervisee’s desire to please you.

*Suggestive/Dual-Seeking to Mobilizing/Hidden Agenda Interaction*
You will naturally be inclined to put a good deal of time and effort into self-improvement and psychological development related to your Hidden Agenda. Your Supervisee of course will be grateful for this fact, as your Hidden Agenda is his Suggestive—or Dual-Seeking—function. Your Supervisee will be openly appreciative of your efforts in this area and will likely encourage you much. And as long as you are still up for the challenge, you will appreciate his encouragement and admiration. But when you begin to tire of the exercise—as tire you will—you may begin to grow irritated with your Supervisee’s unrealistic expectation of you. Your Supervisee in turn may find himself rather disappointed in your lack of perseverance and living in anticipation of the next time you decide to pursue your Hidden Agenda.

*Ignoring/Observing to Demonstrative Interaction*
Your Supervisee is well-equipped to handle your Demonstrative nature in a no-nonsense way. The Demonstrative function has a tendency to manifest itself at times with little conscious awareness. Since your Demonstrative function is your Supervisee’s Ignoring or Observing function, he can easily recognize when your Demonstration is getting out of hand and can help to bring you back to a more stable state. Unlike in other areas, you may even express gratitude for your Supervisee’s help and perspective.

*Demonstrative to Suggestive/Dual-Seeking Interaction*
What you most need psychologically in support of your Base, but struggle to provide for yourself, is something that your Supervisee would be good at, but hardly inclined to provide upon request. He may anyway, in an effort to please you, but over time he will begin to hate his performance, and resent your need and expectation in this area. Your Supervisee may attempt to hide his ability in this area, but with time and further togetherness, a moment is bound to occur in which your Supervisee’s Demonstration finally manifests itself without his conscious awareness. In that moment, you may even find yourself quite taken with your Supervisee, as you will be reminded once again of why you even bother with him generally.


----------

