# Relations of Benefit vs Relations of Supervision?



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> But I think the difference with Naruto and Natsu is that Naruto is being largely self-sacrificial for people who originally ostracized him in some ways. He's kind of promoting those "family" values because it was something he lacked for the longest time, and he believed that no one else should ever have to suffer that kind of pain. Lol.


Oh ma gads she did it again. Yes, I know, but the point I was making as you are already well aware of is that I cannot draw a direct analogy since I do not know how Natsu is like, but my impression was something similar to Naruto based on how he is described.

Now I'm in fact suspecting it might be Si secret hate you're expressing XD

Now, trick question: would Ichigo be ESI or EII?  @Amaterasu, come come hither!


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

LeaT said:


> Now, trick question: would Ichigo be ESI or EII?


I lean ESI, but I have heard arguments for LSI. He personally strikes me as ESI because he's not dedicated to some overarching benevolent cause, rather just interested in protecting the people who are important to him. Also, he really doesn't strike me as Se-base; he's too controlled for that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Right, and I can understand that. That doesn't strike me as particularly aristocratic vs democratic, though.


No, not necessarily and not in all contexts. It's more that she does something like, I want her to stick up for me but she doesn't. Even if she doesn't show it openly. Instead she tends to do something like the opposite, not necessarily taking the side of the person I'm against, but she doesn't want to affine herself either. 

I found it a little democratic in the sense of her refusal wanting to make those kind of value judgements. Or maybe I'm just projecting -.-


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I lean ESI, but I have heard arguments for LSI. He personally strikes me as ESI because he's not dedicated to some overarching benevolent cause, rather just interested in protecting the people who are important to him. Also, he really doesn't strike me as Se-base; he's too controlled for that.


I don't think I'd relate to him if he was LSI. He's probably one of few shonen heroes I feel could almost be me. And I guess I agree he's too controlled. He doesn't want to be violent or aggressive in general. It's more as a last resort option. Haha, maybe we should start a "Type the anime character" thread...


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Oh ma gads she did it again. Yes, I know, but the point I was making as you are already well aware of is that I cannot draw a direct analogy since I do not know how Natsu is like, but my impression was something similar to Naruto based on how he is described.
> 
> _*Now I'm in fact suspecting it might be Si secret hate you're expressing XD*_
> 
> Now, trick question: would Ichigo be ESI or EII?  @_Amaterasu_, come come hither!


I wasn't aware that my "Si hate" was any secret. Lol.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> I wasn't aware that my "Si hate" was any secret. Lol.


If our relationship was more formal I'd cry now. XD


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

LeaT said:


> If our relationship was more formal I'd cry now. XD


Lol why would you cry? Elaborate please.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> Lol why would you cry? Elaborate please.


Out of frustration due to miscommunication. Hey, that rhymed. My Ne's in hyperdrive mode too for some reason.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

LeaT said:


> And how would you contrast it to Ne and Se?


Se ego types have this same kind of fresh outlook as Ne-types, but it's oriented at tangible things. I think erotic styles calls these types aggressors, but I'd call them "expansivists". It's like they see a vast expansive material space, rather than expansive conceptual space. They will experiment but its done with tangible stuff.

For instance, I had an EII friend and an ESI friend. The EII is very eloquent and witty. She often sends me links to articles and blogs that caught her attention. But when it comes to doing some tasks, she often needs someone to explain to her step-by-step what needs to be done. Then she will get on it. There is some uncertainty she feels just doing it herself and needs someone else to streamline it for her. The ESI is more coarse and inelegant in how she expresses herself. Very direct also. Her jokes don't have that same inventiveness of EII. She can repeat the same joke all over again without much variation. But when she is interacting with physical stuff, she is very inventive. She easily takes, moves, shoves, pins, changes things about her environment. She often experiments. In cooking for example the EII will follow recipes almost exactly, while the ESI will add some spice here, change some ingredient there, and then come up with an entire dish of her own and share the recipe with her friends.

The ESI also has some kind of mysteriousness and gravity about her. The EII when we're hanging out is more open, friendly, and flirty.

On the internet I think Ne-types have an easier time than Se-types in cruising through all the information that gets spilled into the virtual space. They have an advantage over Se-types under these conditions. They also seem more interesting to chat with because they are more random and spontaneous in online conversation and discussions.

I saw this video recently that goes over Ni and Se differences:






and this one that explains how Se type picks up on physical properties of objects that Ni types are dismissive of ... what EJArendee says at 3:10 "feel the pressure of very single object"


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Se ego types have this same kind of fresh outlook as Ne-types, but it's oriented at tangible things. I think erotic styles calls these types aggressors, but I'd call them "expansivists". It's like they see a vast expansive material space, rather than expansive conceptual space. They will experiment but its done with tangible stuff.
> 
> For instance, I had an EII friend and an ESI friend. The EII is very eloquent and witty. She often sends me links to articles and blogs that caught her attention. But when it comes to doing some tasks, she often needs someone to explain to her step-by-step what needs to be done. Then she will get on it. There is some uncertainty she feels just doing it herself and needs someone else to streamline it for her. The ESI is more coarse and inelegant in how she expresses herself. Very direct also. Her jokes don't have that same inventiveness of EII. She can repeat the same joke all over again without much variation. But when she is interacting with physical stuff, she is very inventive. She easily takes, moves, shoves, pins, changes things about her environment. She often experiments. In cooking for example the EII will follow recipes almost exactly, while the ESI will add some spice here, change some ingredient there, and then come up with an entire dish of her own and share the recipe with her friends.
> 
> ...


That was interesting, thanks. I can't relate much at all to what he's saying even though in the cooking recipe example I rarely tend to follow the recipe (sometimes with disasterous results). 

What he's talking about in the second video is something I had to do when I did participant observation because it was because what my teacher wanted me to do and it was extremely difficult for me. It's definitely not a natural way of thinking. I tend to drift away to something else right away after focusing on sensory data.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

LeaT said:


> No, not necessarily and not in all contexts. It's more that she does something like, I want her to stick up for me but she doesn't. Even if she doesn't show it openly. Instead she tends to do something like the opposite, not necessarily taking the side of the person I'm against, but she doesn't want to affine herself either.
> 
> I found it a little democratic in the sense of her refusal wanting to make those kind of value judgements. Or maybe I'm just projecting -.-


Hahaha, all the points of view. 

I guess I have this problem with Fi and Ti doms in general where sometimes it seems like they're just preaching and adhering to their own perspective as if it's the one true way or something. When coupled with decent Si, I think I get even more "wtf" as I listen to their justifications for things. 

For example, when you talk about the types of some people or characters sometimes, you seem to relate all your evidence for typing that person as something back to the person or character that serves as the template for that type your giving. It always baffles me for some reason, and I guess it would have to be because I think you've overlooked the differences and the factors that influence individuals to be a certain way, and I think that you forget that two different inputs (internal wiring: thought process, response to experiences, motivations, etc.) can generate the same output (behavior and mannerisms). I guess it just doesn't capture the whole picture or go into enough depth for discovering why this person seems to be a certain type lol.

/2 cents


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

the famed rational-irrational clashes =P


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I am not going to bother XD


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I am not going to bother XD


But why not? Did I do something wrong or? xD


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> But why not? Did I do something wrong or? xD


Explain myself further since I know your perception differs. Like I said, to me it's usually that I find that the angles you bring up just feel irrelevant at times.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Explain myself further since I know your perception differs. Like I said, to me it's usually that I find that the angles you bring up just feel irrelevant at times.


Because everything is fair game.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> Because everything is fair game.


No, it's not


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

finally found the bull-in-the-china-shop description of Supervisor's affect on the Supervisee: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...t-vs-Sore-Spot?p=755852&viewfull=1#post755852

@_LeaT_ @_FacelessBeauty_ looking at your exchanges I think you have more of benefit or quasi-identical interaction going on with some rat.-irrat. hiccups


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> finally found the bull-in-the-china-shop description of Supervisor's affect on the Supervisee: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...t-vs-Sore-Spot?p=755852&viewfull=1#post755852


the OP here is spot on.

although it has more to do with widespread misconceptions of the vulnerable function than supervision imo.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

also fwiw i can see LeaT/faceless as LIE-IEI supervision, the miscommunication being mutual and symmetrical as i think it is in supervision. i'm a lot stronger on leat's values than faceless' values though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> finally found the bull-in-the-china-shop description of Supervisor's affect on the Supervisee: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...t-vs-Sore-Spot?p=755852&viewfull=1#post755852
> 
> @_LeaT_ @_FacelessBeauty_ looking at your exchanges I think you have more of benefit or quasi-identical interaction going on with some rat.-irrat. hiccups


I agree. It's too casual for supervision-supervisee in my opinion. By the way, exchanges such as the above don't occur too often but usually when either one of us feels misunderstood due to our differences n in the temperaments. Face apparently expriences similar issues with bearotter and we discussed if it's because she doesn't like Si. Both bear and I are fairly sure about being IJ with Ne ceative.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> finally found the bull-in-the-china-shop description of Supervisor's affect on the Supervisee: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...t-vs-Sore-Spot?p=755852&viewfull=1#post755852
> 
> @_LeaT_ @_FacelessBeauty_ looking at your exchanges I think you have more of benefit or quasi-identical interaction going on with some rat.-irrat. hiccups


So EII-IEI for quasi-identical right? Interesting. 



aestrivex said:


> the OP here is spot on.
> 
> although it has more to do with widespread misconceptions of the vulnerable function than supervision imo.





aestrivex said:


> also fwiw i can see LeaT/faceless as LIE-IEI supervision, the miscommunication being mutual and symmetrical as i think it is in supervision. i'm a lot stronger on leat's values than faceless' values though.


What were you thinking about both of our values in relationship to one another? I'd like to hear.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

FacelessBeauty said:


> So EII-IEI for quasi-identical right? Interesting.


IEI or ILI if it was firmly established that you don't like Si
with Si can be any of the IP types

i think your interaction is primarily characterized by rational-irrational differences and that you have a more equal intertype than supervision going on


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

FacelessBeauty said:


> What were you thinking about both of our values in relationship to one another? I'd like to hear.


i would rather not discuss that in public.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> IEI or ILI if it was firmly established that you don't like Si
> with Si can be any of the IP types
> 
> i think your interaction is primarily characterized by rational-irrational differences and that you have a more equal intertype than supervision going on


I don't think she's an IEI. Gamma makes far more sense than beta based on my interaction with beta NFs thus far that is extremely hit and miss for me. Either we get along all right assuming we got similar values and interests or it's a complete catastrophy and we're constantly at each other's heels because of our disagreements.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Oh ma gads she did it again. Yes, I know, but the point I was making as you are already well aware of is that I cannot draw a direct analogy since I do not know how Natsu is like, but my impression was something similar to Naruto based on how he is described.
> 
> Now I'm in fact suspecting it might be Si secret hate you're expressing XD
> 
> Now, trick question: would Ichigo be ESI or EII?  @_Amaterasu_, come come hither!


I'm late to reply, and I know only inconsequential details of Socionics - so I'm not quite sure what Socionics Se and Ne are like. However, if I had to simply "convert" ESI to ISFP and EII to INFP, then I'd pick ESI for Ichigo.


----------



## brittauzenne (Feb 8, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> 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.


Cyamitide you can say such amazing insightful things at times.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

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.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Cantarella said:


> 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...


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

@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.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Cantarella said:


> @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.


 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.


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

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.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> 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.


Yeah, one of my ESI friends has an LIE daughter and their interactions are hilarious to watch for this reason.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

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.


----------



## brittauzenne (Feb 8, 2013)

Cantarella said:


> 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.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Cantarella said:


> If anything, Gamma NTs could supervise the entire planet.


This cracked me up. xD

Gamma NTs ain't no match for me . I got my ILI wrapped around my little finger, and he loves it. ^_^ ;P

On a serous note, I love the fact that I can be so brutally honest with my SO. He's the _only _person who doesn't get offended when I give him a heavy handed reality slap. I'm always slightly concerned I'm going to seriously cause damage one of these days, but I never do.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

brittauzenne said:


> 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.


Oh, I think everyone can stand on their own for the most part, they're just going to make mistakes that cause other types to wonder WTF is wrong with them.




KookyTookie said:


> This cracked me up. xD
> 
> Gamma NTs ain't no match for me . I got my ILI wrapped around my little finger, and he loves it. ^_^ ;P
> 
> On a serous note, I love the fact that I can be so brutally honest with my SO. He's the _only _person who doesn't get offended when I give him a heavy handed reality slap. I'm always slightly concerned I'm going to seriously cause damage one of these days, but I never do.


Are you sure you're not typing yourself as his dual because things are so good for you two? 'cause that sounds like more of an IEE thing.  They tend to give these sort of harsh wake-up calls when they think people need them. SEEs only seem to do this when pushed.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Cantarella said:


> Are you sure you're not typing yourself as his dual because things are so good for you two? 'cause that sounds like more of an IEE thing.  They tend to give these sort of harsh wake-up calls when they think people need them. SEEs only seem to do this when pushed.


Actually, I typed as an IEE/ENFP for over a year. I'm not convinced I am an Ne-ego.

That's a rather very vague observation, really. I think what you have described anyone could relate to.


----------



## brittauzenne (Feb 8, 2013)

Cantarella said:


> Oh, I think everyone can stand on their own for the most part, they're just going to make mistakes that cause other types to wonder WTF is wrong with them.


 @Cantarella

Im just saying that the beneficiary will think that they can't do without the benefactor. From that mentality, they can over exaggerate their own weakness if they aren't careful. And no, there's plenty of disabled people in the world. But Ive been a long time beneficiary with weak ti and sometimes you dont think things through so this is for all the beneficiarys out there, tryna make it. You can do things on your own, the beneficiary may not always think things through enough and depend way too much on the benefactor...its good to try to imagine your life without the benefactor to help strengthen yourself, to think ahead


----------

