# Let's talk about duals!



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Lord Pixel said:


> Nothing wrong with being confrontational, I just feel on edge around those people and rather not be around them. It feels like a sense of imminent danger or something.
> 
> Well in the other thread it seemed like you were Te PoLR so I thought you settled on it.


Oh right. It make me feel nervous as well, until I realise they have good intentions and their assertiveness its actually quite helpful to me and/or other people.

Yeah I'm considering Te PoLR, but ITR wise I don't see the appeal in Ti ego, or see it as my one of my own super id functions.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Oh right. It make me feel nervous as well, until I realise they have good intentions and their assertiveness its actually quite helpful to me and/or other people.
> 
> Yeah I'm considering Te PoLR, but ITR wise I don't see the appeal in Ti ego, or see it as my one of my own super id functions.


Yea that it takes me a second to witness it as helpful but that's how I experience it also.

Ok well keep shopping around I guess, eventually you'll get your type and it will all makes sense lol.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Oh right. It make me feel nervous as well, until I realise they have good intentions and their assertiveness its actually quite helpful to me and/or other people.
> 
> Yeah I'm considering Te PoLR, but ITR wise I don't see the appeal in Ti ego, or see it as my one of my own super id functions.


Ti+ or Ti-? Socially or intimately? If your partner, for instance, is Ti+ ego, that means that socially he does the thinking and you don’t, while intimately it’s reversed.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Felipe said:


> The subtype thing is confusing, how can you tell apart a IEE-Fi subtype from a EII-Ne for instance?


Idiosyncratic views of power of personality traits.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

DavidH said:


> Ti+ or Ti-? Socially or intimately? If your partner, for instance, is Ti+ ego, that means that socially he does the thinking and you don’t, while intimately it’s reversed.


I was describing social situations because the OP was asking about how people first met their duals. I never thought about the switch between thinking and ethics, but I suppose that's true.

No idea about Ti+ or Ti- (I only know that Ti+ is LSI and Ti- is LII). It's hard to tell if they are a logical or ethical type socially. I guess when working with them they helped me with the practical/physical side of the work (which is Te+ i'm guessing). He also worked just by communicating and discussing things more than most people did, which I appreciated. By communicating I mean discussing the best options with people, asking for opinions and requesting each person to do a specific task. Instead of just automatically doing things he actually talked about things. 

Ti+ is about the sequence of events rights? Something I also noticed he wasn't good at following procedures correctly, so I tried to assist by watching what he did because he was at some points he did the practical in a very spontaneous manner. But he was good at cooperating and had a tendency to know what I was thinking, like I didn't even have to say anything. That's why I thought my dual might be an ethical type, or a type that uses Fe+.

Most people seem to work without really talking, and that frustrates me sometimes. but it's also because that's what I do as well, that's what I meant in my first post about not liking people who are too similar.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> I was describing social situations because the OP was asking about how people first met their duals. I never thought about the switch between thinking and ethics, but I suppose that's true.
> 
> No idea about Ti+ or Ti- (I only know that Ti+ is LSI and Ti- is LII). It's hard to tell if they are a logical or ethical type socially. I guess when working with them they helped me with the practical/physical side of the work (which is Te+ i'm guessing). He also worked just by communicating and discussing things more than most people did, which I appreciated. By communicating I mean discussing the best options with people, asking for opinions and requesting each person to do a specific task. Instead of just automatically doing things he actually talked about things.
> 
> ...


That guy would probably be an introverted positivist.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

DavidH said:


> That guy would probably be an introverted positivist.


 Why?

When you say positivist do you mean the leading function is a plus element or the reinin dichotomy?


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Why?
> 
> When you say positivist do you mean the leading function is a plus element or the reinin dichotomy?


SEI, LSI, ILI, or EII.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

DavidH said:


> SEI, LSI, ILI, or EII.


Aren't those the introverted process types?

Positivist/negativist is related to the static and dynamic elements apparently, not the function signs.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Aren't those the introverted process types?
> 
> Positivist/negativist is related to the static and dynamic elements apparently, not the function signs.


Yup.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

DavidH said:


> Yup.


Just realised that duals are the same on the result/process dichotomy. Does that dichotomy switch as well?

Either that or that person isn't actually my dual type (if i'm more like a result type) Now I think about it though Process is quite obvious for them xD


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Just realised that duals are the same on the result/process dichotomy. Does that dichotomy switch as well?
> 
> Either that or that person isn't actually my dual type (if i'm more like a result type) Now I think about it though Process is quite obvious for them xD


Yeah, should be reversed.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

DavidH said:


> Idiosyncratic views of power of personality traits.


You mean they made the subtype because some traits are stronger in certain people, even though that doesn't change their type?


----------



## keepthepeace94 (Sep 5, 2018)

Oh hey! Well, my first experience with my dual ended pretty tragically and was waaay before I was aware of any kind of typology, not even MBTI. 

Funny story actually. This LSE lived in the same dorm complex and building as me and my roommate my freshman year of college. He was actually actively pursuing my roommate, while I was having a fling of sorts with his roommate that I had been interested in for awhile. We all had a mutual group of friends. This LSE wasn't particularly attractive to me at the time, but over the summer months he suddenly started messaging me and I ended up just falling for him after a time. He was extremely charismatic and always looking for the opportunity to prove his worth (very 3w2). Anyway, it was my first serious relationship. There was something indescribably complimentary about it that I had never experienced before, like I'd found what I was missing with anyone else I had ever tried to connect with. I admired his ability to get things done in an almost effortless way and he was able to pick up on my emotional state and cheer me up almost intuitively. With him by my side, I felt like I could focus on my ideas, and goals for the future. I knew what needed to be done to succeed, and he'd take on the tasks that it took to get there. It's a weird sense of "knowing" that we each had our essential role to play. Sounds nice and all, but it ended up being quite toxic. We were both sx first, him being sx/so, and me being sx/sp, it kind of makes sense why it blew up the way it did, but at the time it was very confusing because I couldn't wrap my head around why it wasn't working (even my type 9 self couldn't keep the peace). It felt like everything I could have wanted, all the right pieces were there, and we both knew it, but it was a very unhealthy relationship nonetheless and we couldn't stop fighting.


Alright, LSE #2 ! This one is less tragic. Fast forward to a few months ago, I started a job at an ambulance company. At this point, I was deep into enneagram/typology and had gotten quite good a typing people that I knew well. The very first day I met the COO, he ran into the front office with such a bizarre, flamboyant energy it almost frightened me! Instead of saying hello to me and shaking my hand, like say, a normal human being, he ran into the neighboring office and said "Well who is!?" with loud, pleasant enthusiasm before running up to me and introducing himself. OH, one interesting thing about LSE, is they kind of have what I'd call Se "crazy eyes". Being Ni polar, it's like you can almost see the Se in their eyes. I knew right away that he was likely an so/sx. In an LSE, it's a strange combination, because so/sx by nature is all inclusive and drawn to people, but the Te-Si nature combined with strong Se makes this type very...abrasive. Initially over the course of working in an office adjacent to his, I went back and forth between liking him (as a person) and being extremely annoyed by him. He would be very welcoming, yet sometimes he would say things that really...pissed me off. Almost like he was trying to antagonize me or challenge me to do better. The vibe I was getting from him was that he judged me right away as this boring, introvert that he was eventually going to catch goofing off and he needed to make sure to exert his superiority and status, so that I didn't test my limits. In response, I made purposeful attempt to befriend many people in the office and be supportive and encouraging (which I mean, I'm a 9, I do this by nature, but I was intentionally showing off my value to the workplace through bringing people together to cooperate.) Eventually, I think he started taking a special liking to me (as a person I assume, not romantically) It was when he started to notice my strengths and learn about some of my long term goals, that he seemed to become thoroughly impressed with me. Unfortunately, this job wasn't the easiest for me. As a medical billing specialist, it was very Si-Te heavy work, and I could do it, but halfway through the day I was mentally exhausted and I would have to slow down and was more prone to making careless mistakes. I was already thinking of pursing another job, when my supervisor & I were starting to have problems with each other. It was well known in the office that the way she chose to bill out some insurance claims was incorrect and I would often have to deal with calls of devastated patients because they were being billed for thousands of dollars unfairly. Long story short there ended up being a disagreement and supervisor decided she wanted to put me in a bad light to LSE. I was pulled into an office with LSE and supervisor and LSE was pretty hard on me. I started crying because I felt like I had been pulled into a situation where I had no place to defend myself and they both were against me. I hate crying in front of people more than anything, but I couldn't stop in from happening. LSE kind of fled from that situation after finishing what he had to say. I ignored him for the next couple days and put in my 2 weeks the following Monday because I had nothing more to gain working in that kind of environment and I wasn't enjoying myself. He heard news from coworkers I was friends with that I had plans to join the Peace Corps and get my TEFL in Costa Rica so I could become fluent in Spanish, which has been a goal of mine for some time. He asked me a little bit about this and again seemed really impressed by that. It wasn't until my last day though, that he walked into my office (shared with 3 other coworkers) and announced that he was leaving for the day, but he looked at me and said it was a pleasure to have had me there, he was sorry to see me go, and he apologized to me! In front of my coworkers! He said that if he can't keep an employee then that says something about how he's managing the place and how he should improve. Then he invited me to come back and visit anytime. He really emphasized that I should come back to visit. It was the nicest, most genuine thing I ever heard come out of his mouth the whole time that I had worked there, thinking about it makes me almost tear up. 

Sorry if that was a bit long. I tried not to beat around the bush too much. I really can only hope to meet an so/sx dual again. Preferably my age and not married with children..... Kind of leaves me feeling like any other kind of relationship will leave me wanting more. But *shrug* maybe that's just the sx/sp in me.


----------



## keepthepeace94 (Sep 5, 2018)

O__O That does not seem like a page I wanna visit..


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Fun fact about duality, apparently only about 45% of married couples are duals  The other 65% were said to be identical, mirror, activity and the other relations were a lot less common. 

Duality relationships are said to improve your physical health and well being. Any fears are said to disappear after being a duality relationship. Very much an ILE perspective there I think, because there's a such a focus on physical health and comfort. They seem to paint the idea of a very "perfect" relationship that resolves all your personal issues and fears.

Conflicting relations are supposed to seem attractive at first sight - the conflictor appears interesting because they are so different - but those relations end up being detrimental to your health.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Felipe said:


> You mean they made the subtype because some traits are stronger in certain people, even though that doesn't change their type?


I think he meant that the person perceives certain traits (or elements) more than others in a personality type, resulting in a certain element appearing stronger or more significant in the person than it actually is. The perception of the person they are typing is idiosyncratic.


----------



## keepthepeace94 (Sep 5, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> Fun fact about duality, apparently only about 45% of married couples are duals  The other 65% were said to be identical, mirror, activity and the other relations were a lot less common.



I'm actually surprised to hear that 45% of married couples are duals. I thought it would be less common. 

My parents are duals, ESE and LII. I think growing up with parents of dual relations creates a very stable environment for children of duals. There seems to be a competency among duals to be able to handle the majority of problems thrown their way. By no means is it a perfect relationship. They disagree OFTEN, but the balance is clearly there.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

keepthepeace94 said:


> I'm actually surprised to hear that 45% of married couples are duals. I thought it would be less common.
> 
> My parents are duals, ESE and LII. I think growing up with parents of dual relations creates a very stable environment for children of duals. There seems to be a competency among duals to be able to handle the majority of problems thrown their way. By no means is it a perfect relationship. They disagree OFTEN, but the balance is clearly there.


Its not only duality that can have a good intertype relationship. That could easily be activity, supervision or something like that. Duality isnt only about having a decent relationship. But thats nice that your parents have a duality like relationship, mine weren't even close!


----------



## clem (Jun 10, 2017)

My ESI duals feel like they are my subconscious self manifested in reality. They teach me a lot about who I really am. So I like watching Bob Ross videos.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

clem said:


> My ESI duals feel like they are my subconscious self manifested in reality. They teach me a lot about who I really am. So I like watching Bob Ross videos.


Bob Ross is ESI? LOL! I can kinda see it lol, type 9 for sure lol.


----------



## clem (Jun 10, 2017)

Inside each one of us there is a hidden self that yearns to assert itself.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

ILE duals, we teach each other. They teach me so many things, how to look at things in different ways, how to question things, how to think critically but practically, how to live in a more exciting way, how so many possibilities exist. They give me instructions, and I follow them. I engage their pursuits. I answer their questions. I build on their train of thought. 

Yet on the flip side, I teach them morality. I teach them how to incorporate ethical thought into their contemplative nature. I teach them to soften up, to slow down, to live a little bit more inwardly, to explore within the soul rather than the world.

It really is beautiful. Done right, it feels euphoric.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

Did I forget, my ILE duals make me laugh, like a ton. Hearing their perspective is so much stimulation of possibilities I would have otherwise missed, that it becomes freaking hilarious. Especially the Ne sub-types.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Lord Pixel said:


> Bob Ross is ESI? LOL!


Nah, what is this mbti? But seriously, why everyone have to put the enneagram and wing on every subforum even astrology. He is a 9 though


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

experiences doesn't matter, open any thread, for example intj & entp relationship and you will get positive stories about that too. imo, relationship of duality is more pragmatic and less romantic. 

like, as an entp my dual is isfj and that's good for me because she will cook for me and clean my shit? i guess that would be a good wife profile (a voice in my head just said maids are cheaper) but what if i'm not looking for a wife? what if i'm just looking for a lover? i'd rather get some high ne user so the relationship would be more "fun". 

what if i won't even live with this isfj? you know? what's good isfj for me then? she will laugh at my jokes and give me fe acknowledgement i guess? sorry but i'm not that freaking superficial.

i have yet to meet an isfj, male or female who intellectually stimulate me. but many, many times i listen to infps scratching my chin, saying hmmm interesting, tell me about your childhood more.

i kinda want a challenge from my relationships. i like to fix things as an entp. i'm true %100 pure breed hipster who will always go for the alternative route and not the obvious one. isfj is such a low hanging fruit.

or maybe i'm just being a classic devil's advocate entp again.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

ChaoticEvil said:


> experiences doesn't matter, open any thread, for example intj & entp relationship and you will get positive stories about that too. imo, relationship of duality is more pragmatic and less romantic.
> 
> like, as an entp my dual is isfj and that's good for me because she will cook for me and clean my shit? i guess that would be a good wife profile (a voice in my head just said maids are cheaper) but what if i'm not looking for a wife? what if i'm just looking for a lover? i'd rather get some high ne user so the relationship would be more "fun".
> 
> ...


I agree very much that duals are more pragmatic and less romantic. Especially cuz your dual is supposed to help you develop your PoLR function.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

I've noticed people don't realize SEIs in socionics show a different side than "isfjs" in MBTI. cause we don't just cook or clean or laugh at your jokes. We have a lazy side. We have an aesthetic side. We have a humanity-oriented side. We have an argumentative side that enjoys back and forths. We have a spontaneous side. It all comes together to make us who we are 

:tongue:


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

seis and isfjs are the exact same thing. they are both sifetines. socionics goes and gives detailed shadow fx descriptions and people think socionics is different than mbti. not really.

tangent: you are not lazy at all. you confuse your love of comfort and luxury and stuff as laziness. isfjs are like cats, cats will work cleaning themselves, doing their daily physical exercise, hunting rats or birds or something, they will go eat some grass to get rid of unwanted material from their digestion system. when everything done, then they will sleep, which is also totally needed, useful, pragmatic, their constat purring even there for a reason, i watched a documentary where it said cats doing that makes their bones stronger because sonic vibrations blah blah.

you are very much willing to work for that comfort. you would take your place in your fav couch, watch your favorite show on tv, eating your own perfect cupcakes, in a room well climated or whatever. entps though, they would throw their shit around, they just wouldn't care about their exterior world. where is what and why can not bother them less. so they wouldn't work for that "comfort". working for that comfort would actually gives them discomfort as that's a completely unnecessary thing to do in their mind.

------

here's the se description of an entp:

_The ILE finds it difficult to get himself to do uninteresting, tedious work simply out of responsibility. If he has to, he will acutely feel his own lack of discipline. Thus the ILE is more comfortable when he has a flexible schedule and is free to pursue whatever seems most interesting to him at the moment.

The ILE is typically only able to sustain short periods of strenuous activity.

ILEs are uninterested in forcing people to do things, and are not keen on those who impose their will on others, so they do not take well to direct commands. They often detest authority exercised in this way, and will often challenge abuses of power. When backed into a corner by an aggressive Se, the often harmless appearing ILE will immediately rise to meet the threat and strike it down with carefully crafted ease. The impact the ILE has on society is usually through his understanding of how the world works rather than a position of material influence. For example, an ILE might rather advise a person in power than hold an official position of high authority. He will only take such a position if it is necessary (and if no one else will do so)._

that's not different than mbti. 

here is the socionics description of fi for entp:

_Unstable in maintaining psychological distance. May have trouble making clear attraction. Can hide their personal sentiments when pushed and avoids the public examination of their desires. ILE's tend to be unaware of how others view them relationship wise, unstable in levels of trust. View relationships skeptically unless legitimized. This can result in a mistrust of others and a general wariness regarding others' opinions of them, potentially causing irrational behaviors based on misconceptions in this area. They appreciate people who can reassure them of the status of a relationship.

Emotional responses to trauma will often manifest themselves several years later, triggered by things that seem to have little to do with the event responsible for the reaction e.g. abandonment issues surface after visiting a nursing home._

how is that any different than mbti entp?

and this is ni description (5th fx) for entp:

_While the ILE may seem entirely spontaneous to the observer, he will often plan extensively for the fallout of his ideas in order to rally the support of others and guide it towards actualization. *As a by-product, most ILEs will view lectures about foresight and planning as irritating and unnecessary.* There is no need to go over that which he has already considered, in the privacy of his own mind.

Additionally, with too much attention to consequences the ILE loses the thrill of discovery associated with his base function and finds it difficult to think outside of Ni's natural complement: Se. He prefers to think about immediate possibilities (Ne) and what can be done to materialize them (Ti) rather than to dwell on the outcome of what might or might not be._

that's also exactly what mbti says. in fact, this description completely unneeded as it is the complete opposite of ne. if you are an ne dom, of course your ni will be described like above.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Can we for once not bring MBTI into this forum? 



TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> I agree very much that duals are more pragmatic and less romantic. Especially cuz your dual is supposed to help you develop your PoLR function.


That's your supervisor , not your dual


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> I agree very much that duals are more pragmatic and less romantic.


Yes. No ITR demands romance. Extroverts often don't notice their duals, either.

I've seen quite a few benefit/request couples. 



TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> Especially cuz your dual is supposed to help you develop your PoLR function.


I don't think "develop" is the right word. Duals curb the extremes of your super ego.



Wisteria said:


> Can we for once not bring MBTI into this forum?


Stop being an ISFJ. :laughing:



Wisteria said:


> That's your supervisor , not your dual


Supervisor pressures your super ego. Dual approach to your super ego is inoffensive, even protective.

The only thing supervisors help you develop is irritation.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Bastard said:


> Stop being an ISFJ. :laughing:


wait what, how is that ISFJ? 



> Supervisor pressures your super ego. Dual approach to your super ego is inoffensive, even protective.
> 
> The only thing supervisors help you develop is irritation.


Imao, now you're talking about conflict relations 

e.g EII (Fi lead, Ne creative) pressures SLE's super ego (Fi PoLR, Ne role)


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> wait what, how is that ISFJ?


You're kindly asking the children to behave. :wink:



Wisteria said:


> Imao, now you're talking about conflict relations
> 
> e.g EII (Fi lead, Ne creative) pressures SLE's super ego (Fi PoLR, Ne role)


No. Supervision is worse than conflict, because supervision has an unequal power dynamic. Conflict doesn't: both sides are equally vulnerable.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Bastard said:


> You're kindly asking the children to behave. :wink:


Oh :laughing:



> No. Supervision is worse than conflict, because supervision has an unequal power dynamic. Conflict doesn't: both sides are equally vulnerable.


Oh do you actually think that as well? There is no difference in power dynamic with supervision relations imo. Just because the supervisor is more skilled at using an element, doesn't mean they have an advantage or higher power over the supervisee. Supervision is considered one of the most unhealthy relationships in socionics for married couples along with conflicting, but supervision is still helpful for developing the PoLR. Here's what bukalov said about some of the most unhealthy intertype relations in an interview;



> Some live in unhappy marriages*, about 1-2% of conflict, 2-3% of** revision, in business relations, illusory*. We can’t say that they are happy, but also that they are very unhappy.





> Everything is different in *conflict and revision relations*. Even if partners protect themselves psychologically, it still affects subconsciousness. Because you can’t hide informational interactions and subconsciousness.


"revision" = supervision. ITR is focused on the feeling of comfort rather than power dynamics with people. Supervision is where the supervisee might feel some discomfort but they still find some common ground as they both share the same element for the leading and creative functions.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> There is no difference in power dynamic with supervision relations imo. Just because the supervisor is more skilled at using an element, doesn't mean they have an advantage or higher power over the supervisee. Supervision is considered one of the most unhealthy relationships in socionics for married couples along with conflicting, but supervision is still helpful for developing the PoLR. Here's what bukalov said about some of the most unhealthy intertype relations in an interview;
> 
> "revision" = supervision. ITR is focused on the feeling of comfort rather than power dynamics with people. Supervision is where the supervisee might feel some discomfort but they still find some common ground as they both share the same element for the leading and creative functions.


ITR does not exclude power dynamics. "Asymmetric" relations (supervision and benefit) have uneven power dynamics: the influence that they exert on one another is unequal. 

As to supervision/revision/audit: Common ground does not necessitate equal standing. The supervisor still holds the high ground.

Nothing you quoted of Bukalov suggests otherwise.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> Can we for once not bring MBTI into this forum?
> 
> 
> 
> That's your supervisor , not your dual


Your supervisor will never help develop your PoLR. If anything they highlight your inability to engage your PoLR. This can make you feel hindered, frustrated, and retaliatory. The best able to make you consider your PoLR with relatively more ease is your dual.... when they engage their demonstrative function (your PoLR).


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> Your supervisor will never help develop your PoLR.


Only one-on-one. The balance is not so egregious in groups.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Bastard said:


> ITR does not exclude power dynamics. "Asymmetric" relations (supervision and benefit) have uneven power dynamics: the influence that they exert on one another is unequal.


Can you actually give any source that this is how asymmetric relations are defined? I've seen the terms symmetric/asymmetric but I don't know the meaning of them. 



> As to supervision/revision/audit: Common ground does not necessitate equal standing. The supervisor still holds the high ground.
> Nothing you quoted of Bukalov suggests otherwise.


Nothing suggests they have the high ground either. They do in terms of ability, just not power, authority etc. 



TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> Your supervisor will never help develop your PoLR. If anything they highlight your inability to engage your PoLR. This can make you feel hindered, frustrated, and retaliatory. The best able to make you consider your PoLR with relatively more ease is your dual.... when they engage their demonstrative function (your PoLR).


What if that is just is an unhealthy person you're describing, not a supervisor? Some people do point out your flaws more than usual, and have a tendency to be more critical than an average person. They did benefit me in some way, at the same time though. I've encountered that but I figured the person is just an unhealthy or we're not on good terms relationship wise anyway. Even if supervision can be this one sided relationship I dont see why it also has to be a negative thing.

Why wouldn't the supervisor help you develop your PoLR, when they know how to use the supervisee's PoLR and leading elements co efficiently? and why would someone who can use their PoLR element very well not have some admiration or respect from the supervisee?


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

your supervisor is your supervisor for a reason. 

only infps can supervise entps, why? only infps will use soft power and silent treatment and shit like that. try debating entp he/she is wrong and supervise him that way? you will be destroyed. try to supervise entp with physical power? you are maybe not destroyed but entp won't listen either, he/she will hate your guts and try to get back at you one way or other.

so what infp does? essentially, infp gives entp time to introspect instead of fighting a verbal fight which is entps' first instinct. entp chills, entp figures how he hurt infp so entp actually learns his lesson which is a good thing.


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

maybe it's not like that for each relationship of supervision. 

but in brutally objective entp male vs. innocent sensitive infp female's case it works. 

infps can tame entps with their authentic sensitivity which is clearly "visible".

imagine an infj or intj vs entp relationship in contrast. those inxjs won't really show vulnerability. they will give entp moral lectures and shit, entp will say oh fuck you, inxj will doorlslam, the end. 

with infp, it doesn't end. as long as you turn back to her and say you were an asshole and you are sorry chances are infps will forgive you again and again and again and again.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> Can you actually give any source that this is how asymmetric relations are defined? I've seen the terms symmetric/asymmetric but I don't know the meaning of them.


The website you linked some while ago makes reference to it.

As I said above. Asymmetric means that the level of influence the two have over one another is unequal.



Wisteria said:


> Nothing suggests they have the high ground either. They do in terms of ability, just not power, authority etc.


They do in terms of influence (which you called ability). Influence is a form of power. Going by the variables measured, supervisors do hold the high ground.

Other forms of power (i.e. authority, expert, coercive, material) are not measured by socionics. 



Wisteria said:


> Why wouldn't the supervisor help you develop your PoLR, when they know how to use the supervisee's PoLR and leading elements co efficiently?


Their blocks don't match up. Communication goes in these steps: 

1. Supervisor communicates through their leading function and it hits the supervisee's vulnerable. Supervisee: _"Ow, that hurts!"_

2. Supervisee responds through their own ego block. _"Stop stop!"_

3. Supervisor cannot interpret both elements at once because information is coming in two separate blocks (Supervisee 1+2 = Supervisor 2-3). 

4. Supervisor defaults to ego block, thereby only getting half of the message. _"Op op? what does that mean?" _

5. Supervisor sees the message as faulty, tries to correct the supervisee. _"Stop speaking gibberish, it's easy!"_ (Go back to step 1.)


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Bastard said:


> The website you linked some while ago makes reference to it.
> 
> As I said above. Asymmetric means that the level of influence the two have over one another is unequal.


Ah thanks, I haven't looked at school systems ITR page. Because your typed as an Se leading type with Fi PoLR, I thought that might be giving you that pov. 

It does say that the relationship is unequal, but also note that it says "formally unequal" and that these relations "represent a communicative mechanism of social progress". I think what this means is that when using their social superblock functions (the mental functions) the asymmetrical relations are more of a positive thing. 

The PoLR is a mental function as well, so I think that a supervisor can help the supervisor progress with their mental functions, particularly when using their PoLR and leading functions, or perhaps for the development of the super ego.

Supervision is considered one of the worst relationships for marriages however. This probably means that supervision is more unpleasant in intimate relationships, where the mental functions aren't really being used.



> They do in terms of influence (which you called ability). Influence is a form of power. Going by the variables measured, supervisors do hold the high ground.
> Other forms of power (i.e. authority, expert, coercive, material) are not measured by socionics.


I said ability because I was referencing dimensionality and strength of the function. You basically mean the supervisor is superior because of how they influence the supervisor, but authority and coercion is sort of having an influence.



> Their blocks don't match up. Communication goes in these steps:
> 
> 1. Supervisor communicates through their leading function and it hits the supervisee's vulnerable. Supervisee: _"Ow, that hurts!"_
> 
> ...


They match in a sense that they share the same mental functions though? With conflictors the blocks are even more different. I think it goes more like this;

Supervisor notices that supervisee cannot use their base function to a high ability, so the supervisor mentors supervisee and helps them use their PoLR, which is the supervisee's ultimate drawback when using their leading function. To me the supervisee's response is more like "Aha so that's how I can use my PoLR more effectively o/" rather than "Stop bullying and criticising me"


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

gah, why do you think supervisor is supervisor and supervisee is supervisee though?

since this is such a terrible relationship, since there's such shitty communication how supervisor ever be able supervise?

you are almost describing the relationship of matter with antimatter. the moment they interact, boom! so why call this shit a "relationship of supervision"? 

to be able to supervise, your supervision must be smooth and subliminal. not in your face...


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

quotes from: Relations of Supervision between psychological ("personality") types

_Supervisee weak point is defenceless against the Supervisor's strong point. This makes the Supervisee nervous and expect the worse. _

this is true, as an entp i'm worried i will hurt infp with my brutal objectivity. but that's not some kind of paranoid thing to think. i should be worried, she is sensitive and shit. this is interesting if you think about it, because since when i give a shit i will hurt people as an entp? i'll tell you, since they don't reflect shit back, she absorbs that brutally objective statement or rude joke of mine and let it implode inside her and i have to sit and watch this which make me almost feel things. 

= _Supervisee pays attention to their actions and considers the Supervisor as consequential._

how is this a bad thing, again?

_The Supervisee normally wants to gain recognition and commendation from the Supervisor. However, it may seem like the Supervisor always undervalues the abilities of the Supervisee. This stimulates the Supervisee into proving their own worthiness with various actions, yet there is little chance that they will succeed. _

the key part in this quote is this: "it may seem like" and this is why we study facking typology. to see beyond what it "seem like".

_The Supervisor sees the Supervisee as quite interesting and capable, but incomplete and therefore in need of some help and advice._

that's good. that's not terrible.

_The Supervisee does not respond to this aid as expected and this will often increase the Supervisor's attempts to change the Supervisee._

these descriptions are default and most expected reactions of a supervisee that is a level 1 noob and learnt nothing in this world. like, i can see how i would act like this when i was 10. but not anymore, you know? i won't try to make intp from that infp.

_Because the Supervisee naturally does not understand what it is that the Supervisor wants from them, this may irritate the Supervisor, who thinks that the Supervisee simply does not want to understand. _

writer of this uhm, article still adresses a noob level 1 supervisor and supervisee robots fresh outta factory.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> To me the supervisee's response is more like "Aha so that's how I can use my PoLR more effectively o/" rather than "Stop bullying and criticising me"


No. That's an unorthodox interpretation.

Direct pressure on the vulnerable is nothing but painful. The Supervisor consistently pressures the supervisee's vulnerable. Their attempted _correction_ just pressures it more.

That is how supervision works.



Wisteria said:


> I said ability because I was referencing dimensionality and strength of the function. You basically mean the supervisor is superior because of how they influence the supervisor, but authority and coercion is sort of having an influence.


I mean that the supervisor has the superiority because the influence is one-way. Supervisee does not influence the supervisor. 

Authority and coercion are types of power _not_ measured. You'd need to look at actual interactions between people (rather than ITRs between sociotypes) to pick up on those. 



Wisteria said:


> Ah thanks, I haven't looked at school systems ITR page.


It is not different from other sources on Supervision.



Wisteria said:


> Because your typed as an Se leading type with Fi PoLR, I thought that might be giving you that pov.


Well all interactions have power dynamics, a lot of people just don't notice them. :laughing:



Wisteria said:


> With conflictors the blocks are even more different. I think it goes more like this;


Conflictors inadvertently harm each other. Supervisors inadvertently harm supervisees.



ChaoticEvil said:


> you are almost describing the relationship of matter with antimatter. the moment they interact, boom! so why call this shit a "relationship of supervision"?


It's also called audit, or revision, or social control. The last one is the most accurate.

Translations are a bitch like that.


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

Bastard said:


> It's also called audit, or revision, or social control. The last one is the most accurate.
> 
> Translations are a bitch like that.


entps can not be supervised / controlled or revised by anything other than soft power. entps will rebel against anything else.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

ChaoticEvil said:


> entps can not be supervised / controlled or revised by anything other than soft power. entps will rebel against anything else.


ENTPs are pussies. Stick to tilting at windmills.


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

Bastard said:


> ENTPs are pussies. Stick to tilting at windmills.


let's assume this is true. i guess you mean entps can't rebel then? rebellion do not have to be physical. entps will rebel intellectually, entps will debate the hells out of you. just like i'm doing here. why did you ignore everything else i said? i made many entp & infp specific examples, i make quotes from websites, i explained the mechanics which is based on my real life experience- but you went and focused on the translation. and your alternative translations changed nothing. and when i stuff that in your ass you got upset. aww.

and if entp can't even rebel intellectually because estp is on his face, then entp will simply quit. see, you can't control entp, you can't actually make entp listen to you. but infp can and i already explained how in detail.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

ChaoticEvil said:


> why did you ignore everything else i said?


You don't understand supervision. I'm helping you. :wink:


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

Bastard said:


> You don't understand supervision. I'm helping you. :wink:


a very baseless statement. no, you don't understand it. you think we are simplistic robots ruled by ten lines of gwbasic code. 

"if infp do x entp does y"
"when entp does y infp does z"
"when infp does z entp explodes"

extremely deterministic, simplistic. i am an entp working around the problems and finding alternative solutions and making it work is my thing. i can see how this shit called "relationship of supervision" can be "improved".

you accept it as it is. you worship this shit you read online as if it's god's writing. some asshole wrote those things in his basement who gives a shit? lol. i will only use his descriptions as a starting point.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Irrelevant.


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

rip, estp brain burned.


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

Leliel said:


> :brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli:
> 
> 
> :brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli::brocoli:
> ...


if popeye's secret is spinach, mine is brocoli.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Bastard said:


> No. That's an unorthodox interpretation.
> 
> Direct pressure on the vulnerable is nothing but painful. The Supervisor consistently pressures the supervisee's vulnerable. Their attempted _correction_ just pressures it more.
> 
> That is how supervision works.


Does socionics ever mention this pressure in supervision relations? How do you know it's a misinterpretation when you haven't mentioned anything about social progress? You're focusing on the asymmetrical, unequal aspect of it and I think that many descriptions such as the wikisocion one probably does that too. Because they share the base and creative element, the supervision relationship could potentially be constructive for the supervisee. Descriptions don't focus on that but it could be a difference in interpretation.



> I mean that the supervisor has the superiority because the influence is one-way. Supervisee does not influence the supervisor.
> 
> Authority and coercion are types of power _not_ measured. You'd need to look at actual interactions between people (rather than ITRs between sociotypes) to pick up on those.


I don't disagree. 

You mean not measured by socionics or...? 



> It is not different from other sources on Supervision.


Do other sources mention social progress?



> Well all interactions have power dynamics, a lot of people just don't notice them. :laughing:
> Conflictors inadvertently harm each other. Supervisors inadvertently harm supervisees.


Hmm maybe people do notice power dynamics but don't outwardly acknowledge it or react in any way.



ChaoticEvil said:


> a very baseless statement. no, you don't understand it. you think we are simplistic robots ruled by ten lines of gwbasic code.
> 
> "if infp do x entp does y"
> "when entp does y infp does z"
> ...


Well you clearly have this all figured out. As an ENTP you are the only true intellectual here, and you know typology better than the creators who got psychology degrees then decades of research into developing typology! But your knowledge and understanding of typology is clearly superior, and even though you only demonstrated examples with your own MBTI type I'm sure you understand it all so I trust your expertise 100%


----------



## ChaoticEvil (Aug 17, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Well you clearly have this all figured out. As an ENTP you are the only true intellectual here, and you know typology better than the creators who got psychology degrees then decades of research into developing typology! But your knowledge and understanding of typology is clearly superior, and even though you only demonstrated examples with your own MBTI type I'm sure you understand it all so I trust your expertise 100%


carl jung would laugh in your face and cuss you in german if you were to show him this:

_1. Supervisor communicates through their leading function and it hits the supervisee's vulnerable. Supervisee: "Ow, that hurts!"

2. Supervisee responds through their own ego block. "Stop stop!"

3. Supervisor cannot interpret both elements at once because information is coming in two separate blocks (Supervisee 1+2 = Supervisor 2-3).

4. Supervisor defaults to ego block, thereby only getting half of the message. "Op op? what does that mean?"

5. Supervisor sees the message..._

which is like i said, extremely simplistic and deterministic. since we are not using our own brains but depending on others'. i experienced this relationship three times. you learn things in this life. you don't do same mistakes again and again. like i said, these descriptions only apply to level 1 entp and level 1 infp who are acting extremely reactive. entp goes crazy the moment you use fi, infp kills herself the moment you use ti.

get real. stop worshipping others. use your own brain and experience.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> How do you know it's a misinterpretation when you haven't mentioned anything about social progress? You're focusing on the asymmetrical, unequal aspect of it and I think that many descriptions such as the wikisocion one probably does that too. Because they share the base and creative element, the supervision relationship could potentially be constructive for the supervisee. Descriptions don't focus on that but it could be a difference in interpretation.


A difference in interpretation, yes. 

Social progress, this is the benefit and supervision "chains," yeah? 

I interpreted the "constructive" part of the supervision relation to be paternalistic: Supervisor fixes the problem faced by the Supervisee's 4th. I do not think that this signifies any long-term development for the Supervisee.



Wisteria said:


> You mean not measured by socionics or...?


Yes. I don't think power can be formally modelled. Power is dynamic and shifting.



Wisteria said:


> Hmm maybe people do notice power dynamics but don't outwardly acknowledge it or react in any way.


I think it relates to their use of :f:. 



Wisteria said:


> Well you clearly have this all figured out.


It's real easy to figure this shit out when people form an emotional attachment to their type and can't understand that it's not an _actual person_ but an abstraction. h:


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

ChaoticEvil said:


> carl jung would laugh in your face and cuss you in german if you were to show him this:


No!! ( I hope Jung will forgive me for my sins

You know Jung didn't invent socionics right? I think he might forgive me because of that. 



> _1. Supervisor communicates through their leading function and it hits the supervisee's vulnerable. Supervisee: "Ow, that hurts!"
> 
> 2. Supervisee responds through their own ego block. "Stop stop!"
> 
> ...


It wasn't even me who freakin wrote that lol

Your reference to Jung makes you sound like a hypocrite, but whatever


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Bastard said:


> A difference in interpretation, yes.
> 
> Social progress, this is the benefit and supervision "chains," yeah?


Can't remember, think it was about all the asymmetrical relations..What do you mean chains? (I don't understand metaphors imao)



> I interpreted the "constructive" part of the supervision relation to be paternalistic: Supervisor fixes the problem faced by the Supervisee's 4th. I do not think that this signifies any long-term development for the Supervisee.


Yeah I guess you could say paternalistic, if the relation is considered one sided or unequal. It could have long term development in a way, because the super ego is "filled" before the ego, and supervision relations might help for that. Just guessing though.



> Yes. I don't think power can be formally modelled. Power is dynamic and shifting.
> 
> I think it relates to their use of :f:.


Still the description would describe something along the lines of the supervisee being under pressure (more specifically pressure of the PoLR). Power dynamic is different depending on the situation if that's what you mean.

It's typically associated with weak Se yeah, to not show resistance to power, while strong Se is the opposite. Apparently Se types also know when it's better not to exert force or pressure though. 



> It's real easy to figure this shit out when people form an emotional attachment to their type and can't understand that it's not an _actual person_ but an abstraction. h:


Maybe. It's common on forums for people to invent their own theories instead of using source material, either because they can't interpret the source material (I can't fully understand Jung either though) or want to create their own special system because they think themselves and their mbti type are smart.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> Can't remember, think it was about all the asymmetrical relations..What do you mean chains? (I don't understand metaphors imao)


I think they're also called "rings." Benefit and Supervision have these. Supervision ones are: 

For example, the Result-Static-Negativist chain: SLE > LII > IEE > ESI > SLE.



Wisteria said:


> Apparently Se types also know when it's better not to exert force or pressure though.


More than this, but yeah. Its an instinctual understanding of power dynamics. Like a wolf.



Wisteria said:


> Maybe. It's common on forums for people to invent their own theories instead of using source material, either because they can't interpret the source material (I can't fully understand Jung either though) or want to create their own special system because they think themselves and their mbti type are smart.


Yeah. I get it. It's posturing: the kind that has no purpose but to stroke weak egos.

Socionics source material is all over the place in location and quality. I don't always have the patience to decipher this shit. I like to be educated on it by people who understand it better than I do. :laughing:


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Bastard said:


> I think they're also called "rings." Benefit and Supervision have these. Supervision ones are:
> For example, the Result-Static-Negativist chain: SLE > LII > IEE > ESI > SLE.
> More than this, but yeah. Its an instinctual understanding of power dynamics. Like a wolf.


Oh I've heard of the rings. Didn't know they share those dichotomies though. What's the purpose of having these Rings anyway?

That reminds me of a self typed SEE that used to go on here (SheWolf). You can behave instinctively for a lot of reasons, could be motivated by self preservation, defence, fear, or something else. Everyone notices a social hierarchy I thought. 



> Yeah. I get it. It's posturing: the kind that has no purpose but to stroke weak egos.
> Socionics source material is all over the place in location and quality. I don't always have the patience to decipher this shit. I like to be educated on it by people who understand it better than I do. :laughing:


It's not usually the socionics forum that attracts those type of members. I don't mind researching, the problem is that socionics source material is really hard to find and the translations are off sometimes. Same though, it's more interesting that way.


----------

