# Relations of benefit -- Benefactor's perception of information disparity over time?



## prsvrnc (Oct 15, 2011)

I included below some passages noting the information disparity between the benefactor and beneficiary. I am curious if over time the information exchange and the elements involved sort of make sense to the benefactor or if it is always a somewhat confusing situation. 


“Beneficiary experiences activation in the presence of benefactor, tries to help him, to do something. He understands the needs of his partner very well, but reciprocity exists only in the beginning. Over time the harmony in these relations breaks down for the reason that *benefactor is dismissive of the arguments and conclusions of beneficiary*, and even tries to impose his own point of view and control his behavior.”


“… However, a supervisor will take more of a clear leadership role, dominating the exchange, whereas *the beneficiary feels no obligation to the benefactor to hang around once his contributions have been slighted*.”


“*Benefactor may feel irritation because he is unable to understand the requests and needs of the beneficiary*. <<<< THIS. Over time, does this make more sense?
Beneficiary, in turn, trying to reach an understanding, can begin to over-dramatize the situation. *He feels that the benefactor is not considering his interests and may make attempts to re-educate his partner, but this proves to be useless. The benefactor still does not understand what was wanted of him*.” *<<< THIS!!*


“One partner called the benefactor uses his "creative" function to activate the weak function of beneficiary. *However, good reverse feedback does not exist in these relations, since both strong functions of beneficiary have no effect on the benefactor*. This mechanism dictates the nature of these relations: *everything that beneficiary says or does, the benefactor doesn't see as very important and significant*, the beneficiary, in contrast, sees the benefactor as a very significant person.”


“*The benefactor is not inclined to give much recognition to the beneficiary*, seeing him as a weaker partner, so he tends to periodically patronize the beneficiary, order him around, attempt to teach him.”


“The benefactor is as if always asking or requesting something from the beneficiary, the beneficiary as if owes something to the benefactor, he perfectly picks up on the position of the benefactor. *Benefactor, however, does not fully hear the beneficiary and does not look into his problems*: it seems that the beneficiary will somehow manage on his own and arrange his life in any case.”


“Therefore, in these relations the beneficiary will periodically put up some resistance and grumble at the benefactor in order to distance. *Nevertheless, this kind of ‘disloyalty’ has almost no psychological effect on the benefactor.*”


“Quasi-identical component brings the possibility of mutual learning, but simultaneously there are difficulties in trying to convince your benefactor, prove something to him, or adopt his point of view.*<<< YES. Can't convince because he was never there to hear it in a sense.*


“To the benefactor it seems that the beneficiary is always doing something wrong, and that it can be done better. Benefactor sees the beneficiary as dependent, spoiled, poorly adapted to life in some way - it seems that without him the beneficiary will be lost. So he spends his time demanding, teaching, explaining, while the beneficiary keeps trying.” 


*“However, there is an asymmetry of perception: the benefactor is listened to, but the beneficiary is perceived as an interesting person, but not convincing enough.”*


“These relations are asymmetric: *first partner relates to the second not in the same way as the later relates to the first*. First partner, who is called request transmitter, or benefactor, looks at the second partner, called beneficiary, as someone who is a rank lower, underestimating him. The second partner, on the contrary, thinks that the other partner is an interesting, meaningful person, overestimating him at first.”


“From aside, relations of benefit look smooth and conflict-free. Initiator of these relations is almost always the benefactor. Beneficiary feels that deep inside the benefactor is positively predisposed towards him. The benefactor tries to encourage and support the beneficiary in any way possible. Reciprocating feedback only happens at initial stages. Further attempts to establish relations on equal conditions are not successful, the reverse connection does not get any better. *The benefactor, alas, does not hear the beneficiary.”*




*^^^ Over time, I am curious— does the benefactor SEE the information misbalance that occurs in this relationship? Does the above dynamic end up becoming clear? Can the benefactor see or intuit the beneficiary's position in this case? Does the benefactor begin to "hear" the beneficiary in a sense?*


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Granted it's not going to be symmetrically mutually beneficial like the activity relation, but wouldn't it be somewhat beneficial to the benefactor as well, since the beneficiary's base function is the benefactor's HA? So the benefactor is "helping" the beneficiary's DS function, while the beneficiary is "helping" the benefactor's HA function. So it's not symmetrical, but wouldn't that partially equalize the relationship? Sorry, I know this doesn't answer your question.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

In my experience, it's very difficult for the benefactor to ever really listen to the beneficiary. The greatest clarity I've ever seen this pairing achieve is that the two should keep their distance, as there is a fundamental misunderstanding of each other in their encounters. I've never met a benefactor who truly listened to the beneficiary; even if they make a conscious attempt the ingrained tendency to dismiss the beneficiary's opinions ends up taking over after time and they revert to their original behavior pattern.

One thing that article didn't mention that I have noticed is that this relationship can become tense and even hostile if the beneficiary feels strongly enough to react against benefactor. This is especially likely if the benefactor attempts to impose his own views on the beneficiary. A less domineering benefactor won't usually provoke hostile responses from the beneficiary, however.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Zamyatin said:


> In my experience, it's very difficult for the benefactor to ever really listen to the beneficiary. The greatest clarity I've ever seen this pairing achieve is that the two should keep their distance, as there is a fundamental misunderstanding of each other in their encounters. I've never met a benefactor who truly listened to the beneficiary; even if they make a conscious attempt the ingrained tendency to dismiss the beneficiary's opinions ends up taking over after time and they revert to their original behavior pattern.


Are misunderstandings really that much of a deal breaker to you?

I can survive a relationship with an SEI based solely on their respect for my lead function.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> Are misunderstandings really that much of a deal breaker to you?
> 
> I can survive a relationship with an SEI based solely on their respect for my lead function.


For me personally? Usually I don't have a problem with LSIs except for a handful who are remarkably incompetent and yet profess to tell me what to do. My brother-in-law is an LSI, married to my SLE sister, and while he and I aren't close by any means we've had some good conversations. I'd never say he really takes anything that I say directly, however. He always seems to try to reinterpret it in his own way, which gets very annoying when he misinterprets it and then tries to tell me that misinterpretation is what I actually said.


----------



## prsvrnc (Oct 15, 2011)

Fried Eggz said:


> Are misunderstandings really that much of a deal breaker to you?
> 
> I can survive a relationship with an SEI based solely on their respect for my lead function.


I realize my post likely came off a bit anal. I am not saying misunderstands are a deal breaker, I am just curious about perspective. Someone wrote that benefit article, they must know what it is like to be in the position of the benefactor. As a beneficiary, I can read all that and say YES! This is how it is! I can begin to see the world of the benefactor in relation to mine (in the same way that I also know what it is like to be a benefactor since I also possess a beneficiary). And I am wonder if the same is true for other people. // Really, it was a question of information. I like details. I really like to hear all the sides of it. My positing this wasn't even to resolve an actual relationship that I have. I'm just curious.
It's true that it was real relationships that instigated me to consider this, but I am good with the relationship, just curious is all. And I think I understand what you mean about getting by with your lead function. << Yes, this might be where the relating is harmonious. The beneficiary can support and connect with the benefactor using the beneficiary's lead which is the activating role (or what correlates with MBTI tertiary) in the benefactor.


----------



## prsvrnc (Oct 15, 2011)

Zamyatin said:


> One thing that article didn't mention that I have noticed is that this relationship can become tense and even hostile if the beneficiary feels strongly enough to react against benefactor.


^^^ YES, this is very true. The Wikisocion article touches a bit, but not a lot. 

“Benefactor may feel irritation because he is unable to understand the requests and needs of the beneficiary. Beneficiary, in turn, trying to reach an understanding, *can begin to over-dramatize the situation*.” << Right, and this is the WRONG thing to do. If the beneficiary over-dramatizes the situation the problem will start.

Also: "*If you don't allow yourself to argue until losing your voice*, the appeal of this interaction can persist for a long time. However, if you don't restrain yourself, antipathies may arise instead of sympathies. *Especially dangerous is the development of such situation in marriage, because here communication happens on very close distances thus partners may attempt to persuade each other with great fervor and stubbornness*. It is not necessary for negative feelings to arise. The couple can find an outlet for the excess energy that is released by investing it into activities outside their union."

"*Beneficiary should try to not over-dramatize events in these relations*. It is better to express your emotions through a third party who can guide you away from extreme interpretations and offer comfort."


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

From my experience with a LSE uncle (my benefactor), not really. He dismisses everything. But then again, LSE's are like that with everybody lol.


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare (Jan 18, 2012)

It feels like this is happening to me right now in the forum with the interchange between myself and another PerC member. Although maybe it's just a hallucination of the entire theory's lack of present common sense in my life, as well.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Rabid Seahorse said:


> From my experience with a LSE uncle (my benefactor), not really. He dismisses everything. But then again, LSE's are like that with everybody lol.


Me: "I saw something."
LSE: "No you didn't."

I have no idea how to deal with them half the time.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

prsvrnc said:


> I
> *^^^ Over time, I am curious— does the benefactor SEE the information misbalance that occurs in this relationship? Does the above dynamic end up becoming clear? Can the benefactor see or intuit the beneficiary's position in this case? Does the benefactor begin to "hear" the beneficiary in a sense?*


Only if they learn socionics, and even then it is an upwards struggle.
Oh you have problem A?
Let me just check Socionics....
Ah hmm I think you should X, Y, Z...BUT
You should actually X, Y, C, cause I'm ignoring your aux/tert and this accounts for it.

Seriously you would not get past anything other than very basic problems with this method.
And you still will feel that the solution you told them was retarded.... argh...


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

hornet said:


> Only if they learn socionics, and even then it is an upwards struggle.


I can see a disparity between myself and Zamyatin/Entropic. It is like a great chasm between us.

Still doesn't stop them from providing useful insights, even if I'm not using them the way they were intended.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Fried Eggz said:


> I can see a disparity between myself and Zamyatin/Entropic. It is like a great chasm between us.
> 
> Still doesn't stop them from providing useful insights, even if I'm not using them the way they were intended.


Yes, but the issue at hand is not you hearing them.
But they hearing you.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

hornet said:


> Yes, but the issue at hand is not you hearing them.
> But they hearing you.


Err...? I'm guessing this is a misunderstanding going on?

prsvrnc: "does the benefactor SEE the information misbalance that occurs in this relationship?" 
You: "Only if they learn socionics, and even then it is an upwards struggle."
Me: "I can see a disparity between myself and Zamyatin/Entropic. It is like a great chasm between us." (I am the benefactor)


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Fried Eggz said:


> Err...? I'm guessing this is a misunderstanding going on?
> 
> prsvrnc: "does the benefactor SEE the information misbalance that occurs in this relationship?"
> You: "Only if they learn socionics, and even then it is an upwards struggle."
> Me: "I can see a disparity between myself and Zamyatin/Entropic. It is like a great chasm between us." (I am the benefactor)


Ah right my bad.
I was too fast on the trigger there with thinking ILI being benefactor of LSI after a quick faulty calculation.
Anyway...



> I can see a disparity between myself and Zamyatin/Entropic. It is like a great chasm between us.
> 
> Still doesn't stop them from providing useful insights, even if I'm not using them the way they were intended.


Sure they can provide useful insight, but due to their blathant flaws and no redeeming cognitive attributes,
you struggle to take them seriously most of the time.
Like if my beneficary tells me about a pattern in the prices of my fav candy.
That is useful to me and of course I will listen and act on it.
Cause they are giving me information that makes sense to me.
If they however start telling me some Fe derived judgment about my values on the other hand.
I will most likely dismiss it as irrelevant noise from someone who is in no position to tell me what is right or wrong.
I have after all had to endure their rant about all their (to me) immoral stance on some other issues.
So I know that their sense of worth are pretty bendable to circumstance.

In the same way I'm sure that you when an ILI comes up with facts are like...
yeah...but you havn't considered all these Ti issues that surround that fact.
So you choose not to listen, cause to you those Te fact lack a certain sofistication.


----------



## MightyLizardKing (Jun 7, 2014)

My benefactor is the ESTj, and although there comes along a rare one every now and again who I love and respect and wish I could be them my usual reaction to them is "ew" right from the start. I mean, if they wanna mow my grass and cook me food then that's chill I guess so long as they never open their mouth (lol at the thought of an LSE not opening their mouth).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

prsvrnc said:


> I included below some passages noting the information disparity between the benefactor and beneficiary. I am curious if over time the information exchange and the elements involved sort of make sense to the benefactor or if it is always a somewhat confusing situation.
> 
> *^^^ Over time, I am curious— does the benefactor SEE the information misbalance that occurs in this relationship? Does the above dynamic end up becoming clear? Can the benefactor see or intuit the beneficiary's position in this case? Does the benefactor begin to "hear" the beneficiary in a sense?*


In my experience the benefactor after some discussions will see the disparity between their Base function and beneficiary's Hidden Agenda. Arguments turn up, where it becomes clear that you do not see the issue in the same way, and tracing it to its source these arguments are based on opposite function attitudes of Base vs. HA. The benefactor never agrees with beneficiary's HA, however, one reason for this is that benefactor's Base is 4D while beneficiary's HA is 2D, so to benefactor it always feels insufficient. It seems like the beneficiary is raising a lot of ruckus over some minor thing, and it's really a flaw or mistake in _their_ perception. Thus, the benefactor never adjusts to the beneficiary and doesn't talk on beneficiary's terms. The beneficiary realizes this person is not making a step to meet them, that all their efforts are met with a deaf ear, gets tired of this and breaks things off.

If the beneficiary speaks from their base function, and reconciles with the fact that the benefactor will see anything coming from their HA as flawed and defective reasoning or perception, then this relationship can last. But if the beneficiary insists on HA, they'll get into arguments that could end their friendship or relationship.


----------

