# Being a supervisee- possible benefits/growth?



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

Hi all. 

I was wandering for anyone who's had considerable experience being a Supervisee in a Supervision relationship if they've experienced anything POSITIVE from it, or learned/grew from it. I know generally these relations are extremely uncomfortable, but I figure there's probably some benefits and growth to being around someone with a strength that's your weakness (even if it doesn't outweigh the costs). So...any experiences with it?

For me, I dated my Supervisor in high school for a brief time, and met an INFj friend my first week of college and we were very close throughout that time, we even lived together for a year. I also have another INFj friend I see periodically.

It was awful for my psyche. I felt like a shitty person about everything, immoral and downright evil. I would especially hate when I would argue about something just for theoretical states, and they would just dismiss it as "Anyone who does that is just plain EVIL!" and it would feel personal, as if they were attacking me. I do struggle with depression from time to time, but living together definitely made it worse.

However, I noticed some positive things from these. Sometimes they would show me the way they interact with people and how to avoid trusting the wrong people. Usually I do this by my "social graces", but they sort of showed me the Fi individualized way of doing it. I also understand my personal values a little more and have taken more of an initiative to know myself without feeling criticized- they did point out some things they felt were positive about my true character that actually helped my self esteem somewhat instantly lol. I definitely wouldn't say that this outweighs the negativity, but there were _some_ things I learned and grew from.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

It seems that the supervisor HA is overestimated in these relations but in reality it is weak and not so good. The supervisor do absorb very little of what the supervisee try to convey. The supervisee absorb what the supervisor say without any filter of defence and can not evaluate the information. 

There will be to much focus on the supervisee PoLR. It just seem that this relation is a long breakdown for the supervisee. It mess up the world view of the supervisee. They might be able to aid each other with knowledge and all that stuff. But in the end it is the supervisor who push his or her opinion on the supervisee whom pick them up because they are not strong enough to deal with them in any other way. 

:starbucks:


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Unfortunately, I don't think being the Supervisee has much benefit if any at all. It's actually the Supervisor that could REALLY learn from the Supervisee's Role function but typically elects not to do so. 

Not sure how many people here are familiar with Dimensionality in socionics, but the Base function of the Supervisor is 4D, and the PoLR of the Supervisee is 1D. What that basically means is that when there is a situation where the Supervisor can use his/her strongest function in an extremely nuanced, confident, and competent way, the Supervisee can at best respond *only* in ways he/she's experienced before and taken in, and no more deeply than that experience. 

In terms of growth and development, what the Supervisee can learn from the Supervisor is restricted to only what he sees the Supervisor do in real time. It's actually quite common in Supervision relations for the Supervisee to "copy" the Supervisor's behavior, and try to replicate his ideas, way of interacting, attitudes, methods, terminology, etc. It's also common for the Supervisee to have a lot of questions for the Supervisor in matters involving his PoLR, since he lacks the ability to come to an understanding of what is adequate in this area on his own. The Supervisee will individualize his own way of living out what he sees the Supervisor do competently and spontaneously to handle various situations, or what advice he gives. In these cases the Supervisee can learn a lot from the Supervisor's way of life, so long as it's done from a distance (without the Supervisor correcting the Supervisee) and so long as the Supervisee doesn't idolize the Supervisor's being at the expense of ever doing things their own way. 

The issue with this is that in a romantic or even working relationship keeping this distance is hardly possible. The Supervisor will inevitably correct and dominate the Supervisee if they have to make decisions jointly. Being friends and just hanging out casually wouldn't necessarily bring this dynamic out (and can be quite enjoyable for both), but cooperation tends to bring out the competitive nature of this relationship, and eventually either the degrading of the Supervisee's esteem in their own strong areas, or open conflict if the Supervisee doesn't respect the Supervisor.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)




----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Supervisor has globality over supervisee PoLR. Should be able to match the PoLR well enough to communicate without gaps to the supervisee, if a friend, otherwise, not much the supervisee can do to stop him.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

Figure said:


> Not sure how many people here are familiar with Dimensionality in socionics, but the Base function of the Supervisor is 4D, and the PoLR of the Supervisee is 1D. What that basically means is that when there is a situation where the Supervisor can use his/her strongest function in an extremely nuanced, confident, and competent way, the Supervisee can at best respond *only* in ways he/she's experienced before and taken in, and no more deeply than that experience.


That's what I've been thinking about the most part. I suppose the "benefits" from the relationship were really just me gaining experience. 

I could be naïve for just saying this but I still think there's more to it than just pain, pain, pain. I've had a really good friendship with a ISTj friend for 10 years. I wouldn't say we're super psychologically close, but he's distant with a lot of people. He's sorta exercised his creativity/Ne around me and has learned and gotten interested in more things, and I don't think he would've had he not been around me. I've learned a good amount of things from him as well.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I won't say that you can't grow in such relationships of course you can.
You will be put in many interesting and challenging situations that in the long term of your life will benefit you.
However the imbalance this creates for you cognitively should not be taken lightly.
Depending on the supervisor they can inflict lasting psychological damage on you.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Rabid Seahorse said:


> That's what I've been thinking about the most part. I suppose the "benefits" from the relationship were really just me gaining experience.
> 
> I could be naïve for just saying this but I still think there's more to it than just pain, pain, pain. I've had a really good friendship with a ISTj friend for 10 years. I wouldn't say we're super psychologically close, but he's distant with a lot of people. He's sorta exercised his creativity/Ne around me and has learned and gotten interested in more things, and I don't think he would've had he not been around me. I've learned a good amount of things from him as well.


Yeah, I know what you mean and agree. 

I guess thinking more on this, it's not that the Supervisee has absolutely _nothing_ at all to learn from the Supervisor. The Supervisee can definitely learn, albeit at a slow and deliberate pace, specific methods or pieces of information from the Supervisor that they would never be able to fathom on their own. An LSI could certainly observe the way you, for example, solve a complex problem easily using Ne and Ti, and reframe it within Ti and Se, as well as the limited situational bits of Ne he can pick up on for his own benefit. It's just that he won't be able to supply additional Ne in a similar situation like you would. To do it like you do (which he would value, but in reality not NEED to do), he'd have to slowly pick up bits and pieces of your "moves" and try to emulate them. 

For what it's worth, I've seen ILE/LSI mentioned a couple times as being one of the more easy-going Supervision relations, probably because both types are on the whole usually pretty pleasant/reasonable in general, and because it's between two Thinking types. In my work an ILE and LSI work very closely together, and the ILE very openly expresses respect for the LSI's expertise. If the Supervisor is aware of socionics, it REALLY helps things as well. 

Honestly, the Supervisor is really the one that can miss out with Supervision, because the Supervisee can provide MUCH needed development in the Supervisor's Role function if they allow it. Competency to basic standards in the Role gives anyone a lot of overall comfort in life, and a sense of security/well-roundedness. That's actually one of the things, having learned the intertypes, I've noticed that I really respect about LSE, and actually ESE too for that matter, in their ability to really pick out details that make life more consistent, organized, and logistically stable (with Si). Same with Ne doms, and having the ability to just wheel and deal, and do.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

Figure said:


> For what it's worth, I've seen ILE/LSI mentioned a couple times as being one of the more easy-going Supervision relations, probably because both types are on the whole usually pretty pleasant/reasonable in general, and because it's between two Thinking types. In my work an ILE and LSI work very closely together, and the ILE very openly expresses respect for the LSI's expertise. If the Supervisor is aware of socionics, it REALLY helps things as well.


Yeah that sounds a lot like us. We both kinda have that laid back and adventurous attitude. I could see an LSI understanding Socionics but definitely not an EII. They'd bring their touchy-feeling to it.




> Honestly, the Supervisor is really the one that can miss out with Supervision, because the Supervisee can provide MUCH needed development in the Supervisor's Role function if they allow it. Competency to basic standards in the Role gives anyone a lot of overall comfort in life, and a sense of security/well-roundedness. That's actually one of the things, having learned the intertypes, I've noticed that I really respect about LSE, and actually ESE too for that matter, in their ability to really pick out details that make life more consistent, organized, and logistically stable (with Si). Same with Ne doms, and having the ability to just wheel and deal, and do.


This is definitely true, on both sides. My LSI friends rarely get themselves into the social fiasco's I do, probably because of their role Fi. Likewise, EII guys I know suck with Se. They don't aim or balance properly; the only time they get forceful is when they go ballistic and it's not even because they can fight so much as it's like "yo this dude really would do something like shoot someone because he's _that_ angry"


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I think if you focus on the word supervisor some supervisor ITR is not even supervisor. But it is about the dynamic of the information metabolism between the two people.

Supervisor creative function good enough and do not need anything in that department. Because creative works differently and do not need a holistic view which the lead function creates. Creative function can do more awesome stuff not being holistic. The lead function of the supervisor is something the supervised is unaware of, like this thing that exist but they do not know of. The supervisor get this unfair ahead thing when if they use their lead the supervised will look stupid and supervisor use creative that is good enough. When the supervised use their lead function the supervisor can just agree because they might not see the holistic picture but they can easy deal with that information and when the supervise use their creative function the supervisor more or less dismiss this information.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Rabid Seahorse said:


> I was wandering for anyone who's had considerable experience being a Supervisee in a Supervision relationship if they've experienced anything POSITIVE from it, or learned/grew from it. I know generally these relations are extremely uncomfortable, but I figure there's probably some benefits and growth to being around someone with a strength that's your weakness (even if it doesn't outweigh the costs). So...any experiences with it?


I learned a bit from Augusta Aushra. :crazy:




Captain Mclain said:


> It seems that the supervisor HA is overestimated in these relations but in reality it is weak and not so good. The supervisor do absorb very little of what the supervisee try to convey. The supervisee absorb what the supervisor say without any filter of defence and can not evaluate the information.
> 
> There will be to much focus on the supervisee PoLR. It just seem that this relation is a long breakdown for the supervisee. It mess up the world view of the supervisee. They might be able to aid each other with knowledge and all that stuff. But in the end it is the supervisor who push his or her opinion on the supervisee whom pick them up because they are not strong enough to deal with them in any other way.


You overestimate the creative of the supervisor, actually. The supervisee having a global version of that function sometimes actually has the advantage in that area and can use it to rebuff the supervisor. Perhaps especially combined with the creative that is the weak Role of supervisor. This is my experience with ILEs. The only problem there is the ILE as supervisor usually doesn't easily take up that information either from me as supervisee. It has happened though that they eventually listened to me.

Also, I hardly absorb most of what the supervisor says, it takes a long time to process the PoLR information, just like Figure explained. So you have a very misleading picture of supervision if you think that the supervisee has no filters against the information from the supervisor. It is actually quite the opposite - there are filters that are too strong against easily absorbing the information coming from supervisor. 




Jeremy8419 said:


> Supervisor has globality over supervisee PoLR. Should be able to match the PoLR well enough to communicate without gaps to the supervisee, if a friend, otherwise, not much the supervisee can do to stop him.


No, wrong, it doesn't matter if the supervisor is a friend or not, there will still be large gaps.




Rabid Seahorse said:


> I could be naïve for just saying this but I still think there's more to it than just pain, pain, pain.


Sure it's more than just pain. The benefits take a long time to manifest though. It's mostly pain.




Figure said:


> I guess thinking more on this, it's not that the Supervisee has absolutely _nothing_ at all to learn from the Supervisor. The Supervisee can definitely learn, albeit at a slow and deliberate pace, specific methods or pieces of information from the Supervisor that they would never be able to fathom on their own. An LSI could certainly observe the way you, for example, solve a complex problem easily using Ne and Ti, and reframe it within Ti and Se, as well as the limited situational bits of Ne he can pick up on for his own benefit. It's just that he won't be able to supply additional Ne in a similar situation like you would. To do it like you do (which he would value, but in reality not NEED to do), he'd have to slowly pick up bits and pieces of your "moves" and try to emulate them..


Yeah it's just like that.

And ILEs have certainly thanked me for some Se before so you may be onto something with that Role function idea.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I learned a bit from Augusta Aushra. :crazy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then it's not supervisor. Supervisor does 3D and 4D in place of your 1D, completing your Mental track. When the full supervision ring exists, the 4D of supervisor passes from his 4D directly into the 4D of supervisee. This is the entire point of the supervision rings importance in social progress.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Then it's not supervisor. Supervisor does 3D and 4D in place of your 1D, completing your Mental track. When the full supervision ring exists, the 4D of supervisor passes from his 4D directly into the 4D of supervisee. This is the entire point of the supervision rings importance in social progress.


When is it not supervisor? You replied to the entire post without specifying which part didn't seem like a supervision type of relation.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> When is it not supervisor? You replied to the entire post without specifying which part didn't seem like a supervision type of relation.


Oh, the part you had quoted me on, when you said there would still be large gaps. My irl supervision interactions all involve supervisor replacing supervisees PoLR, and it feeding 4d right into supervisees 4d to help the mental ring. I bought a house and asked SEE coworker to come see it, he gives me good Se info that is needed to do Fi-Ne even better.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

myst91 said:


> You overestimate the creative of the supervisor, actually. The supervisee having a global version of that function sometimes actually has the advantage in that area and can use it to rebuff the supervisor. Perhaps especially combined with the creative that is the weak Role of supervisor. This is my experience with ILEs. The only problem there is the ILE as supervisor usually doesn't easily take up that information either from me as supervisee. It has happened though that they eventually listened to me.
> 
> Also, I hardly absorb most of what the supervisor says, it takes a long time to process the PoLR information, just like Figure explained. So you have a very misleading picture of supervision if you think that the supervisee has no filters against the information from the supervisor. It is actually quite the opposite - there are filters that are too strong against easily absorbing the information coming from supervisor.


There seems to be this thing when the person is almost not _aware_ of the realm of the PoLR. So you might get corrected by this function, your supervisor lead function, but you would never have had get it unless being told about it. So you kinda reject the idea that you did wrong based on that function realm but when you dubble check with your HA or other function you realize there is truth to it. Along those lines. So ye, by that logic I agree with you that the information from the supervisor lead function does not get directly 'transfered' to the supervised. :emptiness:


----------



## INTJcuriosity (Sep 8, 2014)

I'm an ILI. I'm not going to get all socion here. One of my best friends is my supervisor, and we both learn much with each other. We have dramatically changed the views of each other about important issues: she made me believe in people, and she made me see religion as a potentially good thing. I changed her view on… (sorry guys, I'm not a native speaker and I'm not really awake right now, I don't remember how to write it even in my own language hahaha).

But anyways, our friendship is awesome. We have a great ludos and philia.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh, the part you had quoted me on, when you said there would still be large gaps. My irl supervision interactions all involve supervisor replacing supervisees PoLR, and it feeding 4d right into supervisees 4d to help the mental ring. I bought a house and asked SEE coworker to come see it, he gives me good Se info that is needed to do Fi-Ne even better.


I don't see how friendships helps close those gaps. ?

Trust or what?

I still don't think it counts as actually absorbing the information, unfortunately, in your SEE example either.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> There seems to be this thing when the person is almost not _aware_ of the realm of the PoLR. So you might get corrected by this function, your supervisor lead function, but you would never have had get it unless being told about it. So you kinda reject the idea that you did wrong based on that function realm but when you dubble check with your HA or other function you realize there is truth to it. Along those lines. So ye, by that logic I agree with you that the information from the supervisor lead function does not get directly 'transfered' to the supervised. :emptiness:


Yes, it's like that.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

INTJcuriosity said:


> I'm an ILI. I'm not going to get all socion here. One of my best friends is my supervisor, and we both learn much with each other. We have dramatically changed the views of each other about important issues: she made me believe in people, and she made me see religion as a potentially good thing. I changed her view on… (sorry guys, I'm not a native speaker and I'm not really awake right now, I don't remember how to write it even in my own language hahaha).
> 
> But anyways, our friendship is awesome. We have a great ludos and philia.


How did you absorb the Fe? I'm really curious if you can get into details on how she convinced you on those things you listed.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I don't see how friendships helps close those gaps. ?
> 
> Trust or what?
> 
> I still don't think it counts as actually absorbing the information, unfortunately, in your SEE example either.


What "gap" are you talking about? Information goes Leading -> Creative -> Role -> Vulnerable -> Leading. It can enter at any point. When it goes from Vulnerable to Leading, your leading is being fed 1D information. Supervisor allows you to feed your leading 4D information. 

E.g., "I don't know what I should do with this Se junk, and I don't want it to stop my Fi junk." "Here's some 4D Se information that your 1D Se didn't consider. It doesn't stop the Fi you mentioned."

Real world: Walk SEE around my new house. He tells me "those brown spots" are from chinch bugs that kill grass. I go, ohhhh okay. Then he tells me there's some in front yard too he noticed. Then he tells me I should get some pesticide. I say I don't have money because I just bought a house. He says it's like $5 at the store and that will last for years of treatments. Then he tells me that if I don't kill them, they will eat up my whole yard. *shrug* certainly don't want to have a giant bug breeding ground in my back yard, would make the neighbors mad and my kids and neices wouldn't be able to play in it


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> What "gap" are you talking about? Information goes Leading -> Creative -> Role -> Vulnerable -> Leading. It can enter at any point. When it goes from Vulnerable to Leading, your leading is being fed 1D information. Supervisor allows you to feed your leading 4D information.
> 
> E.g., "I don't know what I should do with this Se junk, and I don't want it to stop my Fi junk." "Here's some 4D Se information that your 1D Se didn't consider. It doesn't stop the Fi you mentioned."
> 
> Real world: Walk SEE around my new house. He tells me "those brown spots" are from chinch bugs that kill grass. I go, ohhhh okay. Then he tells me there's some in front yard too he noticed. Then he tells me I should get some pesticide. I say I don't have money because I just bought a house. He says it's like $5 at the store and that will last for years of treatments. Then he tells me that if I don't kill them, they will eat up my whole yard. *shrug* certainly don't want to have a giant bug breeding ground in my back yard, would make the neighbors mad and my kids and neices wouldn't be able to play in it


You mentioned it originally: "Supervisor has globality over supervisee PoLR. Should be able to match the PoLR well enough to communicate without gaps to the supervisee, if a friend, otherwise, not much the supervisee can do to stop him"

Also, I think you do not understand what it means to actually absorb the information vs following advice from the supervisor while not really knowing what to do with the information on your own.


----------



## INTJcuriosity (Sep 8, 2014)

myst91 said:


> How did you absorb the Fe? I'm really curious if you can get into details on how she convinced you on those things you listed.


Well… My mother is an ISFJ (mbti, never typed her in socionics), so I got used to the Fe. That's one point. I cannot explain how a "absorbed" the Fe because I don't know, in fact, I didn't notice it "attacking" my PoLr (and yes, I'm sure she's an ENFj). I'm newbe in model A (I don't even understand it yet), but, I think you can use this analogy (if I'm wrong correct me please): the same one it is not enough to meet your dual, the "amazing feeling" of duality relationships need the dualization (the pairing in the functions); I think her dom Fe didn't paired with my PoLr. However, again, I came back to my mother, HER Fe is very strong and attacks my PoLr almost constantly. I have another very amazing friendship with an INFp. I might jus got numb because of my mom, so I'm okay of other people using their Fe with me.

For your curiosity: the believe in people part is fun, because she doesn't believe in people and in humanity. But she showed me there are still good people, at least one (hahahaha). She's very amazing in a lot of senses (for you to have an idea: one of her "hobbies" is changing parts of her personality she considers not to be good. Here I'll introduce the second stuff she convinced me: her "good" is a very christian good, she's adventist). 
I use to say one of the pillars of her personality is her religion. For me, that's enough to convince religion may be good. This is, however, not even a good approximation about what happened. I can only say that it happened something like a bridge between our Ni's and she 'telepathically' showed me something cannot be transcribed into words (neither images).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Captain Mclain said:


> The supervisee absorb what the supervisor say without any filter of defence and can not evaluate the information.


I don't agree with this. I am in constant mode of evaluating of what others tell me, including my socionics "supervisors", and I've found many lapses in their arguments. All it takes is some critical thought and consideration.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

cyamitide said:


> I don't agree with this. I am in constant mode of evaluating of what others tell me, including my socionics "supervisors", and I've found many lapses in their arguments. All it takes is some critical thought and consideration.


He meant "in regards to PoLR element." Reverse supervision is placing supervisee 4D and 3D vs supervisor 3D and 2D, respectively.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> You mentioned it originally: "Supervisor has globality over supervisee PoLR. Should be able to match the PoLR well enough to communicate without gaps to the supervisee, if a friend, otherwise, not much the supervisee can do to stop him"
> 
> Also, I think you do not understand what it means to actually absorb the information vs following advice from the supervisor while not really knowing what to do with the information on your own.


Thought I replied to this. There is no difference in the last paragraph. You are imagining such and using semantics as your sole validation. "Taking advice" is no different in information transfer than "absorbing."


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Jeremy8419 said:


> He meant "in regards to PoLR element." Reverse supervision is placing supervisee 4D and 3D vs supervisor 3D and 2D, respectively.


Supervision is always "in regards to the PoLR element", outside of the context to that reply. The supervisee doesn't entirely listen and trust the supervisor. They may either block the information (reverse supervision) or change and adapt it to own quadra (direct supervision). The supervisee never absorbs the information coming from the supervisor in it's entirely - in such a case, supervisee's own quadra won't be able to assimilate it.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> I don't agree with this. I am in constant mode of evaluating of what others tell me, including my socionics "supervisors", and I've found many lapses in their arguments. All it takes is some critical thought and consideration.


What is your type?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

cyamitide said:


> Supervision is always "in regards to the PoLR element", outside of the context to that reply. The supervisee doesn't entirely listen and trust the supervisor. They may either block the information (reverse supervision) or change and adapt it to own quadra (direct supervision). The supervisee never absorbs the information coming from the supervisor in it's entirely - in such a case, supervisee's own quadra won't be able to assimilate it.


This is incorrect. The last sentence is false. Supervision exists to assimilate into own Quadra.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

INTJcuriosity said:


> I'm newbe in model A (I don't even understand it yet), but, I think you can use this analogy (if I'm wrong correct me please): the same one it is not enough to meet your dual, the "amazing feeling" of duality relationships need the dualization (the pairing in the functions);


The same what?




> I think her dom Fe didn't paired with my PoLr. However, again, I came back to my mother, HER Fe is very strong and attacks my PoLr almost constantly. I have another very amazing friendship with an INFp. I might jus got numb because of my mom, so I'm okay of other people using their Fe with me.


Numb, so you mean you don't always pay attention to the Fe information?




> For your curiosity: the believe in people part is fun, because she doesn't believe in people and in humanity. But she showed me there are still good people, at least one (hahahaha). She's very amazing in a lot of senses (for you to have an idea: one of her "hobbies" is changing parts of her personality she considers not to be good. Here I'll introduce the second stuff she convinced me: her "good" is a very christian good, she's adventist).
> I use to say one of the pillars of her personality is her religion. For me, that's enough to convince religion may be good. This is, however, not even a good approximation about what happened. I can only say that it happened something like a bridge between our Ni's and she 'telepathically' showed me something cannot be transcribed into words (neither images).


OK so why is it Fe and not Fi for you?




Jeremy8419 said:


> He meant "in regards to PoLR element." Reverse supervision is placing supervisee 4D and 3D vs supervisor 3D and 2D, respectively.


Just because of the differences in dimensionality it doesn't mean all information is going to be accepted let alone absorbed.




Jeremy8419 said:


> Thought I replied to this. There is no difference in the last paragraph. You are imagining such and using semantics as your sole validation. "Taking advice" is no different in information transfer than "absorbing."


You have no idea what you're talking about. They are different, very much. You cannot claim it's semantics. Nope. You are the one imagining things.




cyamitide said:


> Supervision is always "in regards to the PoLR element", outside of the context to that reply. The supervisee doesn't entirely listen and trust the supervisor. They may either block the information (reverse supervision) or change and adapt it to own quadra (direct supervision). The supervisee never absorbs the information coming from the supervisor in it's entirely - in such a case, supervisee's own quadra won't be able to assimilate it.


Exactly.




Jeremy8419 said:


> This is incorrect. The last sentence is false. Supervision exists to assimilate into own Quadra.


No, not false, it matches experience.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> The same what?
> 
> Numb, so you mean you don't always pay attention to the Fe information?
> 
> ...


It is all information transfer. There is only information transfer. That's it. You are creating divisions that don't exist to validate your discrepancies with socionics.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It is all information transfer. There is only information transfer. That's it. You are creating divisions that don't exist to validate your discrepancies with socionics.


Don't make up bullshit about why I think what I think.

These divisions do exist. You can take advice without understanding it and you can take it while fully understanding it. If you don't recognize this difference then I don't know what to say about your mental state.

And it is not a discrepancy, it matches perfectly what socionics says about supervision. Certain socionics sources anyway, clearly your source is saying the opposite.

I will believe the one I actually experienced. Simple as that.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Don't make up bullshit about why I think what I think.
> 
> These divisions do exist. You can take advice without understanding it and you can take it while fully understanding it. If you don't recognize this difference then I don't know what to say about your mental state.
> 
> ...


You just made another one: Takings vs understanding.

With what Socionics says? None of the schools say that.

4D has globality. It can match any specific 1D.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> You just made another one: Takings vs understanding.


No, this is the same one I talked about above.




> With what Socionics says? None of the schools say that.


Supervision - Wikisocion

Says it here just fine.




> 4D has globality. It can match any specific 1D.


Does not mean the 1D has to be unconditionally receptive and able to take it up and process it.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> No, this is the same one I talked about above.
> 
> Supervision - Wikisocion
> 
> ...


You need new sources.

In supervision, the supervisor gets his cross-Quadra information from the same type he is giving it to. It's a circle.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> You need new sources.
> 
> In supervision, the supervisor gets his cross-Quadra information from the same type he is giving it to. It's a circle.


I don't care about your sources. I check things against experience so experience is first and that's what I make sense of, eventually. That supervision ring thing always smelled of bs to me.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I don't care about your sources. I check things against experience so experience is first and that's what I make sense of, eventually. That supervision ring thing always smelled of bs to me.


Probably because you can't reconcile the concept with your type and the people you know.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Probably because you can't reconcile the concept with your type and the people you know.


No it's more than that. Other fundamental problems with the idea. And stop guessing about my thinking.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> No it's more than that. Other fundamental problems with the idea. And stop guessing about my thinking.


I'm not guessing anything. You're trying to pick and choose which parts of mainstream socionics are correct, because you can't make all the pieces fit compared to your typing of yourself and others. If both of the groups of typing were correct, they would align with Socionics, but instead you have to use modified western versions of socionics.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'm not guessing anything. You're trying to pick and choose which parts of mainstream socionics are correct, because you can't make all the pieces fit compared to your typing of yourself and others. If both of the groups of typing were correct, they would align with Socionics, but instead you have to use modified western versions of socionics.


You ARE guessing. You really cannot tell the difference between guessing in your head inside the clouds and seeing tangible reality? Oh well that Se PoLR of yours.

So let me tell you very clearly: you don't have the slightest fucking idea about what I think and why. That is not how I think about socionics theory, that would be a way too simplistic use of logic. Of course I check the theory by seeing how well it applies to reality but it's not as simple as your guess would have it.

Additionally, I am nowhere near as gullible as you are and so I do not believe that the theory is 100% correct. No model ever has been perfectly matching with reality. Not even in the hardest sciences. So how the fuck would the socionics model, western or russian or whatever, be different with regard to this. Lol.

Also, the theory has more speculative parts that are even less likely to be true and I can easily prove why they aren't, without having to refer to my own typing. I could go on about how off base you are here but this is enough.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> You ARE guessing.


No. You call it guessing, because I don't pick apart your threads and supply sources. Why? Because you don't have a reference point for your resources. There is no nexus which your stance branch from within Socionics. Your only nexus is your own feelings, from which you select various information from various sources, and create a situation that lets you and others be as you desire, with no work or external validity involved.



> You really cannot tell the difference between guessing in your head inside the clouds and seeing tangible reality?


Tangible reality? So your behaviors aren't tangible reality, but your statements about yourself are tangible reality, even though there is no way for anyone to verify the accuracy and honesty of your words?



> Oh well that Se PoLR of yours.


You use Se and PoLR incorrectly. You need to stop using both of these terms.



> So let me tell you very clearly: you don't have the slightest fucking idea about what I think and why. That is not how I think about socionics theory, that would be a way too simplistic use of logic. Of course I check the theory by seeing how well it applies to reality but it's not as simple as your guess would have it.


I suppose you think that behaviors and cognition exist separately from each other, as well. It's very convenient that you say that the only form of proof exists within your own mind. Everything outside of that is mutable, indefinite, and altered from the true, factual reality: Your mind.



> Additionally, I am nowhere near as gullible as you are and so I do not believe that the theory is 100% correct. No model ever has been perfectly matching with reality. Not even in the hardest sciences.


You simply don't understand the root theory. It connects interpersonal relationships of individuals to a theory of the mind. The first is the actual evidence, and the second is a model based upon the evidence. If the ITR's do not match, then the TIM of the individual's in question are wrong. The TIM's are classifications within Socionics' theory of the mind, and are determined by individuals' behaviors and behaviors between individuals'. If you do not agree with what your behaviors place your TIM as in Socionics, then you disagree with the theory of the mind in model A, as you can not disagree with your behaviors and be sane.



> So how the fuck would the socionics model, western or russian or whatever, be different with regard to this. Lol.


One is Socionics and one is some kids derping on the internet to explain why they are emo and it's the world's fault that they don't go outside?



> Also, the theory has more speculative parts that are even less likely to be true and I can easily prove why they aren't, without having to refer to my own typing. I could go on about how off base you are here but this is enough.


Odd... You say I am wrong earlier due to "Se PoLR," while using both element and function wrong, yet you have absolute faith in your Fe. Your cognition is Fe. There is no difference between thought and emotions.

Because Socionics is the connection between behaviors and cognition, you cannot disprove anything regarding ITR nor any of the behaviors displayed, without the assumption that the TIM you have chosen for yourself and others you know is correct; however, since the TIM is a theory of the mind and cannot be proven, you have no way to judge whether the theory of the mind is correct or not. Instead of accepting verifiable evidence of yourself and others, and placing them into the TIM's in a way that is consistent, you place the unverifiable information as paramount over verifiable evidence. Why? Because you don't understand people well enough to place them into the theory without confliction with your personal desires.

You can't argue with reality. Your beef is with Model A, not ITR's.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> No. You call it guessing, because I don't pick apart your threads and supply sources. Why? Because you don't have a reference point for your resources. There is no nexus which your stance branch from within Socionics. Your only nexus is your own feelings, from which you select various information from various sources, and create a situation that lets you and others be as you desire, with no work or external validity involved.


First of all, I repeat, you stop guessing about how I think or I will just continue calling you an idiot.

So. You're ridiculous. Just because you yourself may pick based on your feelings, it does not mean other people do this. You don't have the slightest fucking idea about how I evaluate things. Also, I did not request sources from you so I don't see why you are bringing that up, again you are just guessing that I wanted sources. I actually already stated that I don't need your sources.




> Tangible reality? So your behaviors aren't tangible reality, but your statements about yourself are tangible reality, even though there is no way for anyone to verify the accuracy and honesty of your words?


What behaviours?...

Rhetorical question.




> You use Se and PoLR incorrectly. You need to stop using both of these terms.


Nah. Wtf.





> I suppose you think that behaviors and cognition exist separately from each other, as well. It's very convenient that you say that the only form of proof exists within your own mind. Everything outside of that is mutable, indefinite, and altered from the true, factual reality: Your mind.


No, I don't think any of that and I never stated so. Wtf.




> You simply don't understand the root theory. It connects interpersonal relationships of individuals to a theory of the mind. The first is the actual evidence, and the second is a model based upon the evidence. If the ITR's do not match, then the TIM of the individual's in question are wrong.


How about you try all 16 types for someone and the acquaintances of that someone and the ITR still doesn't work out perfectly?

That will be because there are other factors affecting things outside socionics.

And me being skeptical about aspects of the theory does not mean I don't understand it. If anything, it actually indicates deeper understanding ;p




> The TIM's are classifications within Socionics' theory of the mind, and are determined by individuals' behaviors and behaviors between individuals'. If you do not agree with what your behaviors place your TIM as in Socionics, then you disagree with the theory of the mind in model A, as you can not disagree with your behaviors and be sane.


No, you got this the wrong way around; you do not simply deduce cognition from behaviour. As behaviour can be caused by non-socionics factors as well. Cognition can influence behaviour but causation cannot be turned around in this fashion.




> One is Socionics and one is some kids derping on the internet to explain why they are emo and it's the world's fault that they don't go outside?


You are going off tangents. Irrelevant.

You completely failed to comprehend and address the issues I brought up.




> Odd... You say I am wrong earlier due to "Se PoLR," while using both element and function wrong, yet you have absolute faith in your Fe. Your cognition is Fe. There is no difference between thought and emotions.


Again, you are going off tangents that are completely irrelevant. I warn you: I do not have the slightest inclination anymore to try and figure out why you mention these tangents. You either go by clear logical links or you do not, in which case I don't care to put in any mental energy to try and follow you.




> Because Socionics is the connection between behaviors and cognition


No. Logic fail on your part. 




> You cannot disprove anything regarding ITR nor any of the behaviors displayed, without the assumption that the TIM you have chosen for yourself and others you know is correct; however, since the TIM is a theory of the mind and cannot be proven, you have no way to judge whether the theory of the mind is correct or not.


Fuck off with your solipsist bullshit. This is crazy intellectual dishonesty here.




> Instead of accepting verifiable evidence of yourself and others, and placing them into the TIM's in a way that is consistent, you place the unverifiable information as paramount over verifiable evidence. Why? Because you don't understand people well enough to place them into the theory without confliction with your personal desires.


You are being ridiculous again assuming that I go by my personal desires when typing people.

I get what you mean by using verifiable evidence here, however the unfortunate reality is that it does not all neatly match up according to every little thing in the theory, which is especially true in the case of the more speculative parts.

Note that I am not talking about my own type here, I am talking about people in general, people who have nothing to do with me.




> You can't argue with reality. Your beef is with Model A, not ITR's.


I do not have a beef with Model A or ITR. I simply don't agree with every written word automatically.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Also, I'm done with this "discussion", it's pointless trying to converse with you. @Jeremy8419


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Also, I'm done with this "discussion", it's pointless trying to converse with you. @Jeremy8419


Odd.. You are Ti base, and yet you sound identical to others in your long rant...


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Odd.. You are Ti base, and yet you sound identical to others in your long rant...


We should call this _The Jeremy Effect_. :laughing:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

The_Wanderer said:


> We should call this _The Jeremy Effect_. :laughing:


Potentially. I can move people to stuff.

What you quoted was what I knew a bit over a week ago, and decided to find out. The differences between some individuals is negligible at best.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Potentially. I can move people to stuff.


You know how to lose friends and annoy people, I'll agree to that.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

The_Wanderer said:


> You know how to lose friends and annoy people, I'll agree to that.


Well, I'm not here to make friends lol.

That and "wahhhhhhhhh!!!! You don't know me! You don't know how I think/feel! I'm different! My stuff is special! That's why I have to stay on internet instead of putting in effort! You can't possibly understand!" annoys the crap put of me. There is no exit from the internally spinning laziness.


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, I'm not here to make friends lol.
> 
> That and "wahhhhhhhhh!!!! You don't know me! You don't know how I think/feel! *I'm different! My stuff is special! That's why I have to stay on internet instead of putting in effort!* You can't possibly understand!" annoys the crap put of me. There is no exit from the internally spinning laziness.


Are you talking about yourself?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Odd.. You are Ti base, and yet you sound identical to others in your long rant...


The fuck are you talking about? Be clear instead of vague hinting.




The_Wanderer said:


> We should call this _The Jeremy Effect_. :laughing:


You mean him pissing people off?




Jeremy8419 said:


> Potentially. I can move people to stuff.
> 
> What you quoted was what I knew a bit over a week ago, and decided to find out. The differences between some individuals is negligible at best.


The fuck are you talking about, again?




Jeremy8419 said:


> That and "wahhhhhhhhh!!!! You don't know me! You don't know how I think/feel! I'm different! My stuff is special! That's why I have to stay on internet instead of putting in effort! You can't possibly understand!" annoys the crap put of me. There is no exit from the internally spinning laziness.


My head hurts seeing you go off tangents like this. How the fuck is this related to anything discussed so far?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

selena87 said:


> Are you talking about yourself?


Nope, just filling in for people's lack of parental attention.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> The fuck are you talking about? Be clear instead of vague hinting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You whine about democracy a lot.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> You whine about democracy a lot.


Wtf? I've no idea what lines of mine you imagined this into.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> You know how to lose friends and annoy people, I'll agree to that.


I kinda wish I didn't give a damn what other people think as much as Jeremy doesn't... but at the same time, I hate the thought of being so adamantly wrong all the time.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> I kinda wish I didn't give a damn what other people think as much as Jeremy doesn't... but at the same time, I hate the thought of being so adamantly wrong all the time.


It's plausible that others on here aren't healthy. The ones I get along with fairly well all have the same commonalties: Functioning adults in society. To "cut the crap," 18+ or not, most people on here seem like kids who need to get off the internet and go outside so they can interact enough to grow up. So, "wrong" is a matter of context. If whiny, self-absorbed children on the internet preach about how "wrong" I am, they really just remind me of kids who adamantly protest that their parents don't know what they are talking about, because they are children and don't realize their parents are simultaneously former children, as the children are now, AND adults. This is why it doesn't bother me in the least.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Wtf? I've no idea what lines of mine you imagined this into.


Jeremy: (says some stuff about ITRs being accurate to general population)
Jeremy: (says some stuff saying that individuality can't be ignored)
Myst: ! Did you say individuality? Do you really mean that?!
Jeremy: Of course individuality. I don't know or care about my gf's type.
Myst: (Thanks post. Gets a girly little smile on her face, pats herself on the back, because individuality got confirmation for her worldview)
Myst: (Proceeds to be Jeremy's psychological toy for weeks)


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's plausible that others on here aren't healthy. The ones I get along with fairly well all have the same commonalties: Functioning adults in society. To "cut the crap," 18+ or not, most people on here seem like kids who need to get off the internet and go outside so they can interact enough to grow up. So, "wrong" is a matter of context. If whiny, self-absorbed children on the internet preach about how "wrong" I am, they really just remind me of kids who adamantly protest that their parents don't know what they are talking about, because they are children and don't realize their parents are simultaneously former children, as the children are now, AND adults. This is why it doesn't bother me in the least.


Then there must be a few functioning adults in society who use this forum that you do not get along with so the theory you built here doesn't quite work out so well. 




Jeremy8419 said:


> Jeremy: (says some stuff about ITRs being accurate to general population)
> Jeremy: (says some stuff saying that individuality can't be ignored)
> Myst: ! Did you say individuality? Do you really mean that?!
> Jeremy: Of course individuality. I don't know or care about my gf's type.
> ...


I recall the gf type conversation, it was me checking Entropic's claim if you are really Ti valuing over Fi valuing. I find it quite entertaining that -due to your not knowing this was my motivation when I asked you about your thoughts there- you got so lost guessing so wrong about me and my worldview. 

It is no longer annoying, it's more pathetic now that I see how it works for you.

You are really disconnected from reality. End of discussion with you. I was just bored enough anyway to sink down to the level of arguing with you.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Then there must be a few functioning adults in society who use this forum that you do not get along with so the theory you built here doesn't quite work out so well.


Nope.



> I recall the gf type conversation, it was me checking Entropic's claim if you are really Ti valuing over Fi valuing.
> 
> You are really disconnected from reality.


That's democracy vs aristocracy, not Ti vs Fi.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Nope.


I'm not arguing with someone like you, anymore, as I said above.




> That's democracy vs aristocracy, not Ti vs Fi.


Well my intention was checking for Ti vs Fi and that was the point.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I'm not arguing with someone like you, anymore, as I said above
> Well my intention was checking for Ti vs Fi and that was the point.


Well, then you've learned something now. Your question applied to aristocracy vs democracy, not Ti vs Fi.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, then you've learned something now. Your question applied to aristocracy vs democracy, not Ti vs Fi.


I was never interested in anything you say because you never make logical sense, so no I'm not learning a thing from you. Let alone building it into my worldview.. lol what pathetic delusion is that from your part. I'm still laughing at that post of yours. So you can stop jerking off at your delusion.


----------

