Page 1 of 1

Relationships of Supervision

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:20 pm
by Kittykat
Would a relationship of supervision be better if the supervisor had a subtype towards the dominant function of his supervisee? For example, LII-Ne supervising IEE, IEE-Fi supervising ESI, etc?

Re: Relationships of Supervision

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:42 am
by RSV3
Kittykat wrote:Would a relationship of supervision be better if the supervisor had a subtype towards the dominant function of his supervisee? For example, LII-Ne supervising IEE, IEE-Fi supervising ESI, etc?


best supervisory subtype pairs:
Any IM subtype paired to it's identical subtype (e.g., an Ne subtype paired with another Ne subtype)


average supervisory subtype pairs:

Ti with Ne or Se
Fi with Ne or Se
Te with Ni or Si
Fe with Ni or Si


and poor supervisory subtype pairs:

A Ti subtype paired with a Fi subtype
A Fe subtype paired with a Te subtype
A Ne subtype paired with a Se subtype
A Si subtype paired with a Ni subtype

This ordering is derived from one of the primary determinants of intertype compatibility: how much overlap of valued IMs is there between the two people. For example, with a Ne subtype paired with another Ne subtype, there will be substantial overlap of valued elements because both people with deeply value Ne and Si. Additionally, the pressure on the supervisee's PoLR will be somewhat alleviated due to the decreased strength of the supervisor's base function.

On the other hand, with a Ne and Se subtype pairing, there will be very little overlap of valued elements (there will be a small overlap at the Ti/Fe axis), thus resulting in less compatibility. Additionally, the pressure on the supervisee's PoLR function becomes more severe due to an increased strength (and probable use) of the supervisor's base function.

Re: Relationships of Supervision

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:33 pm
by malyshka
It's best if they are both leading function or both creative function subtype. Examples: LII-Ne + IEE-Fi ; ILI-Te + LSE-Si. Then the supervision works as expected.

I've just witnessed a conversation between an EII-Ne girl and an ILE-Ne girl. The EII-Ne was getting really frustrated with the ILE-Ne's statements ("what she says is maddening!" - in her own words) because the ILE-Ne was creating too much ambiguity and confusion for the EII-Ne. Having the same accented function seems to be a let-down in a supervision relationship. This EII-Ne girls seems calmer around ILE-Tis.

It seems like if the supervisor is creative subtype and supervisee is leading subtype (ex. LIE-Ni and IEI-Ni), the supervisor doesn't seem to have much interest in the supervisee and considers them to be almost redundant or superfluous, because the supervisor can accomplish the same thing on their own creative function and seemingly even better. The supervisee may feel themselves to be redundant and unneeded, too, in the presence of such supervisor. So they don't really click together.

In the supervisor is of leading function subtype and the supervisee is of creative function subtype (ex. IEI-Ni and ESE-Si) it seems like it's the supervisee who sees their supervisor as being too boring and unnecessary in this case. The supervisee also seems to have more control in this relationship, to take it or leave it, and is fully capable of putting some pressure on supervisor's role function, even driving them away in case of conflict or argument. Here the supervisor doesn't have strong enough supervision effect to keep their supervisee interested in themselves, so they don't click together strongly.