Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Supervision
¶
See also
Supervision observations
Back to
Intertype relations
Introduction
¶
Supervision
, also called relations of
audit
or
revision
, is
an
asymmetric relation
in which one partner, the
supervisor
, also called the
auditor
or
revisor
, is in a more powerful position psychologically than the
other, the
supervisee
, also called the
audited
or
revised
.
This is due to the correlation of partners’ functions, which allows the
supervisor to put more psychological pressure on the supervisee through
his leading function than vice versa. Typically, the supervisee feels
somewhat wary or careful about his words when approaching a supervisor.
This innate wariness can develop into a full-fledged supervision
“syndrome” if given the right conditions, or it can remain at a
manageable level if neither person is in a position of power over the
other, and partners do not overstep the natural bounds of the
relationship.
Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the
supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which
is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by
the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a
by-product of more important pursuits. Common ground can also be reached
through the suggestive function of the supervisee, which is the valued
mobilizing function of the supervisor. However, both are weak in this
area and tend to only discuss their pursuits rather than actually doing
them together.
The supervisor is usually interested in what the supervisee does and
says, but at the same time feels like it is often in need of
modification or reformulation from the point of view of his
leading function
. Because this reframing of issues
corresponds to their
vulnerable function
, the
supervisee may often feel frustrated with the supervisor’s statements.
If the supervisee begins to argue with the supervisor, the differences
of viewpoint may quickly become more personal when the supervisor points
out perceived ‘flaws’ in the supervisee’s thinking style or way of doing
things. Such comments are usually not intended to be damning criticism
from the supervisor’s point of view, but may well be interpreted as such
by the supervisee, due to the inherent sensitivity of the vulnerable
function. If they live together, the supervisee may find he can never
live up to the supervisor’s expectations or achieve his genuine
appreciation. For a working relationship or friendship to work, the
supervisor must exercise discipline and avoid commenting on the
supervisee’s weak points as he sees them.
Though the supervisee’s discomfort can become quite intense, it is often
not evident at first glance. He will usually only talk about it with
closer friends, finding it difficult to express to the supervisor
without sounding childish. To the supervisor it will appear that the
supervisee is overreacting. In the romantic sphere, the supervisor often
finds the supervisee’s use of his
demonstrative function
alluring, but will ultimately be
unsatisfied with its sporadic nature. The supervisee in turn sees the
supervisor as an admirable but somewhat bewildering persona.
Descriptions by various authors
¶
Valentina Meged, Anatoly Ovcharov
This is one of the most difficult types of relationships in which there
is no equality. At first the revisee suffers more from obstinacy and
uncompromising attitude of the revisor, who is convinced in his
rightness. Revisee feels that the partner is dissatisfied with him and
is seeking to re-educate him, imposing his own values. In response,
revisee begins to monitor each slip that the revisor makes, proving to
him that he is not without sin. Mutual allegations and uncompromising
attitude can destroy their relations.
At best, the partners appreciate each other for the ability to solve
what would be a difficult problem for the other. In these relations
understanding exists as long as the revisor does not show excessive
adherence to his principles, which will hurt the revisee. Then the
revisee may start to avoid communication with the revisor, or may start
to pick on him. To the revisor the revisee seems slow-witted, or
deliberately trying to avoid his responsibilities. A desire arises to
help the revisee, to teach him something. However, the partner resists
accepting such advice and demands, thereby causing confusion and even
anger in the revisor. Talking over all the grievances can escalate into
open conflict, in which case the other person’s complaints will seem
unfounded, while their shortcoming will be exaggerated.
If the revisor ceases attempts to re-educate the revisee and allows room
for compromise, and the revisee stops picking through the shortcomings
of the revisor, these relations can be stimulating and fruitful. Only
both need to remember that it is the revisor who sets the tone in this
relationship, and the revisee is the follower. The leader must be
humane, but the led should not put claims to leadership to keep
relations in a positive tone.
One cannot underestimate the potential for the application of Socionics
in personal life, and in other areas, such as in medicine.
Unfortunately, for many physicians it remains a mystery why, despite the
success of the surgery or treatment, some patients for a long time are
unable to recover. This is often so because they are roomed with people
who suppress them in communication which is morally depressing.
Hopefully, the knowledge of the fundamentals of Socionics will help
future generations in building more harmonious relationships in a more
harmonious society.
O.B. Slinko, “The key to heart - Socionics”
Much more strict are the relations of social control or audit.
Supervisor’s dominant function coincides with Supervisee’s most
vulnerable and painful function. However, in contrast to the relations
of conflict, this situation is not symmetric. Supervisor can monitor
every step the Supervisee takes, while Supervisee is powerless to resist
this influence: all of his strong features “drown” in the appropriate
function of the Supervisor. Supervisee tries to resist and even to fight
back: puts on a show of deliberate crudeness, orders the Supervisor
around, gives him assignments. Things may even progress to use of
physical force. In this manner, Supervisee can create a lot of problems
for the Supervisor, but the effect in the opposite direction is much
more devastating. Close and prolonged contact with one’s Supervisor, for
example, in a family situation, can have dire consequences for the
Supervisee, even the development of mental illness. In more favorable
cases, namely when the communication in the audit pair is short and both
people keep some distance, or if the Supervisor knowingly “disables” own
leading function, he may then seem to the Supervisee to be a person
worthy of respect, but at the same time also instilling unease. From the
point of view of the Supervisor, Supervisee seems to be endowed with
great abilities, even talented, but also somehow deficient, “pathetic”,
and deserving of pity. The meaning of these relations, apparently, lies
in the execution of social order. If you pass your social order to
certain type (relations of benefit), then you are also the Supervisor of
this type’s Dual.
R.K. Sedih, “Information psychoanalysis”
These IV, we shall investigate as a combination of quasi-identical and
mirror relations. By the way, here again we are dealing with a change
order of functions within a block, compared with just described IV. This
makes these relations much more strict.
C/O-Revision
Ego - Ego plus Superego. Although it is true that the more developed
both people are, the better their relations will be, but even in ideal
cases these relations are heavy if sustained for long periods of time,
especially in the absence of duals of both partners. The reason for this
is clear: partners look from the perspective of each other too critical,
too picky, too suspicious. Indeed, in these relations there is a
tendency to constantly test and re-test one another. People who are
forced to live together often become completely worn out by these
constant checks. Putting an end to this unpleasant process is often
difficult even for their duals. But as soon as the distance between them
is increased, partners stop causing unfounded suspicions in each other.
Subject to this condition, relations of Supervision are not much worse
than relations of Quasi-identity. Sometimes it can be quite fascinating,
so unexpected is the train of thought of the other person. Interaction
of SuperId - SuperId plus Id blocks presents its own problems. Despite
the sincere efforts of partners to help each other, however useful the
assistance offered, it is rarely accepted for the same reasons of
distrust. These two types are poorly suited for marriage. Collaboration
can be interesting, but it goes much easier in presence of Duals of each
partner and opportunities to take a break from each other.
E. Shepetko, “Descriptions of intertype relations”
This is an asymmetric relation, so the description below is from the
point of view of the supervisee.
“Your supervisor is your conscience” - this is what characterizes this
relationship. Supervisee listens the voice of the supervisor, since he
or she can solve your unsolvable problems, alleviate or sharpen the
issues that concern you.
Supervisor is the type that can outwardly solve problems that are
internal to the supervisee. But these are conflicting relations, because
supervisor will openly discuss themes that are painful and private for
the supervisee, and demand that in which the supervisee is weak.
Supervisor will be picky in areas where supervisee needs to be left
alone.
But there is also a shade of understanding. The words and objectives of
supervisor are partially clear. The supervisee is able to see his point
of view. But these relations are asymmetric: you partially understand
him, but he does not understand you. For the supervisee, assistance from
the supervisor is entirely absent. This relationship can be called
one-sided conflict.
Laima Stankevichyute, “Intertype relations”
These are the type of relations where a person is most vulnerable and
unable to defend themselves. Supervisor, drawing from his first element,
frequently hits the third element of the supervisee. Supervisor speaks
in the most offensive to the supervisee words, but himself also doesn’t
feel well in these relations. Supervisee is persistently and
unconsciously annoying and frustrating his supervisor. Although they
both feel stressed, since this is an asymmetric relationship, the
supervisee suffers more.
I.D. Vaisband, publications on Socionics
One of the most dangerous types of relationships. People regularly hit
each others’ most painful areas . Both suffer from social control -
Supervisee constantly suffers from the Supervisor, but cannot “get back”
at him. Supervisor suffers as well and is annoyed by the Supervisee.
Supervisee feels extremely uncomfortable. The Supervisor seems picky to
the Supervisee and meticulous in a petty way, with a tendency to focus
exactly on the issues to which Supervisee would not want to draw
attention of others.
A.V. Bukalov, G. Boiko, “Why Saddam Hussein made a mistake, or what is
Socionics”
These are also asymmetrical relations, very deceptive and dangerous. One
partner is a social supervisor (auditor) for the other, who is called
the controlled (audited). These relations are characterized by the fact
that the auditor, as a rule, is always dissatisfied with the actions of
audited person. As soon as supervisee shows some initiative or expresses
a thought, he may feel bombarded with corrections and criticisms by the
supervisor or have them simply dismissed. At the same time, supervisee
cannot counter these charges - supervisor suppresses him. From his side,
supervisee sees the supervisor as a picky, petty, annoying person who
for some inexplicable reason is constantly dissatisfied. Supervisee gets
tired of all this and wants to leave. On the other hand, supervisee
thinks that may be supervisor is not such a bad person, and his quirks
can be endured. However, in this the supervisee is profoundly mistaken:
such suppression and control where the supervisor does not allow more
intelligence to the supervisee than he possesses himself leads to
permanent negative effects on the psyche and functioning of the
supervisee. As a result of this, supervisee can develop a variety of
neuroses and psychosomatic disorders. Very often there is willful
retreat into disease; the body finds a way out - when you are sick, you
will not be criticized. There are cases where supervisee picks up such
illnesses as asthma. At the same time, even though the supervisor
criticizes his partner, he feels some pity for him, believing that
supervisee will not be able to function without him. These relationships
are dangerous by the fact that unlike conflict relations, it is very
difficult to break them, but their effects on the person can be
deleterious.
Victor Gulenko, “Criteria of reciprocity”
Direct revision - fear of disorientation
Communication is attractive in that it gives you [as a supervisor] a
sense of own value based on feeling of a certain superiority over the
partner. Unjustified actions or statements on his part get involuntarily
repressed by you, as they seem to be unacceptable deviations from the
main goal. However, you also fear that the partner will be offended, so
you may try to restrain yourself. There is a desire to help him, to take
care of him. If your partner understands that your actions are not
caused by personal hostility, but by fear of disorientation, then he
will change his behavior in your desired direction. If not, then
relations may end.
Reverse revision - disorienting intervention
Partner is very appealing to their way of thinking and style of
behavior. From him comes information that is interesting and valuable to
you, but it seems incomplete and in need of clarification. When you
relay your corrections to the partner, a dispute usually starts, as a
result of which your criticisms will be taken into consideration, though
not immediately. If the partner is trying to shamelessly impose their
opinion on you, the relations can come to an end. However, if relations
have been established, partner develops a habit to contact you for
advice on matters in which you have demonstrated your competence.
The reader, perhaps, is surprised to see new types of intertype
relations -
reverse request and reverse supervision
. Two reasons
substantiate their existence. First, there should be sixteen types of
intertype relations, not fourteen as with Aushra (request-fulfillment as
audit-report are two sides of the same relation). Second, as was
demonstrated in practice, in involutionary rings of socioprogress the
rules are inverse, making benefit and supervision in involutionary and
evolutionary rings be different types of relations. If evolutionary
supervision consists of suppression of any deviations, then
involutionary supervision is demand for more precise formulations and
additions. (Involution / Evolution also called Process / Result is one
of
Reinin dichotomies
)
Binary attributes of intertype relationships
Balance is achieved only if the influence from outside world is limited.
It is only then that the educational effect, the impact of auditor on
internal world of the audited to change it, can be achieved.
Intervention from outside makes these relations simply intolerable.
In a well-functioning audit pair, neither the auditor nor the audited
make any sudden, unpredictable actions that can annul mutual agreements.
Opposite behavior is very destructive as it leads to mutual distrust.
Relations of revision promote discussions of issues over which there has
been disagreement, otherwise there is internal accumulation of problems.
When the problem is felt but ignored, this is the first sign of a future
outbreak of emotions.
Revision-minus strengthens the logical direction of thinking: revisee
seeks to control the logic of behavior of the auditor. All illogical
statements and actions do not slip by his attention. Revisee may feel
the need to expose inconsistencies of the auditor, to identify errors in
his reasoning.
Revision-plus is relations of hidden, internal feelings. Despite the
negative assessment of behavior of the partner, the revisor frequently
forgives his revisee, hoping to eventually “re-educate” him. Sudden
rebuff to actions of revisee is given only when he loses all shame and
behaves in unscrupulous manner. Auditor feels pity and sympathy for the
revisee. He alternates encouragement and suppression of revisee’s weak
function but without any thought-out system.
Revision-minus intensifies attentiveness and thoroughness. Revisee pays
a lot of attention to the details in the behavior of his auditor,
watches his almost every step, collects accurate information about him.
This revision disciplines a person, but at the same time narrows his
view.
Revision-plus is intuitive relations. Auditor is not able to control the
behavior of the audited in particular situations. He exerts effect on
the inner world of the audited only over long stretches of time,
changing his system of beliefs and common perceptions. This kind of
audit is felt on psychological rather than physical level. Its
educational effect - positive or negative - is realized only over long
period of time.
Revision is a process of painful jumps from one stable state to another.
Auditor is constantly imposing the same system of values and behaviors
on the audited, while the latter stubbornly resists. The ways he
counters the auditor remain virtually unchanged: finding faults and
mistakes in his judgments and actions. These relations require maximum
tolerance and humanity towards one another.
The auditor acting on and influencing the audited person, molds his
inner world to his own image. The audited while highly (albeit
critically) valuing the auditor seeks to attain similar inner qualities
as him. In the process of mutual control partners hone out an acceptable
pattern of behavior. Tensions of supervision relations reach a high
point, waver for a while, and then markedly diminish, which is
indicative that relations have entered the final phase - completed their
educational mission and lost their energy saturation.
Advice on getting along
These relations can progress in two ways. If the auditor is more active
and the audited is subordinate to him, then they assume an instructive,
educational character. If the audited is resisting the auditor, then
relations assume the character of criticism and control.
These relations are stable only if interactions are calm and balanced.
Avoid surprises, jointly plan your day, warn each other about any
changes in your plans. Any problems should be clarified directly and in
private, without eruptions of emotions.
The auditor must patiently relay the information to the audited, so that
the audited can calmly analyze it and make conclusions. If the audited
refers to the auditor with his personal problems, the auditor should
graciously comfort him and justify his behavior in difficult situations.
The auditor should try to defend him against outside attacks, take care
of him, to help him build relationships in the sphere where the auditor
is influential.
Take into account the critical attitude towards each other. The audited
criticizes the auditor not as a whole, but his specific action, while
forgiving him as a whole. The auditor, to the contrary, forgives the
audited specific flaws and actions, but criticizes his position or
beliefs as a whole.
V.V. Gulenko, A.V. Molodtsov, “Introduction to socionics”
This is a second type of asymmetric relations in the socion. Auditor as
if constantly monitors revisee, drawing attention to his weak spot. The
impression is that the auditor constantly wants to figure out what
revisee is doing and how he is doing it. Revisee often gets the
impression that he is being watched all the time alike a guinea pig.
However, this does not mean that the auditor always verbally points out
perceived shortcomings of revisee. Revisee internally feels that the
auditor can do so at any time and, therefore, initially in his presence
revisee exists in a state of tension. Auditor seems like a significant
person; how he acts deserves attention. Revisee wants to earn
recognition of the auditor, his praise is much appreciated.
However, the revisor always underestimates the revisee and perceives his
thoughts and actions as insignificant, which incites resentment in the
revisee. At first, revisee may be encouraged by this and want to prove
his usefulness to the auditor, but all attempts are unsuccessful. The
revisor seems smug and petty; he finds faults, tries to teach and
re-educate the revisee. Revisee seems interesting and capable, but he is
missing something and seems to require help and suggestions. However,
all advice proves useless; revisee does not accept it, which further
increases the desire of auditor to re-audit. Revisee seems stupid not
because he is unable (which is how it actually is), but simply because
it’s as if he does not want to listen. This periodically causes
frustration for the auditor. These relations may be called
“guardianship” of auditor over the audited, which can be very annoying
for the later. Sensing his vulnerability, revisee is inclined to make
attempts to escape this control, especially around other people: he
one-ups the auditor, tries to argue with him, gives him orders. However,
such attempts are fruitless. Auditor, as a rule, does not take offense
but continues with his re-education attempts. These relationships are
well illustrated by an analogy “mother-naughty child”. (Also see
Pygmalion project
.)
Sometimes supervision couple is very tightly knit together. This is
because both people can feel their social significance: the auditor as
the guardian or the benefactor, without whose care and guidance the
audited would be lost, and audited - as the object of care, whose value
is recognized in this way. In relations of benefit, this feeling is much
less expressed, because the benefactor does not make attempts to
re-educate his beneficiary.
Ekaterina Filatova, “Art of understanding yourself and others”
In this case, the functions of two people are positioned such that the
most powerful function of one (called the auditor) presses on vulnerable
function of the other (called the audited). But, in turn, the audited
does not have direct access to the weak function of the auditor.
Peculiarity of these relations is in their asymmetry, in that auditor,
not feeling any pressure on himself, can get close to the audited to a
dangerously close distance. Of course, he would have not attempted this
if these were relations of conflict, where the danger is felt both ways.
All 16 types have an auditor and an audited. Thus we get four rings of
supervision.
In principle, for each person it is natural to speak on those issues
where he directs most of his attention, especially if the circle of
these issues relate to his base function. People may express an interest
or indifference to his statements. But suppose that close to this man
was a person of his audited type … And it turns out that any harmless
remark is perceived with great sensitivity, that he takes it all too
close to heart, because here pressure is exerted on his vulnerable third
function.
Generally speaking, the closer the relationship, the more dangerous the
situation is. This is especially true for family relationships, where
communication takes place at very close distances. The process of
communication in such situations involves all functions, so that the
audit can be quite severe. When it is impossible to avoid such
communication the audited may even suffer mental illness. To author it
is known one case of a relatively prosperous family husband being LSI
and wife being SEE, where both people nevertheless learned to get along
with each other. Having studied socionics and realized the reasons for
their conflicts, they organized their lives in such a way that they can
periodically “rest” from each other: the husband obtained a job that
requires travel and leaves every three months left for business trips.
Even with such provisions, the wife (audited) feels heavy pressure from
her husband, but the issue of divorce in this family is not discussed.
Eugene Gorenko, Vladimir Tolstikov, “Nature of self”
Another version of the asymmetrical relationship. For Revisee they are
of a very unpleasant character. Revisee reacts to the slightest move of
his Revisor. At the same time, the Revisor usually has no idea about
such a strong effect of his behavior. For Revisee these relations are
perhaps even more painful than, for example, the relations of conflict.
Sergei Ganin
Heteroverted - Asymmetrical - Arrhythmical
These relations are also asymmetrical as are relations of Benefit. One
partner, called the Supervisor, is always in a more favorable position
in respect to the other partner who is known as Supervisee.
Relations of Supervision can give the impression that Supervisor is
constantly watching every step of the Supervisee. The latter usually
feels this control even if the Supervisor does not say or do anything.
The explanation for this is that the Supervisee weak point is
defenceless against the Supervisor’s strong point. This makes the
Supervisee nervous and expect the worse.
Although the Supervisor can seem self-satisfied, petty, faultfinding and
narrative, the Supervisee pays attention to their actions and considers
the Supervisor as consequential. 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 Supervisor sees the Supervisee as quite interesting and capable, but
incomplete and therefore in need of some help and advice. The Supervisee
does not respond to this aid as expected and this will often increase
the Supervisor’s attempts to change the Supervisee. 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.
In relations of Supervision it may also appear as if the Supervisor
patronises the Supervisee, which can be quite obtrusive for the latter.
When there are more than two people present, the Supervisee often
attempts to release themselves from the control of the Supervisor by
starting arguments for the sake of it or by attempting to manoeuvre
themselves into the commanding position. Unfortunately, these attempts
lead nowhere. The Supervisor may think instead that the Supervisee
simply requires more attention.
Supervision partners often look like good friends. The reason for this
is that in these relations both partners can sense their social value:
the Supervisor as a “guardian angel”, without whom the Supervisee will
get into trouble, and the Supervisee as the object of attention.
Supervision Rings
¶
Supervisor  Supervisee (e.g. SEI is the Supervisor of EIE, and so
forth.)
Left Ring of Supervision
These types are
Process
under the
Reinin dichotomies
.
SEI
->
EIE
->
ILI
->
LSE
->
SEI
…
ILE
->
LSI
->
SEE
->
EII
->
ILE
…
Right Ring of Supervision
These types are
Result <Result>
under the
Reinin dichotomies <Reinin_dichotomies>
.
LII
->
IEE
->
ESI
->
SLE
->
LII
…
ESE
->
SLI
->
LIE
->
IEI
->
ESE
…
Theoretical properties of supervision relations
¶
Types united in one ring of supervision share
Reinin dichotomies
of Static / Dynamic, Positivist /
Negativists, and Process / Result. This is further explored in the
article by Victor Gulenko
Forms of Cognition
.
Model A
¶
Supervisor: Functions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 reflect on functions 4, 1, 2, 3, 8, 5, 6, 7.
Supervisee: Functions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 reflect on functions 2, 3, 4, 1, 6, 7, 8, 5.
Functions of
Model A
¶
Partner 1
Partner 2
base function
vulnerable function
creative function
base function
role function
creative function
vulnerable function
role function
suggestive function
demonstrative function
mobilizing function
suggestive function
ignoring function
mobilizing function
demonstrative function
ignoring function
Reinin traits
¶
As with all non-identical types, supervision partners have exactly 7
Reinin traits
in common, with the remaining 8 not in
common.
If the supervisior is
rational
:
In Common
:
static and dynamic
·
positivist and negativist
·
process and result
·
sensing and intuition
·
yielding and obstinate
·
constructivist and emotivist
·
judicious and decisive
Not in Common
:
ethics and logic
·
carefree and farsighted
·
tactical and strategic
·
merry and serious
·
extraversion and introversion
·
rationality and irrationality
·
democratic and aristocratic
·
asking and declaring
If the supervisor is
irrational
:
In Common
:
static and dynamic
·
positivist and negativist
·
process and result
·
ethics and logic
·
carefree and farsighted
·
tactical and strategic
·
merry and serious
Not in Common
:
sensing and intuition
·
yielding and obstinate
·
constructivist and emotivist
·
judicious and decisive
·
extraversion and introversion
·
rationality and irrationality
·
democratic and aristocratic
·
asking and declaring
External links
¶
Relations of Supervision
by
Sergei Ganin