Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Benefit
¶
See also
Benefit observations
Back to
Intertype relations
Introduction
¶
Benefit
, also called relations of
request
or
social order
,
is an
asymmetric relation
in which the
type at higher level is called the
benefactor
(or
request
transmitter
) and the type at lower level is called the
beneficiary
(
request recipient
or
recipient of social order
).
Often, a mutual two-way yet asymmetric interest develops between people
in benefit relations. The person in role of the beneficiary admires the
person who is in role of benefactor. Benefactor’s abilities seem
impressive to the beneficiary from a distance. The manners, behavior,
and the way the benefactors holds himself seems attractive to the
beneficiary. Beneficiary comes to consider benefactor’s lifestyle and
values to be worthwhile. Sometimes, this admiration prompts the
beneficiary to attempt to over-identify with the benefactor to the
extent of typing them into identical type or typing themselves into
benefactor’s type.
In conversation, the beneficiary notices that the benefactor missing
information pertaining to the aspect of benefactor’s
activating function
. The benefactor’s conscious
attention seems to be shifted away from this aspect in favor of the
aspect of the creative function. The activating function is weak and
semi-conscious for the benefactor, yet for the beneficiary this is a
strong conscious
leading function
capable of high levels of discernment. Thus the beneficiary easily
notices benefactor’s inadequacy, mistakes, and omissions on the
activating aspect, to which the benefactor is usually oblivious. At
closer interaction, the beneficiary attempts to help the benefactor on
this aspect: inform and teach the benefactor, supply analyses and
assessments, make corrections, deliver prognoses, and so on. The
benefactor is interested in receiving information of this kind, since
the benefactor discovers that such advice helps them to resolve the
problems of their weak activating function. However, for the benefactor
this aspect is only of instrumental normative significance, and not a
global value, as it is for the beneficiary; the benefactor thus
sometimes makes irritated attempts to cut down what is viewed as
excessive help, obtrusive advice and lecturing coming from the
beneficiary. The benefactor will also “refine” information coming from
the beneficiary in accordance to benefactor’s own TIM and valued
information elements in benefactor’s quadrant, modify beneficiary’s
statements, or even outright reject some of them.
The benefactor are interested in receiving highly refined information on
their activating function, thus benefactors often take note of their
beneficiaries (as well as their literary, artistic, and musical works).
However, the benefactor also eventually takes note of the beneficiary’s
weak and unconscious
suggestive function
, which happens to be
benefactor’s strong and conscious creative function. The benefactor
tries to guide the beneficiary on this function, however, the
beneficiary doesn’t respond to this advice in the way the benefactor
expects (as benefactor’s dual type would respond): the beneficiary often
responds with delay, may follow through in unsatisfactory to benefactor
manner, or even brush benefactor’s suggestions aside considering them as
unnecessary on their own leading function. Due to this, the beneficiary
always appears to be somehow falling behind, making avoidable mistakes,
or even lacking and incapable to the benefactor. No matter how much
advice the benefactors gives, the beneficiary never seems to retain it
and build on it and continues to make the same omissions, or learns at a
catastrophically slow pace in benefactor’s view. The benefactor over
time may come to consider the beneficiary as incorrigible on this
aspect, “give up” on the beneficiary and decide to part ways, depending
on the state of their relations.
Since the beneficiary typically appreciates and admires benefactor’s
values and lifestyle, the beneficiary is often supportive of the
benefactor in implementation of benefactor’s ideas and values, treating
any of the benefactor’s suggestions as a call to action. This
realization of benefactor’s suggestions often comes unexpected to the
benefactor, since the benefactor has not directly requested the
beneficiary to do anything. Nevertheless, once the benefactor
consciously recognizes this support, the benefactor may become more
appreciative of the beneficiary. If the benefactor acknowledges and
positively evaluates beneficiary’s support, the benefactor is then
encouraged to continue with the relationship. The benefactor now sees
the beneficiary as the implementer of his or her own ideas and feels
hesitant to part ways and lose such a person. The impulse that mobilizes
the beneficiary to activity is generally attributed to the effect of
benefactor’s creative function falling on beneficiary’s suggestive, and
is sometimes called the “social request” or “social order” that the
benefactor sends to the beneficiary for actuation. This “request” is
often not directly stated or evident to either of them, and in the
initial stages of Benefit relations comes as a surprise to both the
benefactor (that someone has carried out their suggestion) as well as
the beneficiary (that they are enacting someone else’s request).
A peculiarity of these relations at later, established stages is that
the beneficiary may find themselves unable to turn down benefactor’s
proposals and suggestions, thus in a way falling into unconscious
control of the benefactor; which is one clue that allows to identify
benefit relations.
Any information that comes from beneficiary’s own creative function,
however, falls on the “ignoring” or “limiting” function of the
benefactor and as a result gets curbed or ignored. This makes the
beneficiary feel like the benefactor hears him only partially, that some
of beneficiary’s suggestions, persuasions, and calls to action are
ignored by the benefactor. From the other end, benefactor feels that
while the beneficiary makes interesting and insightful statements,
nevertheless these arguments don’t always have sufficient persuasive
power and need to be checked and adapted to benefactor’s TIM aspects and
values. The beneficiary also feels disconcerted by occasional shows of
benefactor’s suggestive function, which corresponds to beneficiary’s
vulnerable function
.
The above interaction of leading-activating and creative-suggestive
function creates a two way uneven exchange of information that is of
interest to both people in Benefit relations. While the beneficiary
provides mental support and feedback for benefactor’s activating
function, the benefactor motivates and stimulates the beneficiary on
suggestive function.
This simplified diagram shows the interaction of functions in benefit
relations:
The other side of this interaction of functions is that the beneficiary
may view the benefactor as a capable and admirable person, but somehow
lacking in discernment and intelligence on the activating function
(which is leading for the beneficiary). The benefactor may view the
beneficiary as informative, insightful, and intelligent person, but
somehow incapable, lagging behind, and inept on beneficiary’s suggestive
(which is creative for the benefactor).
Benefit relations can be conceptualized as an asymmetric exchange of
energy and information, where information is sent from Beneficiary’s
leading function to activating function of the Benefactor, while the
energy impulse is sent from Benefactor’s creative function to the
suggestive function of the Beneficiary. Thus, the Benefactor may feel
informed but de-energized in these relations, while the Beneficiary may
feel energized but under-informed.
Since Benefit types are on the same side of Introversion-Extroversion,
and either Sensing-Intuition or Logic-Ethics dichotomies, people of
Benefit types often have commonalities in interests and lifestyle. This,
in turn, spurs numerous contacts between Benefactors and Beneficiaries,
some of which evolve into friendships and long-term serious romantic
involvements, making Benefit Relations a
moderately common intertype pairing among married couples
.
If this relation occurs in a work setting, the beneficiary will strive
to help out the benefactor, and to comply with his expectations. If the
benefactor doesn’t offer the beneficiary some praise for his efforts,
the beneficiary will feel inadequate - rather similarly as the
supervisee in a supervision relationship. 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. The relation between
benefactor and beneficiary is sometimes compared to relations between an
older and a younger sibling, while supervision is compared to relations
of a parent and a child. The complementation between the beneficiary’s
first function and the benefactor’s second function also makes for a
more caring and less competitive relationship than supervision.
Descriptions by various authors
¶
Valentina Meged, Anatoly Ovcharov
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,
beneficiary feels that it is difficult for him to refuse in anything for
such an admirable, authoritative partner. This inequality in future may
lead to arguments, at which time the beneficiary will wish to distance
from the benefactor.
The benefactor perceives his partner as someone who needs his
protection, patronage, and advice. He appeals to the desire of the
beneficiary to understand him and help him in difficult situations, but
from his point of view the assistance is not effective, thus he
involuntarily underestimates the abilities of beneficiary or starts
increasing his demands. The benefactor can partially take on the
execution of responsibilities/work, but over time he becomes tired on
this and loses interest in his partner. 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. 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.
The matter can end with break up of relations if the beneficiary does
not accept his role and continues finding faults with the benefactor
instead of simply helping him accomplish common tasks or projects.
Mutual work is what unites this pair, in this case the relationship
becomes stimulating and productive.
I.D. Vaisband, publications on Socionics
The beneficiary perceives any grumbling on part of the benefactor as a
signal to action. However, to carry it out the beneficiary must gain
distance from the benefactor. In a family situation this is difficult,
which strains the relationship. The benefactor feels that without him
the beneficiary won’t make it, while beneficiary finds it impossible to
leave such an outstanding person that he perceives benefactor to be. The
benefactor activates the beneficiary, but to realize this momentum the
beneficiary must spend some time away from him. These relations generate
some of the most romantic love stories: partners agree and grow close,
disagree and come apart, find that they can’t live without each other,
but neither can they be with each other. This doesn’t make for the most
successful marriages. 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 request is impossible not to fulfill: it
received by beneficiary’s weak function that itself is unable to
critically evaluate the information. Therefore, it is put into action
without careful evaluation and without any resistance. 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. Naturally, on occasion,
beneficiary will try to distance from the benefactor. In a family, these
conditions can be satisfied only if the beneficiary is actively involved
in some activities or hobbies outside of home, he can then transmit the
energy he has received from the benefactor onto his activities. If the
beneficiary is not involved in any such activities, the likelihood of
conflicts in such union increases.
O.B. Slinko, “The key to heart - Socionics”
One partner acts as a transmitter of social request [benefactor], the
second - as its receiver [beneficiary]. The beneficiary is at a higher
level of social development than the benefactor, however, in these
relations he is assigned a subordinate role. The benefactor seems
interesting, significant, sometimes even unapproachable, and at the same
time the beneficiary feels that he understands benefactor’s concerns and
human flaws. 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. To fulfill the
social order, the beneficiary must get away from the direct influence of
the benefactor. 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. These relations are
distinguished by their emotional warmth, making benefit relations
marriages to be quite common. In such families, both partners end up
feeling some pressure: the benefactor because he or she willingly ends
up taking the main share of responsibilities for both on his or her
shoulders, and beneficiary from the constant psychological pressuring
coming from his partner.
R.K. Sedih, “Informational psychoanalysis”
This interaction we shall analyze as a combination of activity and
quasi-identity. Ego - Id plus Superid. The similar element spurs a surge
of activity in the individual. In this way benefactors are similar to
one’s activity partners.
C/O-request
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. This
sometimes leads to explicit or implicit long-standing arguments and
disputes. These attempts, however, are not completely useless, because
the partners do learn a lot from each other, but often still don’t
manage to reach a consensus. This often makes close proximity one-on-one
communication between them rather tiresome and tedious. The component of
activation can make the partners seem very attractive to each other
after only minimal interaction. Following this, the partners get to know
each other, become closer, which prompts discussions, during which they
eventually grow tired of one another, temporarily part, then, after
getting some rest, come together again. 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.
For example I know a family where the wife is SEI and the husband is
LSI. Over thirty years of living together they have done a great deal of
social work. The husband, who is a biologist by profession but working
school teacher, has organized more than sixty expeditions with his
students and helped found the nation’s largest museum of biology. His
wife of many years in addition to her regular job was also the head of
women’s council at a large organization and led an embroidery club. I
must say that there were plenty of problems in this family. These
conflicts were due to the fact that they were both sensing types. Their
tastes in clothes and food did not match, neither was there agreement on
how to conduct financial affairs of the family, and so on. Realizing
that after decades of living together trying to prove anything to each
other is useless, they, nevertheless, from time to time could not
refrain from periodically quarreling.
Laima Stankevichyute “Intertype relations”
Those whose first love is their benefactor usually spend a long time as
friends and later end up exchanging the vows. These relations make for
some of the most romantic love stories, full of passion and other
emotions. However, this romance does not last long, because after
marriage more confusion starts. Mostly these aren’t some major scandals
on matters of great importance, however, the daily life becomes colored
by persistent discontent. 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. At the beginning of their
acquaintance, the beneficiary feels proud and happy to have such an
admirable person associate with him. From the standpoint of beneficiary,
the benefactor is only lacking one small thing to reach his ideal, and
this small thing the beneficiary tries to fill. However, it seems to him
that he can never please the benefactor, that he is constantly
dissatisfied with something. In fact, this is not the case. Just that
the beneficiary does not hear the words of support for him. In all
corrective comments and even in simple questions he imagines a reproach.
Thus people in these relations often start fighting seemingly over
nothing. The relationship becomes less pleasant, however, these types
rarely part. The benefactor feels that the beneficiary will be quite
lost without him, so he cannot leave. Beneficiary cannot leave because
it is impossible to leave such an admirable, superior person as the
benefactor. Life in such a family is usually complicated. It becomes
impossible to perform even the most basic household work together.
Therefore, in such families all household problems usually fall to one
of the partners. Most often they are placed on the beneficiary. But
there are families where beneficiary stops doing anything and finds
another sphere of interest, for example, devotes extra time for work and
business trips, gets new hobbies, spends more time outside of home
gardening, repairs car in the garage, that is, becomes engaged only in
those activities where the benefactor has no control over him. Many
couples that break up then reform again, after some time, are often in
these type of relations.
A.V. Bukalov, G. Boiko, “Why Saddam Hussein made a mistake, or what is
Socionics”
Relations of benefit function as a conduit for transfer of social
experience, socially significant information, between the quadra. This
is needed for progress of society. Interestingly, in this pair both
partners greatly admire each other. The beneficiary sees the benefactor
as a person of great interest, while benefactor is delighted with
beneficiary’s ability to do things that he is not able to do. 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. Thus the benefactor will try to help the beneficiary,
try to explain something to him. In general, such relations are pleasant
and friendly. However, excessive stimulation of the beneficiary prompts
him to distance from the benefactor. Beneficiary does this to not get
distracted from fulfilling already set objectives. Benefactor may become
genuinely surprised by such behavior: “Where did he go? Why did he
distance/leave?” From social point of view, relations of benefit are
very important, because together with relations of supervision they
enable not only transfer of information, but also create ties between
quadra, thus forming rings of social progress.
Victor Gulenko, “Criteria of reciprocity”
Direct request - integration for intervention
There is some tension in communication, however, it is quite attractive
because in your partner you see someone who can implement your plans and
ideas. Therefore, you start looking for a way to integrate with this
person and earn his or her trust. This happens only when when you can
catch them off guard, when he or she was distracted, relaxed, and had
poor control over his or her actions. Coming out from the “hypnosis” the
partner understands that he was in some degree used, after which there
is a period of cooling in these relations. Discovering that your
influence is weakening, you start to take steps to more fine-tuned
integration. Communication for this reason has a sort of pulsating
nature.
Reverse request - weary integration
Communication is not as much interesting as it is activating and
mobilizing. You [the benefactor] are critical of the opinions and
behaviors of your partner. During a silent moment, you start feeling
uncomfortable. At times, it seems that your partner is ignoring or not
noticing something, so then you start to forcibly bring the matter to
his attention. You don’t make efforts to befriend such a partner, more
likely he invites you himself offering this or that project. Whether
relations establish or not depends on whether he manages to interest
you. Once you are sure that your partner indeed provides valuable
information, you use it with great benefit for yourself.
The reader, perhaps, is surprised to see new types of intertype
relations - reverse order [benefit] and reverse supervision. Two reasons
substantiate their existence. First, there should be sixteen types of
intertype relations, not fourteen as with Aushra (social
order-fulfillment and audit-report are two sides of the same relation).
Second, as was demonstrated in practice, in the involutionary
(
left
) rings of socioprogress the rules are
inverse, making benefit and supervision in involutionary and
evolutionary rings be different types of relations. If evolutionary
(
right
) supervision consists of suppression of
any deviations, then involutionary (
left
)
supervision is a demand for more precise formulations and additions.
Involutionary benefit/social request can be compared to an attempt to
find the right receiver for your information [beneficiary is looking for
the right benefactor to pass information to]. Among evolutionary types,
it is the selection of the transmitter who would supply you with
valuable information [benefactor looks for the right beneficiary to
receive information from].
Binary attributes of intertype relationships
Relations have extraverted character on both sides. They should be
picked for stable business activities. Benefit dyads and triads have
proven themselves to be very productive work groups, carrying out
expansive policies in their sphere of activity. For family life, these
relations are recommended only if both spouses are committed to carry
out joint work with many outside contacts.
Request plus-minus: Without constant verbal contact and planning both
partners become confused, their performance deteriorates. High momentum
of their activities can not be chaotic. Disruption of plans is such
benefit pain is experienced as very painful.
Request plus: Presupposes competence of benefactor in opinion of his
beneficiary - ability to clearly and convincingly explain the essence
and necessity of the proposed action. Request, which is not supported by
facts but based on only emotion or one’s ambition, does not lead to any
progress in these relations. Amplifies specific component of thinking in
a person, improving his organizational skills that are associated with
the ability to soberly assess the situation and issue clear
instructions. Beneficiary cannot be controlled through sheer enthusiasm
and promises of bright prospects. Control is based on substantiated
knowledge of the situation and experience in solving the problems of
this kind.
Request minus: Most dramatic, forces a person to feel very conflicted
feelings. Falling into this type of relations, a person experiences an
emotional surge. This awakens his creative powers, but also pushes a
person towards making annoying mistakes due to lack of objectivity in
assessing own achievements. Relations of anxiety and negative
anticipation, but at the same it improves imagination and evokes
confidence in own abilities. Beneficiary may generate very innovative
original solutions that run ahead of the current situation.
The benefactor must always be in work activity. He must stay in motion
and set an active pace for work. Beneficiary experiences strong
emotional dynamics. His state is dramatized: hopes give way to
frustration, bitterness is mixed with pleasant feelings.
Beneficiary aims to emulate the benefactor in his methods of solving
problems, and the benefactor himself is not averse to teaching him his
secrets. Thus, over time, they converge more and more. Simultaneously,
the work pressure drops in this pair - it becomes exhausted and
performance is much reduced. Customer and receiver become almost
interchangeable representatives of the same dyad to the outside world.
Recommendations for integration
Such benefit partners want to integrate, they should not work in
isolation. If this pair closes off into itself, the beneficiary starts
to resist the actions of the benefactor (to reverse the order). If you
want to establish reverse control, try to capture the attention of your
benefactor with an unusual idea or proposition, but don’t demand its
immediate evaluation, simply distance yourself. Thinking over your
suggestion the benefactor is very likely to accept it.
In this pair, try to not fail each other’s trust. Carry out what you
have promised. Don’t suddenly cancel joint plans and activities. Talk
about your intentions beforehand. For issuing direct requests, the
benefactor should try to adjust himself to the beneficiary, display
goodwill, take care of him. Comfort in these situations is attained by
way of mutual psychological work. 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.
V.V. Gulenko, A.V. Molodtsev, “Introduction to socionics”
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.
Beneficiary can become very fond of benefactor and admire his behavior,
demeanor, ability to easily do that to which the beneficiary aspires,
the style of his thoughts, his creative approach. In presence of
benefactor, beneficiary unwittingly begins to try to win his favor, to
please him, for some unknown reasons to himself. This starts with little
things and then progresses more and more. From aside it looks as if the
beneficiary is trying to somehow justify himself to the benefactor.
At the same time there is something in behavior of benefactor that the
beneficiary finds irritating. Those features that the benefactor
demonstratively puts forward to attract attention and look good in
public view seep into the subconscious of the beneficiary and awaken a
vague desire to remove the conditions that make the benefactor act so
unnaturally. The beneficiary may also be unaware what is it exactly that
he is supposed to do? The issued request is not individual, but social
in nature i.e. it encompasses problems of the groups of people to which
this pair belongs.
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. As a
consequence of this, beneficiary moves away and tries to keep distance
from the benefactor, sometimes may even start to pick on him by way on
his base function which is much weaker in benefactor. Thus, these
relations can be called a relations of patronage/protection in the
absence of reciprocate action. Over time, the beneficiary may begin to
completely disregard the benefactor. This happens when request has been
fully understood as a social one.
Ekaterina Filatova “Art of understanding yourself and others”
These relations alike relations of audit are asymmetrical. One partner -
the benefactor - activates the weak 4th function of the beneficiary.
Good feedback is not here, since both strong functions of beneficiary do
not affect the benefactor.
This mechanism sets the nature of relations: everything that the
beneficiary says and does, does not seem as significant to the
benefactor, while the benefactor is perceived as a very substantial
person in the sphere of benefactor’s 2nd function (it is from here that
the request is sent). The request is impossible not to carry out because
it is picked up by beneficiary’s weak 4th function that itself is unable
to critically evaluate the information.
A group of four people comprising single ring of benefit can very
actively solve various creative problems. Especially effective is a
group of eight people, which includes two parallel rings and four dual
pairs. Here all participants are mobilized which increased their mental
activity, but at the same time they do not become tired because duals
support one another.
Eugene Gorenko, Vladimir Tolstikov, “Nature of self”
These are asymmetric relations. One of the partners is request
transmitter, the other is request receiver. Transmitter seems like an
admirable person to the receiver. Receiver very attentively listens to
what the transmitter requests of him or requires, even if it is only a
hint. Transmitter at the same time does not pay much attention to the
actions and words of the receiver, although we should note that this is
not always the case. Here we must also take into consideration the
social level of the partners. If the level of the receiver is higher
than that of the transmitter, then very fruitful mutual contact is
possible.
Sergei Ganin
Homoverted - Asymmetrical - Arrhythmical
These relations are asymmetrical. One partner, called the Benefactor, is
always in a more favourable position in respect to the other partner who
is known as Beneficiary.
The Beneficiary thinks of the Benefactor as an interesting and
meaningful person, usually over-evaluating them in the beginning. The
Beneficiary can be impressed and delighted by their partner’s behaviour,
manners, thoughts and their ability to easily deal with things that the
Beneficiary conceives as complicated. When partners are together, the
Beneficiary involuntarily starts to ingratiate themselves with the
Benefactor, trying to please them without any obvious reason. In the
worst cases this starts from little things and then becomes bigger until
the Beneficiary realises the foolishness of their situation.
The Beneficiary can see the weakness of the Benefactor, wishing to help
their partner to strengthen themselves. Because the strongest point of
the Beneficiary is the weak and unconscious point of the Benefactor, the
Beneficiary is convinced that they are able to help. However, when the
Beneficiary tries to help, the Benefactor usually refuses the help
without any good explanation. The Beneficiary usually listens to every
word the Benefactor says but there is no feedback, the Benefactor can
not hear the Beneficiary. This may be sometimes unpleasant and even
irritating for the Beneficiary.
The Benefactor accepts the Beneficiary as somebody who is lower in rank
or social position and often undervalues them in the beginning. The
reason for this is that the Benefactor feels that the Beneficiary needs
something from them, that special something that only the Benefactor can
provide. Therefore the Benefactor naturally finds themselves in an
advanced position in respect to the Beneficiary, but are at the same
time willing to encourage and take care of the Beneficiary.
Relations of Benefit may appear even and conflict free. Usually it is
the Benefactor who initiates the contact. Partners can even feel some
kind of spiritual connection between them. However, relations last only
as long as the Benefactor has something to give and the Beneficiary has
need of it. If this major condition is no longer fulfilled, relations
enter quite an unpleasant stage of their development. The Beneficiary
may begin ignoring the Benefactor completely or they may start to
accentuate too many of the Benefactors inability, provoking arguments
and quarrels. Finally, when the Benefactor is in a superior position to
the Beneficiary, it can work quite well, but not when it is the other
way round!
Benefit Rings
¶
Benefactor -> Beneficiary (e.g. SEI is the Benefactor of LSI, and so
forth.)
Left Ring of Benefit
These types are
Process
under
the
Reinin dichotomies
.
SEI -> LSI -> ILI -> EII -> SEI  …
ILE -> EIE -> SEE -> LSE -> ILE  …
Right Ring of Benefit
These types are
Result
under
the
Reinin dichotomies
.
LII -> SLI -> ESI -> IEI -> LII  …
ESE -> IEE -> LIE -> SLE -> ESE  …
Theoretical properties of benefit relations
¶
Benefit pairs share the Introversion / Extroversion
Jungian dichotomy
; if one partner is an introvert, the
other will also be an introvert. Beneficiaries and Benefactors also
share the
Reinin trait
of Process / Result but
alternate on Positivist / Negativist and Static / Dynamic traits.
Types united into benefit rings have compatible
cognitive styles
. For each type both its Benefactor
and Beneficiary will share the cognitive style of its dual type. For
example, for type LII with H-P cognitive style, it’s Beneficiary SLI and
Benefactor IEI both have V-S cognitive style, same as LII’s dual ESE.
This arrangement likely eases information transfer between types in
benefit pairs and makes their interaction feel more fulfilling and
engaging. Some socionics literature notes that Benefit relations are
close to Dual relations in their relative strength.
Model A
¶
Benefactor: Functions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 reflect on functions 8, 5, 6, 7, 4, 1, 2, 3.
Beneficiary: Functions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 reflect on functions 6, 7, 8, 5, 2, 3, 4, 1.
Functions of
Model A
¶
Partner 1
Partner 2
base function
demonstrative function
creative function
suggestive function
role function
mobilizing function
vulnerable function
ignoring function
suggestive function
vulnerable function
mobilizing function
base function
ignoring function
creative function
demonstrative function
role function
Reinin traits
¶
As with all non-identical types, benefit partners have exactly 7
Reinin traits
in common, with the remaining 8 not in common.
If the benefactor is
rational
:
In Common
:
extraversion and introversion
·
process and result
·
asking and declaring
·
ethics and logic
·
yielding and obstinate
·
tactical and strategic
·
judicious and decisive
Not in Common
:
sensing and intuition
·
carefree and farsighted
·
constructivist and emotivist
·
merry and serious
·
rationality and irrationality
·
static and dynamic
·
democratic and aristocratic
·
positivist and negativist
If the benefactor is
irrational
:
In Common
:
extraversion and introversion
·
process and result
·
asking and declaring
·
sensing and intuition
·
carefree and farsighted
·
constructivist and emotivist
·
merry and serious
Not in Common
:
ethics and logic
·
yielding and obstinate
·
tactical and strategic
·
judicious and decisive
·
rationality and irrationality
·
static and dynamic
·
democratic and aristocratic
·
positivist and negativist
External Links
¶
Relations of Benefit