Reverse Benefit and Supervision¶
The concepts of “reverse” and “direct” benefit and supervision is found across more contemporary socionics articles and forum discussions. Several explanations have been offered for this concepts up to day with no agreement or clear explanation of these types of benefit and supervision relations. Various socionics authors provide their own somewhat different interpretations which will be summarized on this page.
“Breaking free” interpretation¶
Some authors explain “reverse” benefit and supervision relations as the attempts of the beneficiary or the supervisee to come from under the control of their benefactor or supervisor, to distance by means of starting up arguments, pointing out their mistakes, picking at their flaws and errors. This constitutes rejection of any information or energy pulse coming from them and obstruction of it being passed down the supervision and benefit chains. As such, both benefit and supervision relations can oscillate from “direct” to “reverse” states with the supervisee or beneficiary being either receptive or rejecting of their supervisor or benefactor.
Under another interpretation, the main difference between “reverse” and “direct” benefit and supervision lies in the Process/Result dichotomy - “reverse” benefit and supervision occur between Left/Involutionary/Result types, while “direct” benefit and supervision occur among Right/Evolutionary/Process types.
The Evolutionary type “direct” supervision consists of suppression of any deviations, while Involutionary type “reverse” supervision is demand for more precise formulations and additions.
Evolutionary “direct” benefit is the selection of a transmitter who would supply you with valuable information, while involutionary “reverse” benefitis an attempt to find the right receiver for your information.
It was mentioned in one discussion that “direct” (evolutionary) type of these relations is closest to the classical socionics description of benefit and supervision relations, while “reverse” (involutionary) type of relations is somehow different, though these differences have not been clearly outlined. On some Russian socionics websites it was suggested that in case of “direct” relations, it is the supervisee and the beneficiary who pursue and try to make contact with their supervisor or benefactor i.e. it is the supervisee and beneficiary who make the “opening bid” and act friendly, agreeable, complementary towards their supervisor or benefactor in order to attract them. This applies to supervision and benefit interactions between Evolutionary/Process types: ILE, LSI, SEE, EII, EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI. In “reverse” relations, it is the supervisor or the benefactor who pursue and try to make contact with their supervisee or beneficiary i.e. it is the supervisor and the benefactor who make the “opening bid”, and act friendly, agreeable, complementary towards their supervisee or beneficiary, making “reverse” supervision and benefit somewhat unlike the classical descriptions of these relations. This applies to supervision and benefit interactions between Involutionary/Result types: LII, IEE, ESI, SLE, IEI, ESE, SLI, LIE.
Quotes from literature¶
Victor Gulenko on “reverse” and “direct” benefit and supervision¶
“Reverse” supervision as obstruction of communication:
“OR (reverse revision) - one-sided deceleration aimed in the opposite direction, from follower to leader. It represents an attempt by supervisee to break free from the control of the supervisor, by pointing to his or her mistakes and finding fault at minor things. One of the conditions for favorable development of these relations is the transfer of informational pulse (but not energy pulse!) down the chain of supervision rather than its return.”
“Direct” and “Reverse” benefit relations
Direct Request (benefit) - 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 (benefit) - 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.
“Direct” and “Reverse” supervision relations
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. Involutionary benefit (social request) is an attempt to find the right receiver for your information, while evolutionary benefit is the selection of a transmitter who would supply you with valuable information.