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.

Right Ring of Supervision These types are Result <Result> under the Reinin dichotomies <Reinin_dichotomies>.

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