Supervision

Author: Aushra Augusta

From Theory of Intertype Relations

Original
Symbols for IMEs

Supervisor -> Supervisee

Supervisee -> Supervisor

The relations of social control* play a supporting role in the mechanism of social progress. Their function is to control the individual who comes next in the ring of social progress: the dual of one’s recipient [beneficiary], or the recipient of one’s dual (which is the same thing). This is the essence of cooperation between the individuals with complementary psyches in the mechanism of social progress: one issues a social request, and the other just as unconsciously and automatically monitors its fulfillment. For example, if [the ILE’s] inductor [benefactor] is the LSE (), then [the ILE’s] supervisor is the LSE’s dual the EII ().

* Relation of social control = supervision. Hereinafter the asterisks (*) indicate the translator’s notes.

What do we know about the relations of control? Unfortunately, at the moment we do not have a lot of data about this type of informational relations. We do not have enough observations that would allow us to draw conclusions. However … the supervisor has direct access to the … point of least resistance (PoLR) of the supervisee. Because of this some signals from the supervisor can be exceptionally unpleasant (and others – exceptionally pleasant) to the supervisee. They are pleasant when the supervisor clearly approves some personality traits and behaviors of the supervisee, and unpleasant if the supervisor shows their disapproval or condemnation, however slightly. This is true even when the supervisor is much lower on the intellectual and social ladder. It is quite possible that the disapproval from the supervisor is taken in a more constructive manner when the supervisor is above the supervisee intellectually and socially – in this case the disapproval lacks the element of humiliation that exists otherwise. Although, to the supervisee their supervisor always feels somewhat elusive and immaterial. In turn, the supervisee feels distinctly concrete to their supervisor. The approval or condemnation contained in the signals from the supervisor often does not match the supervisee’s own program; however, the supervisee takes them into account, and, at the very least, tries to avoid such control.

The individual does not know whom they “supervise”; it is as if they have secret power over the supervisee due to their [leading] function being connected to the supervisee’s [vulnerable] function. The supervisor does not know that this relation is that of the one-sided vulnerability. Usually they just feel that they are “right” more often than the supervisee, and that “people just do not like the truth”. But the essence of this “truth” is in the fact that all people tend to speculate and make short-term conclusions. And all other types of IM, those whose [vulnerable] is not affected by these things, perceive them as exactly that – speculations and fleeting attitudes. But the supervisee sees the supervisor’s speculations and opinions about their person as important approval or disapproval. This is why nothing is as deeply misleading as fake flattery from one’s supervisor. Supervisors are dangerous if their evaluation criteria are unstable, i.e. if some objective reasons, such as a lack of stability due to being undualized, force these supervisors to become too adaptable. They themselves do not and cannot know this – such people try to be principled more than anyone else, and it is often hard to notice that this adherence to principles in adaptation is an attempt to become truly needed and irreplaceable. An undualized person controls their supervisee with particular zeal, but their control program is unstable. This is because, as we noticed, usually the supervisor’s attitudes regarding the supervisee are conditioned by their dual’s* evaluation of this supervisee. When the [benefactor] is pleased with the [beneficiary’s] actions, the supervisor is pleased as well, provided that they are aware of and understand their dual’s attitude.

* Supervisor’s dual = benefactor.

The supervisee is unable to prove something to their supervisor, unless the supervisor knows this from other sources. One could say that the supervisor does not allow their supervisee to be more intelligent than they themself are.

How does the supervisee perceive their supervisor if they are on good terms? As a person who is too petty, whose pettiness is repulsive. One person is repulsed by the “pettiness” of Fyodor Dostoevsky [EII] with which he rummages through people’s spiritual world; another – by the “pettiness” of Erich Maria Remarque [LSE] describing concrete actions; yet another – by the “pettiness” of Guy de Maupassant [SLI] describing the “lowly sensory pleasures”. The same is true in close relationships. To the supervisee it always seems as though their supervisor completely unexpectedly and shamelessly invades the area of life that should just happen on its own, preferably without any prying eyes. The supervisor has no issue directing their attention to something related to their most developed [leading] function; but for the supervisee it is the point of least resistance to which they already pay too much attention. The additional fixation of this attention distracts the supervisee from the problems of their [leading] and [creative] functions and lowers their vitality, which they are usually already unhappy with.

When a relatively safe distance is observed, the supervisor and supervisee may acknowledge and even admire each other. When they get closer, the supervisee tries to distance themself. The supervisor does not have a good enough understanding of the supervisee, who, to them, feels mysterious and incomprehensible. This mystery is often attractive to the supervisor, and they are always surprised and amazed by something in the supervisee; the supervisor’s negative attitudes regarding the supervisee are often just an attempt to rid themself of this strange attraction. The depth the supervisor feels in their supervisee is explained by the fact that, despite being “nothing more” than a supervisee, they are higher in the chain of social progress. The conscious functions of the supervisee are inaccessible and incomprehensible to the supervisor*, and this is probably why the supervisor is even a little frightened by the supervisee’s mysteriousness.

* What exactly Augusta means by this statement is unclear.

The supervisee has some power over their supervisor, but this power cannot be called secret. As was already mentioned, the supervisor feels that their supervisee possesses a particular concreteness, materiality, strength … . Because of this the supervisor may often feel something like physical or mental abuse from the supervisee, which is almost impossible to escape on one’s own (until the supervisee gets offended and leaves).

The supervisee does not see their supervisor as similarly mysterious – usually they have quite a good idea of the supervisor’s capabilities. Unfortunately, they are too often repulsed by the supervisor’s “pettiness, intrusiveness and close-mindedness”.

Note: to a degree the supervisor’s attitude towards their supervisee can be illustrated by the following literary examples. In Dostoevsky’s novel Brothers Karamazov the head servant Grigory was the author’s supervisee. We see this character as mysterious, his nature is not revealed to the reader. This will become clear if we notice that Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote has the same type as Dostoevsky’s Grigory – they are both ILEs. But the first portrayal was created by an SLI (semi-duality), and the second – by an EII (supervision).

Consistent communication with one’s supervisor in a stable, narrow circle, including marriage, has dangerous consequences. We did not conduct a special study on this subject – rather, we encountered three such marriages by accident, and in all cases the supervisee was severely ill. In two cases the supervisee belonged to the LIE type, and the marriages broke up because of the supervisee’s paranoia. In the third case the EIE supervisee developed catalepsy and severe asthma after eleven years of marriage. (We noticed the EIE’s propensity for asthma in other cases as well.)