Socionics Personals
North America
Western Europe
North America
Join now!

Questions & Answers
Question #1243548851Thursday, 28-May-2009
Category: Benefit and Supervision Intertype Relations
In the description of relations of benefit, I don't understand the part that explains that it can work as long as the benefactor has something that the beneficiary needs, or as long as the benefactor is in a superior position. Since the benefactor finds the beneficiary rather boring, shouldn't it be the other way around?? Shouldn't it be that the beneficiary already benefits from the relationship since the benefactor's creative function is the beneficiary's dual-seeking function. Therefore, as long as the beneficiary has something that the benefactor needs, it works?? That would make way more sense. -- So-
Your Answers: 1+
A1 Not all relations of Benefit are equal due to the "Romance styles" which don't necessary only apply to romantic relationships. If the benefit relations fit into Ni+Se and Si+Ne than they have something to offer each other, but if they fall into Se+Si or Ne+Ni than there's little there to hold it together besides the suggestive function. For example, I'm INFj (an infantile, Ne, type) and my benefactor is INTp (a victim, Ni, type), this is more of a neutral benefit relationship since Infantiles and Victims are not giving the other the very thing that fuels their relationships (Si for INFj and Se for INTp). Whereas I'm the benefactor of ISFp (a Caregiver, Si, type) so in this relationship both types receive something from the other that holds it together. The lack of Te for me would put me in a less favorable position (the Benefactor) but the Si is still comforting enough to make it work. So the most favorable Benefit relationships would be INFj+ISFp, ENFp+ESFj, ISTp+INTj, ESTj+ENTp, ENFj+ESFp, ISTj+INTp, ESTp+ENTj, ISFj+INFp -- An INFj
Bookmark and Share

A2 What you're saying is very interesting although I've read that the Victim/Aggressor relation for some reason is unfulfilling in the context of relations of benefit, but it doesn't change the observation I made in my question. I don't understand why the description insists on the Benefactor being in a higher positions that the Beneficiary to work. I really feel it should be the other way around. It should work as long as the Benefactor needs something from the Beneficiary. -- So
A3 It's true the benefiary is benifitting from their benefactor's use of creative function. However, they benefit from benefactor's natural strong point whereas benefactor doesn't benefit from beneficiary's natrual creative function. I think this creates a sort of imblance where the beneficary can overevaluate their benefactor while the benefactor will be dissapointed with their beneficary's inability to satisfy their psychological needs. However, the beneficary is in a lower position because although they enjoy the benifit of the relationship they feel undeserved and never "good" enough for their benefactor while the benefactor can just be themselves and doesn't have to change who they naturally are since the beneficiary appreaciates their natural selves. I think it's unfulfilling for the benefiary because they feel like they are pressured to change and that their effort is left to erode... -- Anonymous
A4 The benefactor has cognitive functions that are different and set in an order different than the beneficiary, which explains the beneficiary's interest in and curiosity of the benefactor. The beneficiary initially believes the benefactor would be a great addition and of great use in matters foreign/difficult to the beneficiary. But the benefactor was the first to initiate contact, because the beneficiary exhibits a display of actual advantages. The benefactor is aware that the beneficiary would be actually of great use to him/her. Down the road, if both decide to start a form of relationship, the beneficiary would be disappointed because the benefactor actually makes matters more difficult in their lives... and the benefactor would have a hard time satisfying and keeping up with the standards of the beneficiary. It seems to be the case in my 3 year relationship with my INTJ fiance, who's the beneficiary. I'm the INFP, the benefactor. -- Anonymous
*Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of*
Page 1
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)

Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")

10 Most recent
By category
All questions
Submit a question