(Un)realistic expectations of PhD supervision? I shall try to make my former question more on-topic and less personal. 

When I started my PhD (maths) a year ago, I was having the following (mostly implicit, though) expectations about how working on a PhD project and the supervision by my professor would be:

guidance-oriented expectations


In the few weeks or months, I'd be given articles and other material to work through and to learn new theory from.
In regular meetings, we'd make sure that I properly understand what I'd have read.
We'd agree on a concrete research topic which the material I'd be given partially enables me to work on.
As time passes, I develop a better judgement which literature might help me and what would be interesting questions to work on, so I need less guidance.
In first principle, the PhD is an opportunity for me to learn advanced contents.


As it has turned out, none of these expectations have been met; instead, the (implicit) expectations of my supervisor (who supervises a master's or PhD thesis for the 1st time) were:

independence-oriented expectations


I'd know which problems I want to work on. Why else should I apply for a PhD position?
I'd be able to find literature, articles, conferences etc. on my own; I am a grown-up, aren't I?
In the occasional meetings, I'd report on my progress. I should not expect help with scientific questions, because 


the questions arising from the work we agreed I'd be working on do not match my supervisor's expertise
as a researcher, I have to know by myself how to answer my questions.

I have been hired to complement the knowledge in the group, so if I want to extend my knowledge, I am free to read any textbook or paper I want.


I am aware that at the end of a PhD, I should better match the latter. However, I was irritated that this is what is expected from me right from the beginning. Of course, this led to some conflict.

Question: Did I have unrealistic expectations?
From my own experience with different PhD supervisors (I quit working with one, picked up two more) and postdoc supervisors, I think it really comes down to personality differences and communication style.  It's not that your expectations were unrealistic or not.  It's that you ended up with someone who just works differently and expects different things than you do.  For some people, this "independence-oriented" regime is perfect, because they have a specific goal in mind or narrowed down a PhD topic prior to starting the program.  Others need a bit more guidance.  That's not bad or unrealistic; it's just where you are in your academic journey.  If possible, try to find a supervisor whose expectations and personality match yours.  Or try to figure out exactly what you want from your relationship with your current supervisor, be as respectful and open as possible about it with him/her/them, and try to work out a plan to make that happen.  If your supervisor isn't keen on this approach, then you have two options. 1) Stay in the relationship, accept it will suck until it's over, and focus on getting what you want out of the experience (presumably a Ph.D., papers, etc.).  You can seek out other mentors in the meantime. 2) Find a new supervisor.

Edit: now that I understand your supervisor is a first-timer, I think this is further an issue of lack of experience on their part and perhaps a reflection of how they were supervised throughout their career.  If presented in calm, reasonable fashion, your supervisor might benefit from hearing what a student's expectations are, at least for when they supervise future students.  It's unlikely their overall modus operandi will change, though; these things take lots of time and mistakes.  And I would reiterate again that calm, straightforward communication is important.  Passive aggression or hoping that your supervisor picks up on subtle cues is counter-productive.