Conversations and Tangents

[marooned]

I've been playing with thoughts about Si/Ne vs. Ni/Se valuing (or perhaps simply "focus") and conversations... particularly in regards to the direction the conversation takes (or doesn't take) and tangents...

Si/Ne conversation focus
Can go off on tangents without seeing a need to ever return to the course things were going in before the tangent... conversation can become scattered and flitting from topic to topic, randomly, with no direction... it's easy to abandon the direction the conversation had been going in, or to take it in a new direction and then abandon that... it can go anywhere, and there are no limitations. Conversation can be like a fractal pattern, branching off in new directions, trying to cover all the directions. What is sought from conversation is the larger picture of the entire fractal pattern - not a focusing on a particular section of it overly much.

vs.

Ni/Se conversation focus
May go off on tangents, but will start to curve it back to the overall course the conversation had been going in before the tangent, directing it... if there was a direction to the conversation, needs to have it continue to flow in that direction without getting too off topic (also there's an emphasis on having a direction). Random interjections, sudden course changes, flitting to new ideas, etc. are fine, but the conversation needs to get back on course and follow that course through to conclusion. Too many sudden tangents, or tangents that abandon the main direction the conversation was going in, are unsettling. Conversation can be like convergence to a point - merging all the branching out into a single line of clarity... until the essence or larger meaning of the matter is reached.

Thoughts?

I mean, "discuss!"

[aka-kitsune]

I've been playing with thoughts about Si/Ne vs. Ni/Se valuing (or perhaps simply "focus") and conversations... particularly in regards to the direction the conversation takes (or doesn't take) and tangents...

Thoughts?

Sounds pretty accurate to me... ie: I was in the midst of having an in-depth conversation last week w/an ENFp when he was reminded of a book he'd read. He proceeded to launch into a long rambling version of this story -- in specific detail. I began to get impatient because I felt we were getting further away from any kind of relevance. What is the POINT! Get to the POINT!!!! Sometimes it's quite exasperating. Especially when the person you're talking to actually can't recall the point themselves when they reach the end of the tangent...!

Funny thing was it kinda was a *literal* tangent. The story was an allegory involving geometry.

I often find myself thinking that talking to IEEs sometimes turns into a comedy bit.

[tereg]

Sounds pretty accurate to me... ie: I was in the midst of having an in-depth conversation last week w/an ENFp when he was reminded of a book he'd read. He proceeded to launch into a long rambling version of this story -- in specific detail. I began to get impatient because I felt we were getting further away from any kind of relevance. What is the POINT! Get to the POINT!!!! Sometimes it's quite exasperating. Especially when the person you're talking to actually can't recall the point themselves when they reach the end of the tangent...!

Funny thing was it kinda was a *literal* tangent. The story was an allegory involving geometry.

I often find myself thinking that talking to IEEs sometimes turns into a comedy bit.

I must admit that I do this frequently in conversation. However, I usually can return to the point where the tangent originated.

There are times though when I go off on a tangent and can't remember what the point was by the time I reach the end of the tangent. It usually takes a moment or two to remember, but usually I do remember.

I know some people get a kick out of it sometimes, but I'm really just trying to inject different perspectives into the conversation and not to derail the conversation. I feel bad when I realize that I've gone out of control with my tangents.

[munenori2]

I commented to my IEE friend once that sometimes it is very frustrating when she doesn't get to the point. She asked if there had to be a point to everything. I supposed not. After we parted and I was walking home I started thinking. If there is no point to what she's saying, then what's the point in saying it?

Because some people look at the journey as important even if they can't reach their original destination?

[Logos]

I do not think that conversation topics should be set in stone, so I definitely identify more with the Ne/Si description, which implies a much more organic conversation.

[JRiddy]

I wouldn't necessarily associate the "focused-ness" of a conversation with quadra values like that. There are too many other factors. The type of conversation is very dependent on the situation. Obviously business-type conversations will be different from just hanging out types. In a socionic sense, friendly conversations are going to have to do a lot more with the type interactions than the presence of certain types.

However, I (ILE) actually just had lunch with my girlfriend (SEI), my brother (SLE), and his girlfriend (IEI), so I just got a chance to see this stuff in action, among a group of people who know each other pretty well, and the whole conversation was just one string of barely-related stuff. Which gives me really no insight into this at all other than that this distinction is far too blunt.

[Blaze]

I wouldn't necessarily associate the "focused-ness" of a conversation with quadra values like that. There are too many other factors. The type of conversation is very dependent on the situation. Obviously business-type conversations will be different from just hanging out types. In a socionic sense, friendly conversations are going to have to do a lot more with the type interactions than the presence of certain types.

However, I (ILE) actually just had lunch with my girlfriend (SEI), my brother (SLE), and his girlfriend (IEI), so I just got a chance to see this stuff in action, among a group of people who know each other pretty well, and the whole conversation was just one string of barely-related stuff. Which gives me really no insight into this at all other than that this distinction is far too blunt.

i think i agree with the first paragraph. when me and infpman talk, i'm always the one bringing things back to focus. when there's something on the table that is. when it's just messin around, i don't think either one of us care what direction the conversation goes in or whether we lose stuff.

[marooned]

aaaaaaaaah I should really tag on some disclaimers... I don't actually disagree with any of your objections to this.

My intent was to say... "imagine there is a conversation that has an Si/Ne or Se/Ni focus. what nature might it take?"

This is not to say that people who are Ni/Se valuing or Ne/Si valuing will conform to those descriptions... or that situations don't define the nature of conversation to some extent, or that conversations aren't diverse, complex, and changing.

Anyway... the Ne/Si description does seem rather scatter brained... and the Ni/Se one seems rather stuffy and uptight.