What does this look like?

[Beautiful sky]

I ran into an individual, and I can't remember the details of our conversation, but this is how it looked like (sorry of the static version; I can't play dynamic stuff very well); the things I considered to be simple and answerable in one sentence the person felt the subject could be expounded upon and not left to a simple statement and the things I thought were worthy of long expounded conversations, she thought it was explainable in a short and brief statement.

Which relation does this?

[pianosinger]

I ran into an individual, and I can't remember the details of our conversation, but this is how it looked like (sorry of the static version; I can't play dynamic stuff very well); the things I considered to be simple and answerable in one sentence the person felt the subject could be expounded upon and not left to a simple statement and the things I thought were worthy of long expounded conversations, she thought it was explainable in a short and brief statement.

Which relation does this?

Someone with your Base or HA as their Ignoring function? And vice-versa. Mirage, Extinguishment, or Conflict?

idk, what were you discussing?

[woofwoofl]

I ran into an individual, and I can't remember the details of our conversation, but this is how it looked like (sorry of the static version; I can't play dynamic stuff very well); the things I considered to be simple and answerable in one sentence the person felt the subject could be expounded upon and not left to a simple statement and the things I thought were worthy of long expounded conversations, she thought it was explainable in a short and brief statement.

Which relation does this?

I expect that they valued / at least (which obviously means a mismatch with the P functions), though I don't have enough info to go on at all... can I have more specifics?

[717495]

Mirror relation - Paragraph #2 http://www.socionics.com/rel/mrr.htm

This happens to me all the time and goes into differences of simple/straightforward reasoning vs complicated "creative" reasoning attempt. The technical term for it is accepting and producing difference, though that's just an obsolete term for rational vs irrational. I have these differences with other irrational types--some actually perceive me as the irrational type because what they accept I expound upon too much for their own good, and puts their rhythm off. Yet they misinterpret the meaning of irrational. (one can easily see that with, for one, "creative " subtypes correlated to MBTI P types.) The of ENxPs comes across much more fluidly decisive to me, because their temperament fits it like a key, and ENFPs possesses a stretched out exaggeration and treats it indecisively.

Why in the world do people come from MBTI to a different system, yet think "rational" means decisive? yet a lot of INxPs as INxj for ie. You should be thinking creative or producing subtype by now, and if you read Jung's rational vs irrational type description more, you will understand this aspect of the mirror relation description really well and help you to type mirrors.

[Beautiful sky]

Thank you guys; it's sad to see that people proclaim themselves to be Fi and Fi valuers on this forum not contribute their thoughts on this relation. Isn't evaluation relations the very meaning of Fi?

[Nowisthetime]

yes mirror, as Poli said.

[Galen]

It looks to me like you two are different people.

[MisterNi]

The wrong kind of relation.

[Beautiful sky]

How about if I disagree with the person?

What relations is that. I find that what the LSI on the forum write looks identical to each other. If I disagree on how people should be treated as an FiNe, does this mean that another Fi who writes things that I don't agree with and doesn't look like me, in message or context, isn't an FiNe?

[Creepy-male]

I ran into an individual, and I can't remember the details of our conversation, but this is how it looked like (sorry of the static version; I can't play dynamic stuff very well); the things I considered to be simple and answerable in one sentence the person felt the subject could be expounded upon and not left to a simple statement and the things I thought were worthy of long expounded conversations, she thought it was explainable in a short and brief statement.

Which relation does this?

hard to say, I'd think you'd need a little more insight onto why they did or did not elaborate and you did.

Sometimes people elaborate a lot because of enthusiasm and interest, sometimes they do it for nervousness or to cover something up... change the subject and so forth, sometimes they do it because of their lack of a concise understanding of the subject. Any of these are possible and they all imply different things.

If its a matter of enthusiasm and interest in the topic, then this could be related to a difference in valued functions, then again it may have nothing to do with functions and more to do with values..... as in ethical values, just a difference in what interests you and what things you find value in.

If its a situation of nervousness, then perhaps this area is related to their super-ego functions, maybe they feel the need to cover up their weakness and insecurity in these areas to protect themselves psychologically.

Finally if its an issue of a lack of concise understanding of the subject, this could be related to a lack of use of the particular function in this area. Then again it could be still in the domain of their dominant function, but merely a subject they hadn't considered and thus needed more time to think about.

Then of course you have to factor your own motives in.... why were you giving short answers to these things and long answers to them.... and how do these motives tie into socionics as a theory, and how do you think this divergence relates to intertype relationships.

I think then you will have a good characterization of the interaction.

Also I like what poli said.

[Beautiful sky]

I ran into an individual, and I can't remember the details of our conversation, but this is how it looked like (sorry of the static version; I can't play dynamic stuff very well); the things I considered to be simple and answerable in one sentence the person felt the subject could be expounded upon and not left to a simple statement and the things I thought were worthy of long expounded conversations, she thought it was explainable in a short and brief statement.

Which relation does this?

hard to say, I'd think you'd need a little more insight onto why they did or did not elaborate and you did.

Sometimes people elaborate a lot because of enthusiasm and interest, sometimes they do it for nervousness or to cover something up... change the subject and so forth, sometimes they do it because of their lack of a concise understanding of the subject. Any of these are possible and they all imply different things.

If its a matter of enthusiasm and interest in the topic, then this could be related to a difference in valued functions, then again it may have nothing to do with functions and more to do with values..... as in ethical values, just a difference in what interests you and what things you find value in.

If its a situation of nervousness, then perhaps this area is related to their super-ego functions, maybe they feel the need to cover up their weakness and insecurity in these areas to protect themselves psychologically.

Finally if its an issue of a lack of concise understanding of the subject, this could be related to a lack of use of the particular function in this area. Then again it could be still in the domain of their dominant function, but merely a subject they hadn't considered and thus needed more time to think about.

Then of course you have to factor your own motives in.... why were you giving short answers to these things and long answers to them.... and how do these motives tie into socionics as a theory, and how do you think this divergence relates to intertype relationships.

I think then you will have a good characterization of the interaction.

Also I like what poli said.

We're not identical types because I do/say things she doesn't think of. She leans towards what she knows rather than trying to evaluate her knowledge base or she copies me and what I say. It feels like she absorbs the things I say. There's never a response of "I am the same." There's always this, "you're shallow for thinking that these things are just they way the are supposed to be."