I tend to think of functions as "mental tools," which have conclusions that take up "mental space." We configure our perception of the world to fit what we have seen, using the mental tools we possess. Now, if someone has different mental tools than you entirely, their perception of the world is probably going to be drastically different in very key ways, even if their experience is identical. Given the huge differences in how you put things together, your "mental space" is probably not even threatened or disturbed by what you see in a person this different from yourself; all you can really to is attempt to understand the differences.

On the other hand, if you meet someone who has similar mental tools, but has drastically different life experiences, then you are probably going to wind up with very different views on things. However, they are going to be constructed in similar ways, ways that each other can understand, but given your different experiences, you are naturally going to think that this other person is placing emphasis in all the wrong places.

In a sense, you have to think similarly to someone in order to disagree with them; you have to be trying to "occupy the same space," so to speak.

A great example of this is my LSE mother and I. She places emphasis on things in her life that, from a logical perspective, I can see as potentially valid to another human being, but I just don't think like she does; we just have entirely different priorities in life. We place emphasis on entirely different things in our lives. However, our goals, while divergent, aren't necessarily conflicting: she wants a stable, happy life for herself and her family, and to contribute to the world positively in any way that is within her means, without taking things to an extreme. I, on the other hand, want to flourish personally and artistically, and more than any pursuit of personal happiness, stability, having a family life, or concrete contribution to society, I want to create works of art and literature that will alter the way people think, that they will relate to in ways that will both comfort and disturb them; to make them feel human but question their humanity; to reassure them that they are not alone but discourage them from ever being anyone but themselves; to always climb and reach for higher things, but not be afraid to fall and revel in the depths of themselves. Our views are not entirely incompatible or contrary, but they aren't exactly commensurate either; simply put, we're just very different.

On the other hand, my former boss, an LSI ex Army Ranger, sees the world in terms that are very familiar to me: it was always easy for me to understand what he was saying, and I very quickly picked up on his thought processes, ways of doing things, and even his broader perspectives on life just by interacting with him. However, because we had drastically different experiences in life, our views were totally incompatible, and I think had we ever gotten to know each other on the basis of discussing personal views, we would have disagreed vehemently: he believes, above all else, in personal integrity and adherence to "rules" that everyone should follow in order to promote personal growth and for humanity to remain afloat.

Personally I see his perspective on people as dangerous and intrusive: I think that forcing people to follow "rules" is a pathetic excuse for self-actualization, and undermines everything real about existing as a genuine human being. I'm sure he would see my perspective similarly: intrusive upon the inherent order in society, and dangerous to the way things have come to function. In some greater sense, I'm sure both of these perspectives are necessary, but you can see what I'm getting at here.

My mother, if she knew about these two different perspectives, would probably think that both of us are too adamant, and take our own views too seriously, but would not feel threatened by either of us, because she knows that she is living the life that she loves, and that the world is, in some sense, better for her having lived.

However, while I see more merit in my mother's take on life, and see it as less "evil," in a sense, when it comes to literally placing myself in another person's shoes, I could never live her life. My ex-boss has a sense of purpose and duty in his life that I see as absolutely essential to my continued existence; if I ever thought that I would simply descend into being placated by an average life, just do my "level best," have a "stable life," I would be horrified, disgusted with myself, and probably turn suicidal. I just cannot comprehend ever wanting to resign to that view of the world. However, the military-esque sense of duty given off by my boss, the way he single-mindedly pursues his goals, is admirable to me: while I disagree with just about everything he stands for, I can understand why he feels the way he feels about things, and I see traits in him, even negative ones, that I know I share, that are disgusting to me simply BECAUSE they are exactly how I am sometimes.

This, I think, is a good example of how people from the same quadra try to "occupy the same space," in a sense, and therefore are more likely to conflict, whereas people from opposing quadras are more likely than not simply confused by one another, incapable of standing in the other's shoes.