Originally Posted by
Maritsa33
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.