# Which types are the easiest to understand?



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

I mean when they're talking and explaining things. 

I think it went something like this:

T: Concrete
F: Vague
N: Future/Abstract
S: Here-and-now

NT: Future and concrete
NF: Future and vague
ST: Here-and-now and concrete
SF: Here-and-now and vague

Alpha

INTj: Often sounds convoluted, because they're juggling too much information and haven't analyzed through them all yet.
ISFp: Probably easy to understand
ENTp: I think ENTps often try to "break things down" and make them simpler to understand
ESFj: Not sure

Beta

INFp: Often sounds vague and convoluted and somewhat difficult to understand
ISTj: Very easy to understand, step-by-step and factual
ENFj: Often inject random emotions into what they're saying
ESTp: Probably easy to understand, simple

Gamma

INTp: Actually usually very easy to understand, often a torrent of facts but don't really sound disorganized.
ISFj: Probably easy to understand, somewhat vague or seem to be missing in details sometimes
ENTj: Often somewhat difficult to understand like INTjs, unless the ENTj has a particular talent in explaining things
ESFp: Probably easy to understand without the seeming filters like ISFjs

Delta

ISTp: Not really sure
INFj: Often fairly easy to understand, but sometimes make things sound or appear too complex
ESTj: Actually fairly easy to understand, until they're not
ENFp: Often sounds fairly convoluted and complicating things with random tangents


----------



## Mr Oops (Jun 29, 2016)

> I mean when they're talking and explaining things.


I can make huge leaps in my thinking process and abstracting the steps into guidelines = ESI and SEE usually have no clue.

ESI: F*ck, you should make it simpler. I don't understand where you pulled that from. 
It is fairly common .
SEI: Oh, you are my genius!
Also quite common.

ESE: Ha ha! Oh there was thing in in my childhood.**continues. Back to topic** Anyways, **technical problem** ...

EII can do complex things in their thinking but lacks refining stage/observation/implementation (Te) hence prefers by the book methods.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Wouldn't it depend on the cognitive functions of the listener, as well? I.e. compatibility between the speaker and listener.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

For me the types that are easiest to understand are:
- Dual (!!!)
- Beneficiary (of compatible subtype, not so much the other sub)
- Mirage & Business - same creative and activating elements, same side of Rat/Irrat
- Mirror & Identical (sometimes they read my thoughts)
- Extinguishment (being on the same side of the rational-irrational dichotomy is helpful)
- Supervisor (I'm often interested in what they have to say)

Types that are difficult to understand:
- Conflictor (have to really strain to see where they are going in a conversation)
- Super-ego (they sound muted, I struggle to keep focus on what they are saying and keep myself interested, conversation feels uneasy, walking on egg-shells feeling)
- Quasi-identical (I deceptively assume I understand them, but later discover that I really don't).
- Kindred & Benefactor (I sympathize with them more than being able to understand them)
- Supervisee (same as above, personal sympathy over understanding)
- Semi-dual (same as above)

Same subtype increases understanding, while different subtype introduces more subtle miscommunications into our interaction. By same subtype I mean either both leading function subtypes or both creative. Having different subtypes has a similar effect to being on different sides of the rational-irrational dichotomy.


----------

