# Hierarchy of communication ease



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

From an information processing perspective, "functions" focus, what are the best communication potentials, in rank, for any type? How do you rank personally rank them?

*My List is here *

Identical quadra relations rank highest, followed by rationality/irrationality matching semi-identical quadras (Semi-dual and kindred rank highest then Mirage and Business follow) and finally the opposing quadra being last. The hierarchy appears like this:

*//Identical Quadra*
1. Dual
2. Identical 
3. Activator 
4. Mirror 

*//"rationality" matching semi-identical quadra*
5. Semi-Dual
6. Kindred 

*//"rationality" not matching semi-identical quadra *
7. Mirage 
8. Business

*//"rationality" not matching semi-identical quadra*
9. Beneficiary - being at benefit (gaining)

*//"rationality" matching semi-identical quadra*
10. Benefactor -giving the benefit(losing) 

*//"rationality" not matching semi-identical quadra*
11. Supervisee- supervising (powerful)

*//"rationality" matching semi-identical quadra*
12. Supervisor- being supervised (powerless) 

*//Opposing Qudra*
13. Super Ego 
14. Extinguishment/Contrary 
13. Quasi-identical
14. Conflictor


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

the easiest to communicate with
- idenical
- dual
- benefactor and beneficiary
- extinguishment(contrary)

Intermediate
- mirror
- activity
- business
- illusionary

Intermediate to difficult
- semi-dual
- kindred
-superego

Most difficult to communicate with:
- Quasi-identical and Conflictor


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

@_Boolean11_, this is interesting. But could you define "communication ease" a bit more? Does it mean that you can actually learn something from the conversation? Coz, you know, I can chat with some people with great ease but it bores me and we never tell each other anything new. Then I can chat with some people and we are at cross purposes but it doesn't bother me because I'm indifferent to them. I could easily repeat that process.
So do you mean "communication" as in just talking or in the Latin sense of "sharing; imparting knowledge, etc."

edit to add: also, is this restricted to verbal communication or does it include body language, tacit agreements etc?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> @_Boolean11_, this is interesting. But could you define "communication ease" a bit more? Does it mean that you can actually learn something from the conversation? Coz, you know, I can chat with some people with great ease but it bores me and we never tell each other anything new. Then I can chat with some people and we are at cross purposes but it doesn't bother me because I'm indifferent to them. I could easily repeat that process.
> So do you mean "communication" as in just talking or in the Latin sense of "sharing; imparting knowledge, etc."
> 
> edit to add: also, is this restricted to verbal communication or does it include body language, tacit agreements etc?


This was meant to be purely based on functions and their order, according to socionics, not factoring in something like the probability of common interests as @_cyamitide_ list indicates. Though at the same time I'm sort of confused because the inter-type relations seem to have a heavy bias against those processing information differently. I wanted it to be based on the overall easy and quality of communication, that is where I saw Contrary/Extinguishment as being difficult without factoring in the likely fact that interests would be a lot similar.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> This was meant to be purely based on functions and their order, according to socionics, not factoring in something like the probability of common interests as @_cyamitide_ list indicates. Though at the same time I'm sort of confused because the inter-type relations seem to have a heavy bias against those processing information differently.


Hum, OK. I find it very hard to see this purely based on functions without considering actual people of a particular type my personal experience with them. So is it basically just about "can I roughly understand what they are saying to me in any given situation, whether I'm interested in it or not, or do they seem 5000 miles off-topic"?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Hum, OK. I find it very hard to see this purely based on functions without considering actual people of a particular type my personal experience with them. So is it basically just about "can I roughly understand what they are saying to me in any given situation, whether I'm interested in it or not, or do they seem 5000 miles off-topic"?


Point taken though sadly the reality is that no people of the same type are the same. By the way, its not about the "content" of the conversation but merely how they process information. In a way it matters since it could lend people a hand with strangers when its necessary to adapt the style of information. Hopefully that made sense


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Point taken though sadly the reality is that no people of the same type are the same. By the way, its not about the "content" of the conversation but merely how they process information.* In a way it matters since it could lend people a hand with strangers when its necessary to adapt the style of information. Hopefully that made sense*


Yes, that would be very useful, but it would require at least one of the partners to be good at speed-typing or at least speed-function-spotting.

OK, I ill list my personal experience with the types I know best, but I ill also add my comments about the content and my relationship with the individuals because I'm evil like that 


*ESFj best friend:
*easy to communicate with about: everyday occurrences, friendships, feelings, bitching, making decisions about free-time activities, how to deal with children in our group when we did volunteer youth work
difficult: problem solving (e.g. her silly ex-boyfriend and how she always gets together with guys who are dumber and not worthy of her; me refusing to socialise with random people or to take up some random hobby just to meet people there)

*ESFj colleague 1*: 
*very easy for me*, all I have to do is stand there and let her talk. However, most of the things she says don't make much sense to me. *Static relationship*. What you see is what you get. (I accidentally found out - confirmed by her - that there is no more to learn about her than I already know from going for a smoke with her for 5 minutes occassionally).

*ESFj colleague 2:
*like colleague 1, he often assumes that people expect him to talk to them and will feel neglected when he doesn't (while I was hoping for a minute of quiet and don't even know him well enough to feel neglected). Fe- overkill!
Ease of communication about small talk topics, but even with these topics he often just asks the question but isn't even interested in my small-talky answer. 
Conversation and relationship is *static*, not moving forward.... and not even moving sideways (Ne). 

*INTj friend (INTP in MBTI)
*Got to know him as a lecturer and often got this impression in his classes "This is all very interesting and well structured and he says many interesting things, but WHY does he say them in the first place?"
now: *medium to easy *if I make an effort to switch the Te off
works better with user manual, but is very rewarding, often: different process, same result
(*INTj linemanager*: has more self-awareness and knowledge of people than INTj friend --> *easy!* she seems to know my user manual and I while I don't know her that well personally, knowledge of typology helps. But *we mainly co-exist peacefully *and she helps me sometimes when I ask for adivce and tames me with sweets. We don't really have many 'deep' conversations (although they might seem deep to others??? not sure).

*INFp (INFJ) friend:
**extremely easy* except for Te-Fe clashes

*ENTp 
easy*, can instinctively get "in tune" with them, tert Fe + tert Fi can work together beautifully because neither of them actually _expects_ the other to use F, there's no emotional pushiness; there's a lot of openness and acceptance; different process, same result, only problematic if they try to improve each other or are at cross-purposes in practical matters

*ENFj
*one of my bosses; *mainly easy *because we are both interested in different people's strengths and are interested in learning from others or understanding them, I can easily ignore some of her Fe-overkill and would make the same decisions as her based on Te instead of Fe

*ENTj colleague
relatively easy*, behaviour-wise: like an open book to me (particularly when Te is unconsciously influenced by Fi), but I don't always understand what mission she is on, *dom Te seems impressive but somewhat unflexible

ESTjs
difficult
*I only know a few at work and none of them personally; very easy to spot, behaviour and stereotypical concerns (efficiency, benefit scroungers etc.) are very obvious; attempts at manipulation are very obvious; some of them seem inhumane to me; make decisions based off random impressions too quickly; have little concern for and interest in individuals; dom Ni and aux Si don't sit well together, frequently at cross purposes*

ISFp (ISFJ)
easy at a superficial level, 
impossible at an individual/ "deeper" level

ESFp
*communication as in "dialogue" *often impossible* despite common interests, but it doesn't bother me, *fairly easy to "read", though

INTp (INTJ) - can be easy but isn't always very interesting
*depends on how developed they are and whether they are on the same topic together with a common goal, 
*INTp colleague*: can't get in tune with him at all on a personal level and couldn't care less, but organizing work matters is extremely easy
*INTp psychology work shop leader: *I can explain his thoughts to others when he's lost track, many of his experiences are exactly the same as mine, can follow him onto his Ni-planet

*Two INTps trying to minionize each other or arguing against each other can be very nasty but leaves no lasting impression.

edit to add: 
ISTJ = easy*


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> . Though at the same time I'm sort of confused because the inter-type relations seem to have a heavy bias against those processing information differently.


Forgive my bluntness, but this is why I never understand your threads: Are you a) out to sell socionics intertype relations as a tool for making communication easy regardless of content or b) looking for empirical evidence of the validity of socionics intertype relations?

I only mean this as a question to understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Forgive my bluntness, but this is why I never understand your threads: Are you a) out to sell socionics intertype relations as a tool for making communication easy regardless of content or b) looking for empirical evidence of the validity of socionics intertype relations?
> 
> I only mean this as a question to understand where you're coming from.


Sometimes I just state my thoughts without paying at lot of attention to the possible multiple interpretations they can have; plus I tend to not make the effort to look for errors especially when I've edited the post like 10 times before posting (hence the lack of flow in my writing most of the times)

BTW I would not trust empirical evidence since no two inter-type interactions are identical, the INTJ sub-forum really taught me that in my early months. However at the same time the only element I focus on is the whole innate psyche "functions" premises since I believe people would find that useful, yet they should expect the dynamism behind real people being the overall architecture of personalities.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> This was meant to be purely based on functions and their order, according to socionics, not factoring in something like the probability of common interests as @_cyamitide_ list indicates. Though at the same time I'm sort of confused because the inter-type relations seem to have a heavy bias against those processing information differently. I wanted it to be based on the overall easy and quality of communication, that is where I saw Contrary/Extinguishment as being difficult without factoring in the likely fact that interests would be a lot similar.


My list isn't based on common interests. I listed extinguishment relations as "easiest to communicate with" based on my experience. It's very easy to exchange information with them, and each points out something out that the other hasn't noticed or considered. This is also supported by several dichotomies and thinking styles. Extinguishment partner has the same thinking style as one's dual. It is often it is easier to communicate with extinguishment than semi-dual, even though semi-duality is listed as a better relationship type and there are two shared information elements. 

Extinguishment friendships are quite common (lowered communication barrier + common club NF,NT,ST,SF).


----------

