In this article I would like to share my vital observation related to people. Everything I am going to tell is subjective, thus detailed research may show it correct or wrong as well. But I suppose this observation is worth being written. Here we go!
I have talked to different people. With some of them we came to understanding sooner or later, even if our views seemed to be opposite at the beginning. And with the others longer discussions led to more points of incomprehension. This made me think that deep inside of each person there is an important principle responsible for the way this person analyses information. Partially this principle can be sensed through repeating the question "Why do you think so?". Sooner or later the person gets down to the answer like "I think so because I think so. Nuff said." or so. This just means he refuses to discuss it anymore because of the obviousness of the thought. Though the obviousness doesn't seem to be the same for every one.
Subjectively, analysing conversatoins with my friends I made a conclusion that there are strictly two sorts of people. For one of them, call them sophists, obviousness means material profit having different forms such as money, social status, subjects, power, etc. Everything that leads to material profit (no matter how long the chain leading to it is) is obviously true and forbidden to doubt. At best you can find a mistake in his logical chain discussing it with him but it doesn't change a thing because his chain is always bound to material profit.
The other sort of people, so-called socrateses, seeks for a truth. They want to understand more, to have more information. In very advanced cases they prefer mental things neglecting material ones. They can be interested in money or social status but as methods to reach what they find a truth. They are always ready to have long discussions and analysis in case of disagreeing with the opponent. According to my subjective research, these people are the minority.
The division into sophists and socrateses is strict. In other words, there's nobody who includes both sophists' and socrateses' features.
This point of view makes it obvious how interactions between people work. Two socrateses feel comfortable towards any sort of talks. Long discussions lead to experience exchange. A talk of two sophists is not bad too but there're nuances. If their material values are similar they understand each other easily, without any problem. If not, each of them stands by his opinion without a long discussion. But long interaction between a sophist and a socrates leads to growing misunderstanding, because they have completely different foundations. Socrates is not ready to take this limitation by material things, therefore he is inclined to express obvious silly thoughts from sophist's point of view.
Most likely the reader of this article is a socrates. Thus I want to give you a piece of advise. If you deal with a sophist, try to avoid long and deep discussions if you disagree. In most cases they would lead nowhere, but you would spend a lot of time and effort. And try to value another socrateses around you because they are the minority. If I've mistaken and you are a sophist, I also can recommend you something. If a socrates wants to prove you something, take it easy and try to avoid the empty talk with him. It saves kind and respectful relationships.