When Dialogue Is Useless: Model A and Resource Asymmetry
Sep 09, 2025
In public consciousness there is a persistent belief: civilized resolution of disagreements is built on dialogue. The parties sit down at the negotiating table, exchange arguments, letters, speeches, and it is precisely through verbalization that they find a solution. This ideal seems universal—until a situation arises where the very fact of conversation turns from a tool of understanding into a tool of pressure.
Where one side feels more resourceful—by position, social status, or simply by the configuration of the psyche—dialogue loses its function as an exchange of meaning. It turns into a form of manipulation: speech is used not to coordinate positions but to reinforce power and ignore feedback.
From the point of view of Socionics and Model A, the explanation lies not only in social hierarchy but also in the structure of information metabolism. Three zones of the model are especially sharp in negotiations: the painful function (PoLR), the ignoring/limiting function, and the suggestive function. It is they that determine where an argument collapses into a defensive reaction, where the opponent “extinguishes” any activity, and where the illusion of dialogue arises through promises of “that very thing” which is so lacking.
Thus, the meaninglessness of conversations in resource-asymmetric relations has a structural foundation: under these conditions, dialogue ceases to be a tool of understanding and becomes a ritual that serves the imbalance of functions.
Theoretical framework: how Model A “spoils” negotiations
Model A sets a rigid structure within which people process and evaluate information. Each function does not simply “add” a piece of perception but imposes its own distortions and filters. In negotiations this becomes especially clear: words may sound the same, but they fall into different “cells” of the model, and the result turns out to be diametrically opposed to expectations.
1. Painful function (PoLR, 4th position)
This zone is the most vulnerable: here a person feels chronic incompetence and dependence on external factors. Any appeal to the content of the painful function is perceived as a blow to self-esteem. In negotiations this produces not readiness to listen, but an immediate defensive reaction—from devaluing what is said to open aggression. Example: for LSE (ESTj) the PoLR is Ni (intuition of time). An attempt to “explain the picture of the future” causes irritation and closure instead of understanding.
2. Ignoring / limiting function (7th position)
Powerful in capacity, but not valued. A person is able to act through it but systematically suppresses the significance of this channel—in themselves and in others. In negotiations this shows up as a “wall”: the partner demonstrates skill but at the same time demonstratively shows that this skill “does not matter.” For the interlocutor this looks like cold ignoring and evokes a sense of powerlessness. Example: for SEE (ESFp) the ignoring position is Si (sensing of comfort). In negotiations the details of processes, regulations, and a “healthy environment” are automatically devalued.
3. Suggestive function (5th position)
The most sensitive and “hungry” zone: here a person seeks nourishment, trusts, and relaxes. The suggestive function makes the interlocutor vulnerable to promises of “that which is lacking.” In negotiations this creates a risk of dependency: one side begins to “feed” the weak spot of the other, and the latter loses the ability for critical perception. Example: for SEE (ESFp) the suggestive function is Ni. If the opponent demonstrates confidence in controlling time and the future, SEE tends to accept this framework without resistance.
Where the “sense of resourcefulness” comes from
In negotiations the sense of “resource advantage” is rarely tied only to money, position, or formal rights. Its foundation lies in the psychic architecture of Model A. A person reads their own strong functions as a natural right to shape the frame of communication, and their weak ones as zones where they are not obliged to respond or listen.
1. Strong and valued functions create an aura of power
The base (1st) and creative (2nd) functions transmit the energy of competence. When a person speaks from these zones, they sound convincing even if the actual argument is secondary. For SEE (ESFp) these are Se and Fi: the combination of drive and personal ties creates the feeling “I decide who is right here.” For LSE (ESTj) these are Te and Si: facts and procedures become a lever that suppresses others’ reasoning.
2. The ignoring function reinforces the right to dismiss
In the seventh position lies a hidden mechanism: “I can do this, but I do not value it and therefore am not obliged to discuss it.” This is not weakness but a way to put a period in dialogue. An LSE with ignoring Se can easily cut off pressure, but does so in a way that leaves the interlocutor with the feeling their efforts were “cut off” without explanation.
3. Social context amplifies the effect of functions
Organizational hierarchy, access to resources, the right to sanction—all this layers on top of those functions that culture already rewards (Se, Te, Fe). An employer or official feels not only a status-based but also a psychological right not to listen.
4. Mutual perception and asymmetry
When one side systematically “fires” into the painful function of the other (for example, an SEE pressing an LSE through Ni-rhetoric), the partner develops a sense of vulnerability. At that moment “resourcefulness” is seen not as an objective balance of power but as psychological asymmetry: one controls the field of play, the other defends.
Conclusion
The sense of resourcefulness arises from a combination of internal factors (strong and ignoring functions) and external ones (hierarchy, context). It works as hidden legitimation: “I am allowed not to take your point of view into account because I have a frame that you lack.”
Analysis of the SEE (ESFp) — LSE (ESTj) pair through Model A
It is important here not to limit ourselves to a general description of conflicts but to show step by step how exactly the functions in Model A interact and where the negotiation dynamic breaks down.
1. Functional profiles
SEE (ESFp)
- 1st (Base): Se [volitional sensing] — creates a field of pressure and initiative, the right to set the frame.
- 2nd (Creative): Fi [ethics of relations] — finely senses personal ties and status, can emotionally “suspend” the opponent.
- 3rd (Role): Ne [intuition of possibilities] — can demonstrate breadth of ideas but quickly tires of needing to “be creative.”
- 4th (PoLR): Ti [structural logic] — cannot stand dry rules and logical assessments, perceives them as coercion.
- 5th (Suggestive): Ni [intuition of time] — seeks confidence that there is meaning and perspective; easily succumbs to promises of “time and future.”
- 6th (Activating): Te [business logic] — mobilized by clear results and facts, needs confirmation.
- 7th (Ignoring): Si [sensing of comfort] — able to create coziness but ignores its value, devalues care about processes.
- 8th (Demonstrative): Fe [ethics of emotions] — easily manages the emotional background but uses it more instrumentally.
LSE (ESTj)
- 1st (Base): Te [business logic] — rationalizes processes, demands efficiency, speaks the language of metrics.
- 2nd (Creative): Si [sensing of comfort] — values order, stability, a healthy environment, and skillfully maintains processes.
- 3rd (Role): Fe [ethics of emotions] — tries to “be emotional” for conformity but looks forced.
- 4th (PoLR): Ni [intuition of time] — distrusts forecasts and long-term plans, reacts painfully to visionary approaches.
- 5th (Suggestive): Fi [ethics of relations] — seeks recognition and affirmation of the value of personal ties.
- 6th (Activating): Ne [intuition of possibilities] — comes alive when alternatives are discussed but quickly loses interest without factual grounding.
- 7th (Ignoring): Se [volitional sensing] — capable of will and toughness but fundamentally devalues power games.
- 8th (Demonstrative): Ti [structural logic] — keeps systematic ability in reserve but does not present it openly.
2. Channels of “breakdown” in negotiations
PoLR → vulnerability
LSE (ESTj) reacts painfully to Ni. Any attempt by SEE to “push” deadlines, forecasts, or a “vision of the future” provokes rejection.
SEE (ESFp) is vulnerable in Ti. When LSE introduces formal rules, instructions, logical schemes, SEE reacts with irritation and feels “dry pressure.”
Ignoring → dialogue blocking
LSE ignores Se. They can resist pressure but devalue this channel. For SEE this looks like a cold wall: “you do not accept my initiative.”
SEE ignores Si. All of LSE’s arguments about quality, order, and environmental stability are nullified: “not important, the result is what matters.”
Suggestive → dependence
SEE seeks confidence in Ni. They are ready to listen about “the future” and “long-term perspective,” but paired with LSE this does not happen—LSE has painful Ni. This produces chronic deficit.
LSE seeks Fi—personal recognition, care for their value. But SEE uses Fi as a creative function: easily managing this channel, either feeding or withdrawing recognition.
3. Dynamics in negotiations
SEE begins with Se+Fi: framing (“it must be this way, and relationships oblige”).
LSE responds with Te+Si: demands facts, procedures, stability.
SEE raises an Ni-topic: “we must act faster, otherwise we will lose the future.”
LSE’s PoLR-Ni defense is triggered: devalues or shuts down the conversation.
SEE feels Si-arguments are ignored: increases Se pressure.
LSE activates restrictive Se-7: firmly puts an end (“it will be this way, and that’s it”).
At this moment the dialogue turns into a ritual of pressure and defense. No actual “understanding” emerges.
4. Practical implications
For LSE (ESTj): do not try to explain to SEE the value of procedures (Si) or argue forecasts (Ni)—this will only provoke devaluation or aggression. Better to give SEE measurable Te-results.
For SEE (ESFp): do not expect negotiations to be an instrument of influence. Only Se-fact works—the demonstration that the resource may leave.
For both sides: recognize that “conversation” here is not a working tool. Direct demonstration of actions and readiness to exit the relationship matters more.
What to do if you are “inside” such a relationship and there is no way out yet
Finding yourself in a situation where dialogue no longer serves its function, you inevitably feel helpless. Every word seems to dissolve in the air: the other person either does not hear, or hears in a way that suits them. Any attempt to insist only strengthens the asymmetry, and the conversation itself turns into proof of weakness.
The only workable step here is to stop perceiving negotiations as a path to changing the other side’s position. They should be used only as a form of presence, not as an instrument of influence. Real impact shifts to other channels: not explaining, but showing; not proving, but presenting facts that cannot be disputed. This may be a result, an action, or consistency of behavior—things that cannot be brushed aside even with complete disregard for words.
Within such a relationship it is crucial to shift focus from the opponent’s reaction to your own course. The less energy is spent on waiting for understanding, the clearer the inner rhythm becomes. A kind of protective layer arises: the interlocutor may continue the manipulative “ritual of discussion,” but for you it no longer serves as a measure of your own worth.
The paradox is that this reconfigured attitude toward communication sometimes changes the dynamic itself. Where the expectation of concession or recognition disappears, so does the ground for manipulation. Ignoring loses its sting, and the opponent’s resourcefulness turns out not absolute but relative. At some point this creates a chance for more genuine interaction— perhaps not immediately and not fully, but enough to maintain balance until the possibility of exit appears.
Methodological caveats
Considering negotiations through the lens of Model A always carries an element of reduction. The model captures the structure of the psyche but does not account for the social context in its entirety. The power of hierarchy, cultural codes, and institutional frameworks can strengthen or weaken the influence of functions, so the outcome of a conflict cannot be reduced solely to typological differences.
In addition, the intertype matrix does not prescribe fatal outcomes. Relationships in which dialogue loses meaning should not be treated as “doomed”—they are better described as a pattern of role distribution in communication. In practice, subtypes, professional training, personal experience, and the ability to take a meta-position play a major role. A person can learn to bypass their own vulnerabilities, even if formally they are embedded in the structure of the model.
Finally, it is important to understand that we are speaking of negotiations and relationships as processes, not as a rigid “given” of type. Model A reveals regularities, but each case is unique in how functions are manifested and how their distortions are sustained by the environment.
Conclusion
When negotiations turn into a ritual of pressure, the meaninglessness of words is experienced as a personal failure. In reality, there is little that is personal here: the structure of Model A predetermines the places where arguments will not be heard and initiatives will be devalued. The painful function responds with defense, the ignoring function builds a wall, and the suggestive function easily pushes toward the illusion of mutual understanding where none exists.
That is why conversation with a resourceful opponent rarely becomes a platform for genuine coordination of positions. It serves the balance of power, fixes the status quo, and only in rare cases opens the way to change. Realizing this removes unnecessary expectations: dialogue ceases to be perceived as a universal tool and takes its place among many other instruments.
A mature attitude toward negotiations requires understanding one’s own functions and those of the partner. Where words are doomed to deafness, facts take effect. Where explanations are powerless, a well-built inner line works. And it is precisely this knowledge that restores subjectivity—even within relationships where at first glance you have no resources.