Lines, lines, lines, the lines that separate people

When we broadly categorize people in our daily lives, what kind of lines do we use to divide them? If you are a marketer, "demographics" will immediately come to mind. Demographics refers to information such as
gender and age, which are the basics when conducting online research. Other times, we might classify people into clusters based on hobbies and interests, or behavioral patterns. By the way, "stock-cla," used as internet slang, refers to a cluster of people interested in stock investment (probably).

Now, while there are various lines that classify people in this way, when thinking about communication between people, which line holds particularly significant meaning? What determines whether you feel you can "get through" to someone or find them "easy to talk to"? As a communication expert, this was a rather interesting theme (though I claim to be various kinds of experts, please just let that slide without thinking too deeply).

For example, does communication go well between women? There might be specific situations where that is the case, but it is definitely not a rule. There are countless people you just don't click with.
What about people of the same generation? While there is the strength of sharing a historical background, this is also not it. Were all your classmates friends with each other?
What if you have the same hobbies? I feel like that is better than demographics, but this is also not it. The "stock-cla" are always fighting.

I once accidentally discovered a previously invisible "line" that could be a hint to solving this problem. It was when I was having a conversation with my father for the first time in a while.

I have never felt that I could have a deep conversation with him, but at that time, we especially could not understand each other. For some reason, my father brought up the topic of "whether the death penalty is necessary." I think I answered something like, "Assuming there is a most serious crime, it depends on how society chooses to face it."

We should have been exchanging opinions on the "how to face it" part, but my father kept saying, "What is the most serious crime?" and wouldn't move forward. I replied many times, "That doesn't matter. It changes depending on the social situation at the time, so for now, just assume there is a most serious crime," but he just kept repeating, "What is the most serious crime?"
If you pin down a specific crime, the question shifts to "Is the death penalty necessary for that crime?" I had no choice but to cut the conversation short.

It was then that I realized. This person cannot think about things abstractly. Even though we are parent and child, there is a difference in our ability to abstract. In fact, could the root of whether you can communicate with someone or not be the degree of abstraction ability?

This was quite shocking. If the "degree of abstraction ability" is truly a major element of communication, wouldn't many people never reach the cause of their communication failures?
This is because, whether it is demographics or hobbies and interests, as far as I know, there is no mention of abstraction in the lines that easily classify people (the attributes that define a person).

Note that this is not to say that having high abstraction ability makes you superior. Abstraction leads to overthinking, which is bad for your health. It might sound bad to say someone doesn't think too deeply, but I often hear that people who are more materialistic have higher levels of happiness.
In other words, abstraction is not about being good or bad; it is just one of the many lines I have mentioned so far.

However, that line is invisible.

If you liked this article even a little, please be sure to follow me!