Dialog between two people can often be more tricky than it should be. In brass tax reality it's a case of two human individuals sharing thoughts but what makes it difficult, cumbersome or even flattering are the things we associate with the other party.
Take for example a low status person talking to a high status person. The low status person (if not a sociopath) will most likely be intimidated when having a conversation with someone of high status, therefor preventing him from being honest and capable of having a an equal thought when compared to the high status person. The high status person (who isn't a phychopath) will often look onto the low status person with pity, therefore keeping him from lowing his thought potential to what he perceives is of the same level of the low status person. Within both experiences of the low and high status individual are very unnatural and dishonest an experience is born that both parties wish they would rather do without because they both can feel the dishonesty there. Dialog between those two people would be much more genuine and comfortable if the associations at the forefront of their minds came out of their mouths. And of course is they aren't sociopaths or psychopaths.
Though in the example given between the low and high status person can be swapped out for any association the individual has or is perceived by.
Often these associations between two people in conversation are repressed because it would just be too awkward to point them out because it may be deemed offensive or violate societal norms. The high status person doesn't want to express his pity because it may damage his pride. The low status person may not want to acknowledge how the other person is high status because he does not to admit his low status because it's generally not socially accepted, therefore you get awkward small talk.
But what if they were sociopaths or psychopaths? Chances are the conversation between the two classes of sociopaths or psychopaths (doesn't matter which of the two personalities are of either status) will go rather smoothly because both are trying to dominate for something out of the other party. Put another way: they are both actively carrying out a mission. But that doesn't mean all goal oriented conversation is only taken up by the mentally malicious. Actually, goal oriented conversation is a sign of a healthy conversation.
What is a healthy conversation? That's hard to say, it's up to the people that are actively in the conversation but one thing that's easy to point out are the barriers that prevent a healthy dialog between two people.
Modern Western culture is mainly made up of associations which make the most thriving conversation limited to the mentally malicious. People become attracted to the other sex on associations alone which will only bring turmoil. That could perhaps be why the divorce rate in the U.S. is upwards to fifty percent! The couple never wanted to actually know each other because they were just focused on their associations.
Creating associations (a pseudo-self) is a sign of rejecting the real self and replace it with a source of an already accepted archtype, whether it be a rockstar, intellectual, a celebrity, rich, a biker, the possibilities are in the millions.
This can say a lot about our society. Most of the of the people we encounter (may even be yourself) are narcissistic which is encouraged by how society is structured. Take for the example of a college degree. The college degree is not a border between smart and stupid, all a degree indicates is that you went through the process by a given school in order to get its approval in a certain field. Whomever feels it necessary (like an employer) to take into account the college degree is associating that person (with the degree) with the school the approved him. That means its not the person they're interested in, it's the school. That is an example of how established societal structure enables this dehumanizing associations. Don't even get me started of social media...
To establish a more authentic conversation one must for things they think are associated with themselves. You cannot control what the other party thinks but you can control what you think.
