Social interactions is the primary thing that drives everyday life's reality

Image Source

The most vital experience of others happens in the face-to-face situation, which is the prototypical case of social interaction. In this situation the other is appresented in a clear present shared by the two of you. In the same striking present you are appresented to him. Your and his 'here and now' ceaselessly encroach on each other as long as the face-to-face situation proceeds.

There is a persistent exchange of your expressivity and his. You see him grin, at that point react to your glare by ceasing the grin, at that point grinning again as you grin, et cetera. Each statement of yours is arranged towards him, and viceversa, and this nonstop correspondence of expressive acts is all the while accessible to both of you.

This implies, in the face-to-face situation, the other's subjectivity is accessible to you through a greatest of side effects. You may misconstrue some of these side effects. You may feel that the other is grinning while in fact he is smiling. By and by, no other type of social relating can imitate the abundance of side effects of subjectivity present in the face-to-face situation.

Just here is the other's subjectivity vehemently close. Every single other type of identifying with the other are, in fluctuating degrees, remote. In the face-to-face situation the other is completely genuine. This reality is a piece of the general reality of everyday life, and in that capacity huge and convincing. Another might be genuine to you without you having experienced him face to face - by notoriety, say, or by having compared with him.

Image Source

In any case, he turns out to be genuine to you in the fullest sense of the word just when you meet him face to face. In fact, it might be contended that the other in the face-to-face situation is more genuine to you than you yourself. Obviously you know yourself superior to anything you can ever know him. Your subjectivity is open to you in a way his can never be, regardless of how close your relationship.

Your past is accessible to you in memory in a totality with which you can never remake his, however much he may inform you regarding it. Be that as it may, this better knowledge of yourself requires reflection. It isn't instantly appresented to you. The other, be that as it may, is so appresented in the face-to-face situation. What he is, is ongoingly accessible to you.

This accessibility is constant and prereflective. Then again, What you are, isn't so accessible. To make it accessible requires that you stop, capture the consistent suddenness of your experience, and purposely turn your consideration back upon yourself. In addition, such reflection about yourself is commonly occasioned by the state of mind towards you that the other shows.

It is commonly a mirror reaction to mentalities of the other. It takes after that relations with others in the face-to-face situation are profoundly adaptable. Put negatively, it is nearly hard to force unbending patterns upon face-to-face interaction. Whatever patterns are presented will be persistently altered through the exceedingly variegated and unpretentious trade of subjective implications that goes on.

Image Source

You may see the other as somebody inherently unfriendly to you and act towards him inside a pattern of unfriendly relations as comprehended by you. In the face-to-face situation, nonetheless, the other may stand up to you with states of mind and acts that repudiate this pattern, maybe up to a point where you are directed to relinquish the pattern as inapplicable and to see him as friendly.

The pattern can't manage the gigantic proof of the other's subjectivity that is accessible to you in the face-to-face situation. By differentiate, it is substantially less demanding for you to overlook such proof as long as you don't experience the other face to face.

Indeed, even in such a moderately close connection as might be kept up by correspondence, you would more be able to effectively reject the other's protestations of companionship as not actually representing his subjective state of mind to you, essentially on the grounds that in correspondence you do not have the quick, persistent and hugely genuine nearness of his expressivity.

It is workable for you to confound the other's implications even in the face-to-face situation, as it is feasible for him fraudulently to conceal his implications. All the same, both distortion and bad faith are more hard to support in face-to-face interaction than in less close types of social relations.

Image Source

References:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/chapter/understanding-social-interaction
http://mcat-review.org/social-interactions.php
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP9.HTM