# Thread: Robert Axelrod's Landscape Theory and quality of the Socionics intertype relations

1. ## Robert Axelrod's Landscape Theory and quality of the Socionics intertype relations

I have a strong interest on Game Theory, so I have read Robert Axelrod's books, which I find amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Axelrod

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/

Read: Robert Axelrod and D. Scott Bennett, "A Landscape Theory of Aggregation," 1993.

The book "Complexity of Cooperation" includes a chapter related to coalition formation ("choosing sides"). When it comes to evaluating the "quality" of a (professional) match between people, the Socionics relationship between them is probably a valuable source of information, a way of evaluating the long-term potential of the aforementioned relationship. For instance, I will quantify the quality of the Socionics relationships:

Duality: 1.00
Identical: 0.90
Activity: 0.85
Mirror: 0.80
Supervisor: 0.50
Supervisee 0.20 (non symmetrical relationship, different values in the matrix)
Look alike: 0.70
Illusionary: 0.65
Benefactor: 0.70
Beneficiary: 0.50
Semi dual: 0.60
Comparative: 0.40
Quasi identical: 0.30
Contrary: 0.20
Super ego: 0.10
Conflictor: 0.00

2. slater did you have a algorithm you used to do this?

3. Definitely interesting.

4. Originally Posted by hkkmr
slater did you have a algorithm you used to do this?
Not yet, I have just allocated "logical" values to relationships. A quasi identical may or may not be a great co-worker, for instance. What value could we allocate to quasi identical relationship? 0.4? 0.8?

5. I would say that semi duality would be higher up on the list in terms of relationships that can happen quickly, but not be likely to be sustained for a long time; how are you ranking these?

6. Originally Posted by Maritsa33
I would say that semi duality would be higher up on the list in terms of relationships that can happen quickly, but not be likely to be sustained for a long time; how are you ranking these?
It would depend on whether or not we are seeking "long term" alliances. For instance:

Relationship Short term Long term

Duality________0.8________1
Activity________1 ________ 0.8
Semi dual ____ 0.7 ________0.5
Super ego ____0.5 ________0.1
Conflictor ____ 0.8 _______ 0

7. Originally Posted by 1981slater

Relationship Short term Long term

Duality________0.8________1
Conflictor ____ 0.8 _______ 0
yikes.

this is quite interesting, overall.

8. I don't think one can draw such informative estimations from the formal types of relationships alone. It may be the case, for example, that a Super-Ego relationship between two Introverts to be more appropriate for long-term than say Supervision where the Supervisor is an Extrovert. This quantification looks attrative but it doesn't entail substance, I don't believe it - I don't think it is possible to assess it without considering the type, at least, let alone the external circumstances. By this last detail, I'm thinking about what kind of collaboration is expected, even what kind of outcome - eg. "working together" as in having fun or being productive, or something else. There is this table at the bottom that I find as a more appropriate approach.

These relationships are not a matter of quantity, but of quality - a "what" instead of a "how much". At the same time, the classification in the same category of relationships of two different pair of types is IMO merely an analogy - they are similar, but not the same.

9. Very interesting, slater. But what would you use this for? Did you have something in mind?

10. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
I don't think one can draw such informative estimations from the formal types of relationships alone. It may be the case, for example, that a Super-Ego relationship between two Introverts to be more appropriate for long-term than say Supervision where the Supervisor is an Extrovert. This quantification looks attrative but it doesn't entail substance, I don't believe it - I don't think it is possible to assess it without considering the type, at least, let alone the external circumstances. By this last detail, I'm thinking about what kind of collaboration is expected, even what kind of outcome - eg. "working together" as in having fun or being productive, or something else. There is this table at the bottom that I find as a more appropriate approach.

These relationships are not a matter of quantity, but of quality - a "what" instead of a "how much". At the same time, the classification in the same category of relationships of two different pair of types is IMO merely an analogy - they are similar, but not the same.
I recall the definition of probability: you can do some experiment in which only "A" and "B" are the possible results. Repeat the experiment lots of times, and write down the number of times "A" is the result of the experiment. You can define the probability of getting "A" as = number of times you get A / number of times you do the experiment. I think Laplace's theories were controversial when he formulated them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability

For instance, I know around 10 SEEs and I get along well with 3 of them (not only Socionics type matters). Thus I allocate 3/10 = 0.3 to the "quality" of the superego relationship.

11. Originally Posted by Mountain Dew
Very interesting, slater. But what would you use this for? Did you have something in mind?
It can enhance Axelrod's theory and therefore, choices of people would be more predictable.

12. Originally Posted by 1981slater
For instance, I know around 10 SEEs and I get along well with 3 of them (not only Socionics type matters). Thus I allocate 3/10 = 0.3 to the "quality" of the superego relationship.
Slater, your reasoning lacks rigor almost entirely... In order to draw such conclusion, you must have first performed the experiment. However you made a theoretical inference (and a prediction, mental, a priori), which is not the same thing, it is based on understanding their nature, not empirical observation. While I understand that you have some reserve of obervations as a base, you exprapolated way too much - all this extrapolation was performed mentally, not empirically.

I strongly believe that such an attempt would fail to give sufficient consistency to make it relevant in respect to the Socion. I doubt that you will obtain the same figure for all the relationships of the same type (for instance 0.3 for all the eight Super-Ego). That is because since the relationship between the same types can fail or succeed, it is mostly due to external factors. Indeed, consistency of testing results would point us to a rule, just I don't see any reason to expect that, let alone boasting an exhaustive list of predicted results being supported almost entirely on imagination alone. (see hkkmr's question)

You might say that you can use the average, in the same "statistical" approach. And say using two relationships (ILE/SEE and IEI/SLI for Super Ego), obtaining 0.3, respectively 0.6 - ending up with 0.45. This is vrong and totally irrelevant, that can be done on any arbitrary group of 8 relationships.

And finally, it is important to mention that you often use the degree of comfort in relationships to type, which makes it circular reasoning. Example: typing as SEE someone who is obviosuly Ethical and Sensing but you don't feel attraction towards the person. This would indeed give you more consistency, just you don't type correctly, it is just a glitch of reason (fallacy) that would necessarily confirm your assumptions beyond any logical constraint.

13. Originally Posted by The Ineffable

You might say that you can use the average, in the same "statistical" approach. And say using two relationships (ILE/SEE and IEI/SLI for Super Ego), obtaining 0.3, respectively 0.6 - ending up with 0.45. This is vrong and totally irrelevant, that can be done on any arbitrary group of 8 relationships.
We don't know. It would be a good idea to ask people to assess, quantify the "comfort" they feel towards a particular type. It may resemble what you said, or it may not.

BTW, I have SEE friends. And I feel "OK" with them: I type them as SEE because they value and are good at Fi, and they prefer not to be in a Fe environment.

Off topic, our conversations look as if our temperaments are opposite: Ej Ip or Ij Ep

14. BTW, I guess no one has read Axelrod's model. Everybody is complaining about my assumptions, namely quantifying relationships: Axelrod did the same and he is a respectable scientist. If I assume things I lack rigor. Yeah What you like is to discard ideas and devalue

15. Originally Posted by 1981slater
BTW, I guess no one has read Axelrod's model. Everybody is complaining about my assumptions, namely quantifying relationships: Axelrod did the same and he is a respectable scientist. If I assume things I lack rigor. Yeah What you like is to discard ideas and devalue
One does not need to - it is fallacious to do that. So regardless of his model, it can't magically trash the logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning at will. I never suggested that his model is wrong, nor that this Axelrod guy I never heard before is a no-name, I just think that the synaptic malfunctioning occurs in fact somewhere between your keyboard and your chair.

16. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
I don't think one can draw such informative estimations from the formal types of relationships alone.
Actually, you're wrong in many ways/perspectives; one CAN draw any information from any given circumstances and form any relationships; do you know WHY they CAN? Because Slater just did; his very ability to do it is proof enough that one CAN excise the right to free thinking. Ineffable, I don't understand how in your world, full of "you can do this, but not that" one is able to even come up with viable theories.

I feel that the reason why you're more focused on debunking Slater's theory(ies) is because in a really NICE way (or rather, I should call them "in your own special way") you want to help him see reality that the theory is not working or could not work well; admirable as it may be that you want to help him ground his theories, it nevertheless isn't helping in formulating and extending new theories, is it?

Please try more constructive ways of dealing with theory makers; by that, I mean Add to them or expand them rather than telling them they CAN or CAN'T do something because in your reality that's how things should or shouldn't work.

You mean well, but your approach is entirely belittling.

17. Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Actually, you're wrong in many ways/perspectives; one CAN draw any information from any given circumstances and form any relationships; do you know WHY they CAN? Because Slater just did; his very ability to do it is proof enough that one CAN excise the right to free thinking. Ineffable, I don't understand how in your world, full of "you can do this, but not that" one is able to even come up with viable theories.

I feel that the reason why you're more focused on debunking Slater's theory(ies) is because in a really NICE way (or rather, I should call them "in your own special way") you want to help him see reality that the theory is not working or could not work well; admirable as it may be that you want to help him ground his theories, it nevertheless isn't helping in formulating and extending new theories, is it?

Please try more constructive ways of dealing with theory makers; by that, I mean Add to them or expand them rather than telling them they CAN or CAN'T do something because in your reality that's how things should or shouldn't work.

You mean well, but your approach is entirely belittling.
Thank you Maritsa

People tend to deny the very existence of their polr

Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason. Ineffable says this is impossible. End of story: Ineffable ISTj

I like to explore a new territory with my base function (), then shape a theory with my creative (), as Dr House does

Now please, let's focus on Landscape Theory. Ineffable himself made me realize that the probability of getting along well may be different for each type. I'd like people to allocate a number between 0 and 1 to intertype relationships so that we can see how probability varies.

18. Originally Posted by 1981slater
Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason.
...then when you use your Ti, you realize what is sound and what is nonsense.
Originally Posted by 1981slater
Ineffable himself made me realize that the probability of getting along well may be different for each type.
Maritsa, you just said that I don't participate constructively to these new ideas

19. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
I don't think one can draw such informative estimations from the formal types of relationships alone. It may be the case, for example, that a Super-Ego relationship between two Introverts to be more appropriate for long-term than say Supervision where the Supervisor is an Extrovert. This quantification looks attrative but it doesn't entail substance, I don't believe it - I don't think it is possible to assess it without considering the type, at least, let alone the external circumstances. By this last detail, I'm thinking about what kind of collaboration is expected, even what kind of outcome - eg. "working together" as in having fun or being productive, or something else. There is this table at the bottom that I find as a more appropriate approach.

These relationships are not a matter of quantity, but of quality - a "what" instead of a "how much". At the same time, the classification in the same category of relationships of two different pair of types is IMO merely an analogy - they are similar, but not the same.
^ questions?:

What are you doing here?
What are you asking for him to do?

Next question:

What am I doing here?

Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Actually, you're wrong in many ways/perspectives; one CAN draw any information from any given circumstances and form any relationships; do you know WHY they CAN? Because Slater just did; his very ability to do it is proof enough that one CAN excise the right to free thinking. Ineffable, I don't understand how in your world, full of "you can do this, but not that" one is able to even come up with viable theories.

I feel that the reason why you're more focused on debunking Slater's theory(ies) is because in a really NICE way (or rather, I should call them "in your own special way") you want to help him see reality that the theory is not working or could not work well; admirable as it may be that you want to help him ground his theories, it nevertheless isn't helping in formulating and extending new theories, is it?

Please try more constructive ways of dealing with theory makers; by that, I mean Add to them or expand them rather than telling them they CAN or CAN'T do something because in your reality that's how things should or shouldn't work.

You mean well, but your approach is entirely belittling.

I am appealing to your conscience in an emotional and ethical way.

21. Good morning!

22. 1981slater = LSE

The Ineffable = ILI

Maritsa = ESE

Where's an LII when you need one, right Maritsa?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•