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

[Beautiful sky]

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.

[1981slater]

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.

[The Ineffable]

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.

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