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

[1981slater]

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

[mu4]

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

[1981slater]

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?

[FDG]

Definitely interesting.

[Beautiful sky]

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?

[1981slater]

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

[redbaron]

Relationship Short term Long term

Duality________0.8________1
Conflictor ____ 0.8 _______ 0

yikes.

this is quite interesting, overall.

[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.

[1981slater]

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.

[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.

[Beautiful sky]

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?

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.

[Creepy-Snaps]

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

[1981slater]

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.

[Beautiful sky]

Short answer:

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

[1981slater]

Good morning!

[Olduvai]

1981slater = LSE

The Ineffable = ILI

Maritsa = ESE


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