Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
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.