Inter-type relations and Universality

[Raver]

I was wondering how accurate inter-type relationships are in terms of descriptions. Basically, are the descriptions univeral for each type interaction or not necessarily. For example is the look-alike interaction between an ESFp/ENFp similar to the look-alike between an ISTp/INTp. Of course the individuals are different and the types are different, so it would yield diverse results, however are the same in terms of negativity/positivity and frequency?

[Lewis Stern]

Since the intertype relations descriptions represent "humanized-science" they automatically become absolute in trying to say A = A through diplomatic speech.

A true socionist needs to simply understand the underlying dynamics between functions 'talking' to each other. You can then feel free to reach conclusions from your unique personality (and matching 'type').

MBTI represents what ASP scripting is to dynamic database design i.e. for non-programmers who want to create a solution albeit not on the forefront of research or efficiency.

Socionics represents what PHP is to dynamic database design i.e. for real-learned programmers who can create arguable a better more efficient solution albeit with less respect from 'the industry' who still needs ASP.

I remember at University they would teach ASP and not PHP. A bias towards what is 'easier' rather then what is 'harder' and encourages free-thought learning.

[FDG]

Since the intertype relations descriptions represent "humanized-science" they automatically become absolute in trying to say A = A through diplomatic speech.

Tell me whhhyyy this is not a non-sequitor. Why humanized science becomes absolute in trying to say A = A? If it's trying to say A = A, is absolute by definition. If it's science, it's human by definition. Nonsense, as usual?