# alchi. a general theory of interpersonal compatibility



## milahu (Jan 30, 2021)

hello p-cafe

i am looking for help to publish my research thesis
in the field of personality psychology
on the topic of interpersonal compatibility

wikipedia (the worst source in the world) says:
"no general theory of interpersonal compatibility has been proposed in psychology"





Interpersonal compatibility - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





such a "general theory" is what i propose here



my research question is:

how must we connect people, so that everyone* can
1. live his natural strength
2. delegate his weaknesses to his friends (and their natural strength)

or: how exactly could a "paradise on earth" look like?
or: how could a "world formula" look like?
or: what are the "laws of friendship"?

* by "everyone" i also mean the "criminal" elements
or rather criminalized elements. all talents are useful

as solution i propose a very specific pattern
which is partially* described on my project website at








GitHub - milahu/alchi: compatibility chart for personality types


compatibility chart for personality types. Contribute to milahu/alchi development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com




the pattern can be seen at


alchi-maps


* other parts are in private text files, or in my hand-written journal (hundreds of pages)

i claim this pattern works for _all_ people at all ages
so in theory, it also applies to newborn children
who in this way, can find their "real" family,
so this is the most extreme version of "early education"



the problems i have with publishing my results:
1. i find it infinitely hard to finish my work (im a beginner in general)
2. no one seems to be responsible (or reachable),
since my work is too fundamental for most specialists

another interesting detail is:
my theory also predicts
how the theory itself must be communicated.
(the problem of bootstrapping = where to start)
--> who exactly must i talk to
so my signals can be understood.
= personal reasons for understanding
= who are my natural listeners?
in my case:
im a male, age 30, element fire.
my "natural scholars" are:
1. male earth with different age
2. male water with different age
the relationship must be initiated by them
(they will talk first, to introduce their topics)
so later i can act as sender/teacher.



so much for now
thanks for reading 2 minutes


----------



## AngelaKirijoo (Jan 6, 2021)

You need to work on representation first.
It looks like mess in its current state and can't be seriously analyzed.
Look on how research/scientific papers and PhD theses are written.


----------



## milahu (Jan 30, 2021)

yepp, its a mess. i made a two-page summary which still is a mess. published 10 000 prints, got zero feedback

currently im working on a short book which should be easier to read

target audience are laymen not academics, so i try to avoid technical terms. for example instead of "neurotic" i say "feminine". ideally also kids (age 10+) should understand it. for the people who already know a terminology i made a translation table, cos the wikipedia version is wrong in some parts



> You need to work on representation first.


would be more fun in dialog with a co-author


----------



## AngelaKirijoo (Jan 6, 2021)

milahu said:


> yepp, its a mess. i made a two-page summary which still is a mess. published 10 000 prints, got zero feedback
> 
> currently im working on a short book which should be easier to read
> 
> ...


I don't see how change from "neurotic" to "feminine" makes it easier since latter is much more ambiguous.

It doesn't make sense to target laymans while trying to publish for academy.

Although I still think that for layman academical paper would be easier to read, but I didn't read this two-page version since I don't know the language.



> would be more fun in dialog with a co-author


There is a reason why you have zero feedback. Co-authors won't appear out if thin air.


----------



## Glittris (May 15, 2020)

My spontaneous suggestions: Collect and refine your ideas, and try to work on an English version of your current theory, English is not native to me either, I use translating tools and thesaurus all the time, but if your document is not in English, most people, including me will discard it due to language barrier. I also agree what above post said about looking into how present a scientific paper, everything starts with practice.

Also, you need to work on your presentation. This is a part I myself still have big struggles with, and will most probably never be good at. You could have the most revolutionary and ground-breaking theory that mankind ever seen, but if all I (as some random Regular Joe on the street) is hearing is word-salads and up-in-the-cloud-buzzwords, it will not convince my, as regular Joe. Point here is to refine your theory in easy digestible format so even your grandmother and neighbor would get a hang of what you are talking about.

You should also be prepared for rebuttals, I personally feel that words such as "Earth, Wind... " give a pseudo-scientific vibe to your theory, I would personally use 1 - 4 instead.


----------



## AngelaKirijoo (Jan 6, 2021)

Glittris said:


> My spontaneous suggestions: Collect and refine your ideas, and try to work on an English version of your current theory, English is not native to me either, I use translating tools and thesaurus all the time, but if your document is not in English, most people, including me will discard it due to language barrier. I also agree what above post said about looking into how present a scientific paper, everything starts with practice.
> 
> Also, you need to work on your presentation. This is a part I myself still have big struggles with, and will most probably never be good at. You could have the most revolutionary and ground-breaking theory that mankind ever seen, but if all I (as some random Regular Joe on the street) is hearing is word-salads and up-in-the-cloud-buzzwords, it will not convince my, as regular Joe. Point here is to refine your theory in easy digestible format so even your grandmother and neighbor would get a hang of what you are talking about.
> 
> You should also be prepared for rebuttals, I personally feel that words such as "Earth, Wind... " give a pseudo-scientific vibe to your theory, I would personally use 1 - 4 instead.


My thoughts basically.


----------



## milahu (Jan 30, 2021)

> try to work on an English version


an eternity later, here is my first public release:
milahu.github.io/alchi/src/alchi-book/dist/pallas.me-and-my-six-friends.2021-04-11.html

my struggle with this project:
github.com/milahu/alchi#work-in-progress



> finishing my project is my "running away balloon":
> 
> the closer i get to my finish line, the harder becomes my work, and that with an exponential increase
> i guess that is why broad-tops (fire and air) like me (fire) need long-tops (earth and water):
> ...


----------

